Good Digital Cameras

[Tammy]

Am in the market for a good digital camera, 3-5 megapixels. Anyone have any suggestions on good deals for them or reflections on what you wished you had known when you got yours?

[Winston]

The Sonys are awesome. I have a 3.1 megapixel sony from a couple years ago, but I have friends who just bought a 5 Megapixel Sony DSCP92, runs about $350 on Amazon, and takes good pictures. I have always liked Sony, even though they may cost a tad higher then the rest... Mine has been awesome!!

[SnakEyez]

Well before I make any suggestions I guess it would be helpful to know what price range you are looking to stay in.

[HRGraham]

I've used several different Olympus cameras and love them. I own the C-3040Z.

-Graham

[Viper007Bond]

Canon, Canon, Canon, Canon and did I mention Canon? :D Their lenses are superior to the competitions and I love their interface. I have a 2.0 Megapixel at the moment (it's old and have no $ to replace it), but then again, unless you're blowing stuff up, you don't need 5 MP. ;)

Hell, this was taken (http://images.viper007bond.com/photography/passion_flower.jpg) with my old 1.3 and since you don't need anything over 1024 or 1280 for viewing (again, unless blowing it up), it worked out fine. :)

Get a Canon PowerShot A70 or A80 - that's my recommendation.

[Tammy]

Originally posted by SnakEyez
Well before I make any suggestions I guess it would be helpful to know what price range you are looking to stay in.

Good question. There are all sorts of deals right now because Canon and some of the others will be coming out with their 2004 models next month. I figure I can get a really good digital sub-$400, how much "sub" will depend on the deal. I know there are fancy ones for hundreds of dollars more but I don't need all the bells and whistles.

[Viper007Bond]

The Canon PowerShot A70 runs $300 according to a Froogle search (http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=canon+powershot+a70&btnG=Search+Froogle) and the A80 runs $375 to $400.

Personally, I think you can get everything you need in the $200 to $300 range.

[Fuzzylogic]

You can always check Cnet for reviews and go from there.

That should give you a good starting point.

[metawu]

I haven't tried much of the other brands but Canon works well for me. Good color and easy to use. Built tough. I've dropped mine twice (not from too high but enough to make you cringe :P) and its perfectly fine. I don't even see a scratch.
Mine is a A40 taht I bought almost 2 years ago. Great for starters especially if you want to learn basic manual controls too. Only downside was its size and weight.

[Tammy]

I've heard good things about Canon digitals, at least for those at all reasonably priced. Going to do some research on them over the weekend, thanks.

[Viper007Bond]

Originally posted by metawu
Only downside was its size and weight.
Actually, I prefer the size of my A40. The bulge where the batteries go make it easy to hang on to.

[metawu]

Yea that's why I like it too. Makes it feel more rugged. I'm not sure how ppl can handle those ultra tiny ones.

Its just a little big n heavy for a big pocket (like for a light jacket).
It would be cool if they can make batteries lighter :).

[Viper007Bond]

Originally posted by metawu
Its just a little big n heavy for a big pocket (like for a light jacket).
It would be cool if they can make batteries lighter :).
Agreed. :)

[Unicorn2]

My personal advice is based on "what are you going to do with the pictures?"

Are you going to look at them on your computer screen only?

Then really, 3.2 mp is enough.

2048x1536 resolution is higher than *most* of us are using.

Now, if you are wanting to print up on a 1200DPI printer, and you want a 4x 6 photo, 4800 x 7200 pixels .. that's 34.5 megapixels..

(you can do a 4x6 photo at 300dpi, but it's not the same as 1200dpi res, or you could take a pic at a lower resolution and blow it up, but it's not the same thing, since your just 'stretching pixels')

4x6 photos at 300dpi is only 2.1 megapixel.. but to do say, an 11x14 photo at 300dpi without having to 'create' pixels that aren't there, you'd need a 13.9 megapixel camera..

[vanselus]

I use the Sony 707 all the time - it's the one that's a big 'L' shape, and close to a normal lens size. I got it because it's bigger and more substantial, 5mp, and has a larger aperature so I can take better pictures in low light with a quicker shutter speed. It's pretty noticable how much sharper the images are indoors or in low light compared to the cameras that have a teeny lens.

I've taken all the pics on vanselus.com with this camera. as well as most of the "action" pics at biteshoes.com (not the shoe pictures). I also take the pictures for our print catalog with this camera using the 5mp mode. People can't believe it's a "consumer grade" camera when they see our literature...

[Viper007Bond]

Yeah, but a lot of cameras are considered "consumer grade" and yet cost an arm and a leg like your's probably did. ;)

[vanselus]

Well, first of all I didn't buy it, Bite did. (I just happen to carry it around every day)

And when they were selling them in the stores for $999, I picked it up on ebay for $720. US version, not even gray market.

So yes, expensive - but not as much as it could have been.

[Viper007Bond]

Yeah, not bad. :)

[Tammy]

I am looking at ebay too, just don't want to get some gray market thing. I usually go new for electronics in general, maybe try it this time though.

[vanselus]

It's pretty easy to stay away from the gray market stuff. Most manufacturers include different accessories with US vs. Gray market items, so you just have to ask the seller. Also, most feedback records will contain numerous amounts of the same product if it's gray - and there will be quite a few people mentioning that it's gray merchandise.

Just do your research, and bide your time.

[Tammy]

Ok, thanks. I'm pretty cautious about buying electronics if it isn't new, it's fragile enough as it is. ;)

[fac3less]

I'm also looking for a cam.. we'll be using it to photograph events and whatnot for the station..

our budget is pretty low.. I've been looking at the olympus cams.. but hm.

We're not really looking to print anything out.. just web stuff.

Thanks for the help on that unicorn.

we had a cheap polaroid one previously.. not sure how many MP's it was but it was quite decent. (some company that got a license from polaroid to use their name and make these little 'midget' pocket cams the size of a business card)

[Viper007Bond]

You can get a Canon A10 or A40 for like $80 to $150 bucks and while they aren't dirt cheap, you get a lotta bang your your buck.

[y6y6y6]

"Now, if you are wanting to print up on a 1200DPI printer, and you want a 4x 6 photo, 4800 x 7200 pixels .. that's 34.5 megapixels..

It doesn't work that way at all. The dpi the printer is rated at, and the dpi you print at are not the same. In fact they aren't even related.

A 3 mega-pixel camera will give you photo quality pictures up to 8x10 if it has a good lens.

[vanselus]

That's a fact - the pictures I typically use for our print catalog (40,000+ pieces) are taken with a "consumer" digital and normally it's in 3mp mode. They look great. In fact, if anybody wants my 2004 catalog that I just finished - it's at the printer now. Just let me know (email your address to todd at biteshoes dot com) and i'll mail one to you.

[fac3less]

I already asked ya for one twice :b
and some of your previous work!

[vanselus]

Oh CRAP! Sorry dude, I totally forgot. I'll email you some pdf's right now.

ed: ok, your mailbox is probably full now! let me know what you think.

[fac3less]

nice work.. ;)

those are all pretty kick ass.

still haven't got to the catalogue itself yet

The rest of them are pretty wicked.

did you do all the graphics yourself? logos/etc or are there other people doing that, and you just piece it together.

[vanselus]

Nope, it's just me. I take do the initial design, write most of the copy (and edit it all), take/correct/crop the pictures, design the layout, arrange the printing - pretty much everything! I do design all the logos myself too, in fact the main Bite "equip your feet" logo I designed just last year to replace our old golf-only logo.

It would be really fun, expect I have lots of other things to do, like the website & ads... and then i'm also the manager of customer service, i'm the entire IT dept, and i spend a lot of time writing buiness plans, reports, and making sure everything else goes smoothly.

Whew. No wonder I have gray hair already.

[fac3less]

I thought you shaved your head..
hm. :b

[vanselus]

I used to, but I grew it back out a few months ago. I don't stay the same for very long. Don't really know why...

[Tammy]

I'm continuing to research this, and some say that 5 megapixel cameras may actually give worse photos than those with fewer because the megapixels get compressed or something. This is quite confusing! Thanks to everyone for all the help.

[metawu]

I heard that cameras use software (built in the camera) to compress images instead of capturing the actual image.
So in the process of converting the raw image (which is huge in filesize) to a numerical jpg format, some detailed info is lost.

I'm not 100% sure on this but I'm pretty sure I read it somewhere...

[Viper007Bond]

Originally posted by Tammy
I'm continuing to research this, and some say that 5 megapixel cameras may actually give worse photos than those with fewer because the megapixels get compressed or something. This is quite confusing! Thanks to everyone for all the help.
On Canons at least, you can control the JPG compression...

[vanselus]

Almost all the 5mp cameras you can control the amount of compression. There's defintely some data lost, but you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference unless you're printing a 16x20 poster. JPEG is a pretty good compression unless there's large areas of a single color...

[y6y6y6]

Most of the good cameras also have an option to save in raw format, which will have zero compression. You can then convert that to a psd or tiff and print from that.

[Tammy]

Well, I suppose if you are going to compress the image anyway, there's little reason to get the extra megapixels, since you kind of aren't using them, as some of you are pointing out. I mean, I don't work with 1 meg+ images much anyway, and it sounds like these 5 megapixel cameras set to uncompressed will give you pictures in that size range. I suppose that means that a 3 megapixel camera or so should suffice for me. Am slowly figuring this out, thanks.

[fac3less]

Even 1mp cameras give huge images.

Mainly because of that crazy .tiff format which is like 14MB a pic. Crazy!

Anyways.. I'm going to pickup a 3-5 megapixel cam in the 80-150 range. Checked out the canon ones and I like the shape/feel of them. So most likely going with them. Thanks whoever mentioned canon earlier.

[Viper007Bond]

Originally posted by fac3less
Anyways.. I'm going to pickup a 3-5 megapixel cam in the 80-150 range. Checked out the canon ones and I like the shape/feel of them. So most likely going with them. Thanks whoever mentioned canon earlier.
Welcome. Good to see another Canon fan. :)

[Excelsior]

I personally chose the Canon A70 and love it.

The BEST resource for digital cameras is at Digital Photography Review over at www.dpreview.com

Find a few you like and then head there to narrow it down to your final choice.

[vanselus]

Originally posted by Tammy
Well, I suppose if you are going to compress the image anyway, there's little reason to get the extra megapixels, since you kind of aren't using them, as some of you are pointing out. I mean, I don't work with 1 meg+ images much anyway, and it sounds like these 5 megapixel cameras set to uncompressed will give you pictures in that size range. I suppose that means that a 3 megapixel camera or so should suffice for me. Am slowly figuring this out, thanks.

Just because they're a bit compressed, doesn't mean that you're not "using" the extra pixels. The compression isn't that harsh.

[vanselus]

Hey Tammy, did you make your choice in cameras yet? Just wondering if you've got one and how you like it!

[Tammy]

No, I am waiting until mid-February when it is rumored a bunch of new models may be introduced. Comments here have really helped me prepare for what to get!

[vanselus]

Glad we could help. I'm really curious what choice you do end up making, so let us know how it works out!

[y6y6y6]

The PMA camera show (http://pma2004.pmai.org/) is in mid February. That tends to be when the hotest new models get announced.

[Viper007Bond]

Originally posted by y6y6y6
That tends to be when the hotest new models get announced.
New fashions too? :p

[y6y6y6]

"New fashions too?"

Yes. This convention is where you'll find out what the hip photographers will be wearing next year.

[vanselus]

This was taken by a hip photographer:

http://www.dietguru.com/images/f-hip-point.jpg

[Viper007Bond]

Umm, okay...

[insert picture of camera showing lense clevage here]

[Tammy]

Canon says they will be coming out with 20 new models this year. I'm pretty interested in a Canon unless I find a real deal on a Nikon or something. At worst, I figure the new models will send prices of current models down.

[vanselus]

Originally posted by Viper007Bond
Umm, okay...

[insert picture of camera showing lense clevage here]

You don't get it?? y6y6y6 said you'll find out what hip photographers will be wearing.... HIP photographers... you know....

[y6y6y6]

And what the hell is a "lense"?

[Viper007Bond]

Is that not how you spell the optical magnifying device on a camera? And as for it having cleavage, I have no clue why I said that...

[vanselus]

lens.

here's your Google search for "lens cleavage"

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=lens+cleavage

[metawu]

Canon says they will be coming out with 20 new models this year. I'm pretty interested in a Canon unless I find a real deal on a Nikon or something. At worst, I figure the new models will send prices of current models down.

20 NEW MODELS? Man good thing I didn't buy one yet. :P
Where did you hear about it? Any previews?

[Tammy]

Canon issued a press release saying they planned to release the 20 new models this year. They did not say when during the year they would release them or give any other details, but the betting is that a good chunk of those will be released at the conference in mid-February.

[Viper007Bond]

Did they say all of those are digital? Even if they are, a lot of them are probably high end and stuff, etc. and not medium range stuff that we would be interested in.

[Tammy]

Here is part of a news story about it:

Takashi Oshiyama, head of Canon's digital imaging business group, told Reuters in an interview that his firm's long history building cameras would give it the upper hand against its rivals, many of which have only been making cameras for a few years.

"We have a 67-year history making cameras and there is still lots of technology gathered over that time stored away in the shed," Oshiyama said at Canon's headquarters in Tokyo.

"Those companies out there that have no experience producing film cameras have yet to create a camera that performs like a real camera should. I won't say who that is."

Oshiyama said Canon planned to launch "about twice" as many compact digital cameras in 2004 as the nine it rolled out this year. That would help it achieve a market share of 25 percent, up from around 20 percent in 2003 and 15 percent last year.

http://www.bizreport.com/article.php?art_id=5776

[Viper007Bond]

Yeah, Canon has been making some of the best film cameras for years and they've taken that to digital. I can't praise Canons enough. :)

[vanselus]

Did you hear that Kodak is ceasing production of all regular film cameras in 2004? All-digital, baby.

Can't wait to see Canon's new lineup!!

[Tammy]

Originally posted by vanselus
Did you hear that Kodak is ceasing production of all regular film cameras in 2004? All-digital, baby.

Can't wait to see Canon's new lineup!!

Well, not so good for some folks, though good for us:

NEW YORK, Jan 22 (Reuters) - After several weeks of doubts about Eastman Kodak's (NYSE:EK - News) painful efforts to switch its struggling business to digital products, everything seemed to change after it detailed its three-year transformation plan on Thursday.
The change is certainly coming at a big cost, with Kodak saying it intends to lay off at least another 15,000 employees and take a $1.7 billion charge over the three-year period.

[vanselus]

Wow, that's quite a change - hopefully it shakes up the industry and they blow our minds with the next few years of products...

[Viper007Bond]

It's 'cause Kodak was loosing money left and right on their film leg of their company - everything is going to digital.

[vanselus]

They must be making money on the film though, cause last I read they were just going to discontinue the camera production - film will still be going strong.

[Viper007Bond]

Yeah, they do cover most of the film market - but that market is shrinking fast.

It will be MANY years before digital really is the only thing used besides hobbyists with film however.

[Tammy]

I think last year was the first when more digital cameras were sold than regular cameras. I'm sure many of the pros will stick with film for quite a while, though, just like many real "audiophiles" stick with turntables and vinyl.

[vanselus]

Yeah, but you can approximate the "analog compression" of film's less senstive contrast much easier on digital photos than you can modify digital music due to the sampling rates and how sensitive ears are. The higher the sampling rate, the less we're going to be able to tell the differences between analog and digital music (if the producer cares to mimic analog). All you have to do with a digital photo is shrink the contrast range a little, and you can get pretty dang close to film.

Of course, there's no pixelation in film, but my experience with this is on a medium format digital camera that shoots 60mb raw files.

[Viper007Bond]

There is too pixelation with film! It's just at the molecular level. :p

[Tammy]

Originally posted by vanselus
Of course, there's no pixelation in film, but my experience with this is on a medium format digital camera that shoots 60mb raw files.

60 MB, that's huge, I assume the picture quality of such shots is awesome.

[Viper007Bond]

60 MB RAW. I assume it's like 3 MB compressed or something.

I wish mine had a no compression setting. :(

[metawu]

I think last year was the first when more digital cameras were sold than regular cameras. I'm sure many of the pros will stick with film for quite a while, though, just like many real "audiophiles" stick with turntables and vinyl.

Yea but I bet pros will go digital too if they want to keep up in the business. Efficiency will save time and money for the client. The media used is mostly digital because I'm at some point a picture is gonna go through a computer (scanned or from digi cam).

Even National Geographic published an article with photos from a digital camera. And they're really nuts on photo quality. I heard for sn article about 15,000 photos are taken, then 30 are picked to be published with the article.

[vanselus]

Actually, you'd be surprised. I did a lot of research on this, and it turns out that doing it digitally and film cost almost exactly the same.

Analog:
Film
instant proofs
Scanning
Color correction

digital:
color correction
upload & conversion fees

The catch is that the color house charges MORE for color correction when they haven't done the scans, thereby making whatever money they lost back. Tricky huh.

[Tammy]

Professional learned a certain way, invested big bucks in their equipment, and usually have a "special" camera they think gives them that little extra edge. I knew a professional - he used to do head shots and stuff for actors and models, along with some pictorials for, um, adult magazines - and he had a $5000 German camera and didn't even use it much. But he thought it was useful in just the right circumstances.

So, I don't think a lot of those guys are going to change no matter how more efficient the newer cameras are. Old dogs, new tricks, etc.

[metawu]

Yea, now that I think about it there some things digicams can't do. Those old film cameras (no digital parts) are practically indestructible. Plus digi cams can't operate (or shouldn't) in below 0 degrees (celcius).

[y6y6y6]

"60 MB RAW. I assume it's like 3 MB compressed or something."

Apples and oranges.

My 6.3 megapixel camera generates 8 MB "RAW" files. But those files get converted to 38 MB 16 bit tiff files. Or 19 MB 8 bit tiff files. I suspect when you say 60 MB raw files you mean 60 MB tiffs. Which don't compress to 3 MB unless you convert them to jpeg and compress them until they look like poo.

RAW format as it's used by Nikon and Canon isn't viewable without conversion. If you open up a RAW file as is, it will look almost black.

[y6y6y6]

"Plus digi cams can't operate (or shouldn't) in below 0 degrees (celcius)."

I've heard this and I think it's bunk. I've used my digital in Death Valley (http://pdphoto.org/PictureDetail.php?mat=pdef&pg=5310) at 120 degrees. I'm heading up to Bryce (http://pdphoto.org/PictureDetail.php?mat=pdef&pg=5249) tonight where it's forecast to be -18 celsius. Anyone want to place money on whether the camera works perfectly?

[Tammy]

I have seen some camera reviews that said that certain cameras have problems in lower temperatures. I think the temperature problem may be camera-specific.

[vanselus]

I would guess it may have something to do with the reduced power batteries put out at low temperatures....

[y6y6y6]

Actually it's the sensors that are suppose to be the problem. We'll see. Wish me luck. They're posting winter storm warnings for the area.

[metawu]

I thought it would be the condesation that would kill the camera if you went into a warmer place right after. I've used my camera in sub zero temps here in ottawa but made sure not to have it outside the pouch/bag for too long, and not turn it on right away when I get home.

[Tammy]

Originally posted by metawu
I thought it would be the condesation that would kill the camera if you went into a warmer place right after. I've used my camera in sub zero temps here in ottawa but made sure not to have it outside the pouch/bag for too long, and not turn it on right away when I get home.

That's actually a good rule for all electronics. If they get really cold, give them several hours at higher temperatures before trying to run them, else you may fry them.

[Viper007Bond]

I had my Canon at 0 degrees Fahrenheit (-17 degrees Celsius) for a few hours and not a problem at all. I do think my batteries went dead quicker, but besides that, camera worked fine and I got a ton of great snow sunset pictures. :)

Oh, and I've also taken pictures with it a few feet from a waterfall and it misting all crazy all over the camera, had it in tons of rain, etc. (and it's not one of those water-resistant camera either) - not a problem with it, works perfectly. :)

[y6y6y6]

Yep. Camera worked great at around zero F. But the batteries ran down at least four times faster.

[Tammy]

Just to follow up on this thread, I finally bought a Kodak DX-4530 5 MP 3x optical zoom camera that was on sale for $199 before coupon at OfficeMax. My research convinced me that at the high end, Canon cameras have the best quality, followed by Nikon, but at this price point the Kodaks work as well as others. Seemed a nice compromise to me on price, quality and features. After all this research, I've decided when I get the funds together that I will also pick up a SLR camera, maybe a canon digital rebel or perhaps the new Nikon D-70. One step at a time, though.

Thanks for all the comments here, I received a real education!