[flintbobbi]

Hey everyone. Seems like a lot of you have digital camera's. I have an old 2 meg Olympus that I like a lot, but my in-laws got a new Kodak for Christmas, and I realize how out dated a four year old digital camera is. Their new Kodak is awesome. Easy to use, a very short delay between shots, etc. etc.

So, I've started the search for a new camera. Probably in the 4-6 meg range, but nothing fancy. Seems like Sony, Olympus, and Kodak make some pretty decent models.

Any advice would be appreciated, and if you can share how much you paid and where you bought the camera, that would be helpful. I tend not to buy off the net for something like this....

And any good websites with easy comparisons. I've found a few, but none that were as nice as I'd hoped.

Thanks for any comments, as always.

Flint

 

[billmeek]

Depends a lot on how much you want to spend, what features are important to you, etc. Here's a good starting point :

Cnet Reviews- 5 megapixel Cameras

 

[Bleeder]

try this site here for side by side looks at whatever you want. I do a bit of photography. Google it for tons more info. Don't overlook the Canon PowerShot.



Peace.

 

[skipper]

You need to decide what you are going to be shooting and what size pictures you want and how much portability you need. This will help a lot.

I have a 2 meg, 3X optical Olympus and a slightly larger and newer 5 meg, 5X Pentax and I think the Olympus actually takes better pictures. If you like what you see in your relative's camera, at least you have known quantities there and you won't be surprised if you get that. My 2 cents.
steve

 

[NormanB]

On balance - I think Digital Cameras are a good thing!

 

[allwalk]

I have a 3.2 m Pentax Optio and I really like it. It takes some really nice pictures. The only problem I have is that my printer is not capable of the quality that my camera has.

 

[NormanB]

I have a 3.2 m Pentax Optio and I really like it. It takes some really nice pictures. The only problem I have is that my printer is not capable of the quality that my camera has.

I was reading a nerdy magazine on this recently. The upshot which you probably know is that most of the latest printers are more than capable of printing out high quality pics and they are cheap to purchase - BUT you will buy it again with a couple of replacement cartridge purchases!! However, they recommended sticking with OEM ink and paper to optimise quality and fade resistance. Interestingly they were not impressed with the online services for printing which while OK quality and price wise for standard 6 by 4 - were comparitively more expensive if you upgunned on size compared to the home printing solution.

If you want more = shout = and I will try and unearth the article for specifics.

 

[ladnar]

Hi Flint
Gail and I have been running an Olympus C720, now the C765, at 4.2Mega Pixels. This has a 10X optical zoom, with good quality at both ends of the zoom, a good macro and has quite a load of on board features.
I like to control the shots, so don't use the auto feature, and cannot comment on the quality of shots taken in that mode. The flash intensity is adjustable up and down (most have this I think), which I find useful for indoor shots.
Our photography ranges from airshows to scenery to general family snaps, and are happy with our choice. Its small, portable, and uses rechargeable AA batteries. I got seven hours out of a set with the camera almost continually on during an airshow. I shoot one off the top quality and get 114 pics to a 128Mb card.
That's may bias'd opinion. My other camera is an Olympus PenFT SLR, with a range of lens, which has been in steady use since 1967.
Have also had a Sanyo and a Sony digital, but these were in the MINORPixel range and the kids now point and shoot with them.

Regards

 

[flintbobbi]

Thanks everyone. Bleeder - really like that comparison site, but it lacks one important item: speed between shots. That is critical for me. My primary use is photos of kids - and they just don't stand still long enough for multiple shots, unless it is only 2-3 seconds between shots. I think it's called "burst" mode. My current camera is incredibly slow, so we've missed some good shots.

Found an "ok" Consumer Reports article from last year that is helpful too.

Printer quality is critical - but I think our Canon i850 does an awesome job.

My next post (in a few months) will be about scanning photos to save to DVD or CD.....

Thanks again.

 

[gruntled]

I didn't give too much thought to the size of the display before I bought mine but just happened to luck out. It is handy to have a large display to look at your pictures.
My hot tub sprang a leak & I took photos of the leak to the place I bought it. He was able to see exactly what was needed on my camera & so knew what to bring to repair it.

 

[billmeek]

....unless it is only 2-3 seconds between shots.

You might want to look at the Sony Cyber Shot DSC F717 then. In single frames, when using JPEG compression, the cycle time between shots is less than 2 seconds and has a continuous shooting speed of 2 frames per second.

 

[chuck807]

For me, 2 megapixel is plenty. I have a Canon Digital Elph (PowerShot S110) which is a couple of years old. Takes great pics. Don't need any more megapixels than that. For me, the most important thing is the actual size of the camera. This one's the size of a pack of cigarettes and it fits in your pocket (could probably roll it up in your t-shirt sleeves like they did with cigarette packs way back when...).
The bigger digital cameras I had prior to this didn't get used much... they were, well, too big! If its small, you'll find its a LOT easier to take with you and not such a hassle.
My 2 cents.

 

[Burgyboy]

Try this link:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/

(I have the Canon PowerShot S60 and am very satisfied with it.)

 

[dero]

Removed

 

[billmeek]

Something like this :

Sony Cyber Shot DSC-P72 review on Cnet

... which is on one of the above links. Since it uses (2) standard AA rechargeable nickel metal hydride batteries, you should be able to easily find a 12 volt charger system like :

http://www.batteriesamerica.com/new_page_2.htm

 

[Mike]

Flintbobbi,
I enjoy "stevesdigicams" web site for in depth info, photos,
reviews, and opinions. His site will cover any and every
aspect of a digital camera including current pricing at
various online sites. I recently purchased a Casio EX-Z55
for my son for Christmas. It is a supersmall 5 megapixel
with a huge 2 1/2 LCD screen (for those with aging eyes).
Paid $389 for it. You'll need a large memory card (512 for
appx.$60).
Have fun looking and deciding.

 

[ladnar]

Flintbobbi
On the latest post, buying a 512Mb card is recommended. Although cards seem to be very reliable, (I have run 5 in rotation for 2 years, and have taken over 5000 shots - the one big plus of digital, no real cost per shot taken), I would take the insurance option, and go for 2 by 256Mb cards.

Regards

 

[lilleyen]

Be prepared to spend some money.
The camera was (then), $499.00, plus $129.00 for a 256 memory card (much cheaper now), plus a starter kit (camera case, charger and batteries, then an extra set of batteries etc, etc.

Doesn't take long to reach 6 or 7 hundred dollars.
Of course you never again have to buy film, just recharge your batteries for pennies.

I have a Canon Powershot S70 3.2 Meg.
Have used it for about 1 1/2 years now.
Only complaint, lag time for "shutter", have missed a lot of good shots because of that. I have a idea/hunch that if I sprang for some of the high priced higher speed memory cards like the pros use, I could improve on that, at least to the limits of the camera's abilties.

It's a bit quicker in "action" mode, but that only works well in daylight.

Other than that it's perfect. Good lense, good colour balance, full auto or any degree of manual control, fits in a pocket etc.

With a 256 meg memory card I can take 275 High res pictures, good enough to blow up to 8x10. (How often do I do that?) The big advantage to using high res, is the ability to crop and enlarge the subject without losing quality. The downside is the storage space. Had to get a bigger hard drive. :-(

A big plus is the AA batteries it uses. I always have a spare set charging, (NMHD). Should I get caught with no charged batteries, and it's an important event like a wedding, I can always go into the nearest drugstore or convenience store and buy 4 AAs. Can't do that with special batteries that only fit a particular brand of camera.

I got tired too, of buying 2 sets of chargers for everything, Palm Pilot, camera, cell phone, etc., so I bought a 200 amp power converter from Canadian Tire with 2 outlets. Now I can take any 110 V. household charger with me, and plug it in to the converter in the car, (or soon the Burger), or take them into the motel/hotel when traveling etc.


For printing, I settled on an Epson 6 colour Photo RX500. I figured if the Epson print line was good enough for the Boston Museum of Fine Art to reproduce paintings with, then it would do for me. Course, theirs probably cost a little more than mine did

Printed some 4x6 test prints, then sent the same ones by email to a photo finisher for comparison. To the naked eye they look indentical, under a magnifying glass, the finisher wins. A $350.00 printer versus a 3 million dollar machine! Acceptable. Anything really special that I want to enlarge and print, I'll send it out. For the rest, I'll print my own.

Had a Canon S600 printer before that, and it was very good too, but I wanted a 3 in 1 printer, with a flatbed scanner and copier. (Also can scan and print from negatives and slides)

Funny thing.
When the camera was new, I bought all the available accessories, 2 power teleconverter, clip on 2x viewfinder etc because I reasoned they would be hard to find after a while.

Have barely used them!

As mentioned in other posts, what is too much bother to carry around, doesn't get carried around.

That includes big bulky cameras, like my beloved Pentax Spotmatic F with every imaginable lense and accessory.
Takes beautiful pictures, but is rarely with me when I need it.

With Digital, smaller is better, usually! :wink
As long as you don't lose it somehwere.

Hope this helps.

Sorry about the "War and Peace" length of this post.

 

[flintbobbi]

Whoa, Bill - that's a beauty of a camera (the Sony DSC-P72), but that Sony DSC F717 is a monster! I'm looking at smaller - probably the 3-400 range medium size or compact if possible. I'd prefer a zoom of 4x or more (optical) and 4+ megs in size. The last thing is the "shot speed" - i don't know what else to call it, and many of these sites don't seem to list this - Thanks, Burgyboy, as Steves Digicams site does list this, and looks awesome! I'll definitely use it.

A 256 or 512 card is a great idea, and prices have really come down over the last few years. (thanks Ladnar)

Mike - i'll have to check Casio's "repair frequency" on consumer reports. I know Sony and Kodak were pretty good...don't remember Casio.

As always, thanks everyone. Great info.

 

[Bleeder]

As mentioned in other posts, what is too much bother to carry around, doesn't get carried around.

That's my opinion as well. I won't own a camera unless it fits in my pocket, and that includes camcorders.

If you're distressed about missing a Kodak moment, use a camcorder and then use the playback to snap stills. I do that some myself. That's how I got the "4 on a scoot" shot posted here - had the pocket cam rolling elsewhere and just flicked it in the general direction of the scooter a microsecond before it disappeared.



Peace.