digital camera question

[Patternseeker]

from one who still thinks the poloroid is state of the art technology,

can anyone give me the basics of what to look for in a digital camera? around 300-400 buck range?

is 2 megapixels good?

do i need a "flash card" and what exactly is a "flash card"?

thanks in advance, gang (trying to get ready to get some photos of my daughter's volleyball games)

jim

 

[dawgball]

I have the Canon PowerShot S110 Digital Elph. It has 2.1 MegaPixels.

I can't tell you how much I like this camera. The main thing I was looking for is size, and this baby is the size of a pack of cigarettes. It came with an 8 mb FlashCard (yes, you will need this to store your pictures). At the medium settings, I can take 37 (i think) pictures before a needed download. This is also with deleting the pictures that don't fit your criteria.

Other things that I like:
The battery lasts forever. With the Sony Mavica (I used to have), I always had to worry about running out of battery life. Canon is on to something, because I leave my viewing screen on all the time, and my betteries last forever.
Can't emphasize size enough. I carry my camera around in my front pocket.
Ease of Download. The program that came with it, is so simple that my mom could use it (Sorry, Mom!), and she could confuse the VCR with a PC.

Here's a tip: FILL OUT THE REGISTRATION CARD!

I would have never done this, but since my girlfriend bought it for me for Christmas, she did the honors. Well, low and behold, two weeks later I received a 16 mb FlashCard, a spare battery, and a great short hike backpack in the mail. From this day forward, I will always fill out registration cards. No bull, the stuff I received was worth well over $100.

To answer your questions:

-- 2.1 MegaPixels is not the highest out there, but it is very nice.
-- You do need a FlashCard to store your pictures on. This is basically a storage disc.
-- $300-400 will definitely buy a nice camera

Definitely have two batteries for those long tournament weekends. It also comes with a very fast recharger for emergencies.

I hope this is enough. Let me know if you have any other questions.

 

[Patternseeker]

dawgball,

thanks a bundle, man. really helped me to understand what i'm after and sounds like the canon is a great camera.

 

[acehistr8]

dawg, I have the same camera and it is ROCK SOLID.

I, like you, cant tell people how great it is. First of all, it is smaller than a playing card, and for your average user, pictures on Superfine resolution are great. I print out pictures all the time at the local Ritz Camera and they look amazing, you cannot tell the difference.

I bought a 128MB card off ebay, stores 100+ pictures and mpgs at the higest resolution. By far the best feature is being able to check out pictures after you take them and erase the bad ones.

 

[Neemer]

Elph is a very popular and GOOD digital camera. There are hundreds of good digitals out there that do a good job. I've got a 1 hr. photo lab in one of my stores, and I have the capability to develop digital pictures on my 1 hr. machine. The results look just like a 35mm or APS print. Most people buy digital cameras b/c of the ease of transferring them from computer to computer/email/CDs,/ floppies/ etc..etc... If you are trying to print these digital pictures off your color printer then the quality of the picture will suffer greatly. I'd suggest taking it to a lab that has the same capability as mine does.

I can tell you by developing them, that there isn't much difference b/t a 2 megapixel pic and a 4 megapixel picture. You'd really have to study it to notice the differences in quality. I would not however, get any digital camera below a 2 megapixel quality if you plan on reproducing these prints on photographic paper. You will not be happy with the results. Hope this helps..

 

[yyz]

Neemer,

what is the cost of prints for these?

 

[Patternseeker]

didn't know that, neemer, and yes, i will interested in printing the pics.

thx.

 

[Neemer]

Of course it varies from lab to lab, but my 4x6 matte or glossy digital prints are .30 cents/piece. Regular 35mm is .25/piece plus a $1.92 charge for the development of the negatives. With regular film, I can go up to an 8 x 12, but with digital I'm relegated to only two sizes; 3 1/2 x 5 or 4 x 6. MY cost is exactly the same in the production of the prints b/c the only thing you are changing is the process in which you are getting the information. With most labs, you're looking at anywhere b/t 2 1/2 cents - 5 cents cost per print. Mark up in photo developing is 500% and up. Sounds like a lot, but my last Agfa MSC 101 machine cost me $120,000. Takes a lot of pictures to pay for that damn thing!

Not because I have one, but if you truly want your pictures to be developed the best way possible, find a place in your area that uses some type of Agfa machine. There are numerous reasons, but the biggest is the fact that with an Agfa machine, all your negatives are scanned, adjusted for density, and adjusted for color by a computer and NOT the particular operator of the machine. Places like Wal Mart have a contract with Fuji, so they have to purchase fuji equipment in regards to their photo developing. ALL Fuji photo machines depend on the operator of the machine for all color and density adjustments. Whereas the Agfa MSC 101 is all done by computer, so you continously get the best developing possible. Agfa has a patent on the technology, which is called TFS or Total Film Scanning. Numerous years ago I ignorantly purchased a Fuji 170d Printer and film developer. It was one of the worst mistakes of my life. I got it for $30k, and you could damn sure tell it. Most people think its their cameras when they take bad pictures, but the majority of the time it depends on what photo developing machine you get your prints done on.

It happens to us all the time, a person brings in their negatives and their corresponding pictures that they have had developed at WalMart, Krogers, K-Mart, CVS, etc...etc...asking us if there's anyway we can make the pictures look any better. After I run their negatives through our machine and compare them to their existing pictures, you'd swear that they were not taken with the same camera.

All in all, Kodak, Konica, and Fuji Photo Developing machines SUCK! Agfa is leaps and bounds ahead of the market when it comes to processing prints. Noritsu is also a decent manufacturer and their machines are also based on the same premise as Agfas. Their machines also utilize a similiar type of negative computer scanning for images, yet its not up to par with that of Agfas. If I didn't have an Agfa Lab in my area, I would then try and find someone that used a Noritsu.

Apologize for the length of this post, but I thought I'd clear up the misconception that people believe its their camera's fault when their pictures turn out like chit, when in fact, its the type of equipment that's doing the developing...

 

[Neemer]

One thing I forgot to mention was to try and purchase a digital camera that DOES NOT use a memory stick as its form to store pictures. I've only seen the Sony brand that uses the stick, but they are a BITCH to retrieve the pics to reproduce on photographic paper. I'd stick with a CD, Zip, Smart Media, Compact Flash, Multimedia, or your basic 3 1/2 inch floppy. If you can find a lab that processes digital media, it's a lot easier on them and you if you choose one of the options above.

 

[Patternseeker]

thx, neemer.

 

[Patternseeker]

hey, neemer, no doubt a stupid question,

but are you in lexington, home of THE RED MILE (keeneland, who?)

spent a few years there, and thx again for great info.

 

[Neemer]

I'm about 100 miles south of Lexington. Little town near Bowling Green. Been to Keeneland numerous times. No question, it's the best track in the state....

 

[infinii]

re: Memory sticks
This is a proprietary format used only by Sony. It is nice, small and convenient because you can use the same sticks between many Sony devices but you are locked into using ONLY Sony which IMO isn't good.

re: 2megapixel
This is bare minimum for a digital camera IMO. As Neemer said, you have to look close to see any differences between it and a 33mm but the real difference comes when you blow the pictures up in size. Any large pictures and you start to see the jagged edges in the digital picture. This is where the difference in the newer 3 and 5 megapixel cameras lies.


Definitely look at getting extra storage, possibly a microdrive. My friend has a 1GB microdrive in his camera and he was constantly taking pictures at my wedding without fear or running out. If anything, his batteries died before he ran out of storage. This is also VERY important when you go on vacation. You may not always have means to download the pictures and clear out your storage. A digital camera that can only store 37 pictures on a week long vacation is pretty useless.

Best site to read reviews and forums to learn about this stuff is
DPREVIEW

I'm about to buy one as well but I'm still doing my homework. One thing I have decided that it will be a Canon or Nikon for sure. Just my opinion that the manufacturers who make the best traditional SLR cameras would have a better starting point in the digital field.

 

[Patternseeker]

thanks infinii

 

[acehistr8]

I have the PowerShot 110 and bought a 128mb flash card off Ebay for $80 or something, cant remember exactly. It stores over 120 pictures at the max resolution and enough room left over for some mpegs.

I have taken it on four trips so far, and the great thing is my girlfriend and I can review the pictures at night and chuck the bad ones. We have never run out of room on the card.

 

[Neemer]

Infini is correct in regards to quality and the size of the print. The statement really holds true to any format of film you use. If you're shooting regular 35 mm film and you plan on getting let's say, 8x10 reprints, your best bet is to use a lower speed film, say 100 or 200 speed. The more you enlarge the print, the more distortions you'll see in regards to quality. Enlarging a print using 400 or 800 speed film, the worse off your print will turn out. Keep in mind though, the lower the speed, the more light you'll need. Most portrait shots are shot with 100 speed film b/c they usually have optimum set lighting.

In regards to digital cameras, the higher the megapixel, the better quality you'll get in regards to enlargements. A 8x10 picture will look much much better shot from a 4 megapixel camera vs. a 2 megapixel. However, if you're simply getting the standard 4x6 prints reproduced, you'll see very little difference b/t a 4 and a 2 megapixel camera. It really just depends on what you're going to do with the pictures once you take them. That should be the MAIN purpose in what camera you select...

 

[Neemer]

 

[infinii]

just fyi

I just ordered a Nikon Coolpix 885, a lowepro d-res 20aw bag, and am shopping around for a Ridata 512MB compact flash card.

gonna take this on my trip to hongkong and honeymoon in Langkawi, Malaysia.

My choices basically came down to either the Nikon 885 or the Canon S30 which have basically the same features.

My reasons for choosing the 885 came down to...
1. I like the footprint of the 885 vs the canon s30, much easier to hold IMO.
2. Nikon can take regular disposable camera batteries (think they're called cr2 or something like that). This can be important if you don't have ability to recharge and your built in rechargeable battery runs out.
3. 885 is much lighter than S30
4. 885 can use a ring adapter which gives you ability to add wide, telephoto, fish eye lenses

good luck with whatever you choose.