PDA

View Full Version : What makes digital cameras so...


vonorloff
02-15-2001, 05:20 PM
What makes digital cameras so popular?
...and what are their advantages over a regular camera?
What digital camera do you use?
...and what are its best features?


------------------
VonOrloff

pixelscapes
02-15-2001, 06:27 PM
I don't know about everybody else, but for me at least, the real upside of a digital camera is that it's a bit closer to instant gratification -- I don't have to wait for photos to come back from the developer, only to discover that I didn't get the shot I want.

What's more, if the camera has a preview screen, you can check the shot right there before you move away from your subject, to see how the digital image came out.

A lot of people nowadays are taking photos specifically for the web (for websites, for online auctions) or to e-mail (pictures of the baby to Grandma), and so on. So I can see why they're popular.

I can't even tell you how many photos I've scanned in over the years. If I'd taken them digitally to start with, I could have avoided that hassle.

Can't suggest a specific brand to you... I'd say just make sure you have one with a preview screen, one that has expandable or exchangable memory cartridges, and the like. A friend of mine had a camera that saved pics right onto a ZIP disk (or was it floppies?). That was really convenient, you didn't even need to use cables or special programs to get the pics onto your computer. Just pop the disk in.

-=- Jen "Psheek! Psheek!" de la Cruz
http://www.Pixelscapes.com and http://www.BewareOfArt.com

Kevin M
02-15-2001, 09:06 PM
I found the transition from chemical to digital photography extremely easy and I must say I dont miss the darkroom one bit. However my darkroom time (literally thousands of hours) was not a case of abandoning skills, since almost all darkroom techniques are relevant to digital photography. Digital does not make good photography easier but it does make it much faster and more convenient. The awkward contrast or colour cast shot can be corrected in seconds rather than hours.
For fast, high quality reproduction, photographing with conventional film and then scanning to the highest output resolution is hard to beat. For snapshots, reference and web output the pocket size digital camera is all you need - and it is so - (that word again) 'convenient'.

Kevin

tammy
02-16-2001, 11:31 PM
I have one of those that you hook up to your computer after you've taken the pictures. It will hold up to 129 photos before you have to transfer them to the computer. Of course then you have to print them out for hard copy.
Mine come with software to edit the photos and software to make videos of the photos you took.
I like it. It takes very sharp pictures. It didn't cost alot.
Advantages: don't need extra memory, doesn't need film and just a little camera to carry. Perfect for someone with little cash. Even though it has no flash, it will take pretty decent photos inside as long as some daylight is in the room. Obviously not at night.
You can shoot a pictures in Video mode with the camera when its not connected to the computer but it will hold very limited frames.

cons: No flash - takes the best pictures only in straight broad daylight. No zoom except when you take the pictures while connected to the computer. Takes AA batteries. (Someone told me the camera would use them fast, but so far I haven't found that to be a problem)

Anyway, maybe not a true digital as you are thinking of but I like it and it suits my purposes and I can afford it.

------------------
Don't worry, its gonna be all right....
Tammy's Home for Artists (http://tammy.artistnation.com)

spectru
02-18-2001, 11:00 PM
I bought a digital camera for my business, a little over two years ago. I use it for record photos of construction sites. I take about a hundered pictures a month with it.

It is a Kodak DC260. Cameras available now are better or less expensive or both. For my purposes it takes great pictures. It is far superior to the old point-and-shoot film camera we used to use. I can put the photos in the computer network immediately after taking them. Anybody who needs to review them has instant access. Storing photos in a computer filing system is much more organized than the old shoebox method. The camera is capable of 1.2 megapixels, but we seldom use it at that resolution. An intermediate resolution is suitable for our needs.

The pros of a digital camera for our use are: 1) the convenience of use - no film and processing to mess with. 2) immediate feedback. 3) Digital pictures can be shared and stored on our computer network.

The cons (for this particular camera anyway) are: 1) It is large and klunky - as big as a 35mm SLR but it only has a wrist strap and no place to connect a neck strap. 2) It eats batteries - we have three sets of four AAs and two rechargers. 3) The lens cap is a cheesy plastic thing on a string - out of character for a camera with a MSRP of $999.

I have used it a little bit for snapshots and even for my photography hobby. It is a point-and-shoot camera and does not allow the control that a serious photographer needs. The 8MB flashcard that comes with the camera is insufficient for storage for high resolution, low compression pictures - it will only hold 11. (or up to 95 at lower resolution and higher compression settings.)

The bottom line: it takes great pictures and gives instant gratification. There are more digital cameras in my future. When the price of digital SLRs drop to within reach, I will definitely get one - it won't be too long, I think. I expect that digital point-anb-shoot cameras may supplant APS and 35mm models.

Kevin M
02-20-2001, 01:11 AM
I agree that digital may replace conventional 35mm photography but there are still a few hurdles to cross. At present, the 3 megapixel camera takes images which decompress to 9mb. However the average scan of a 35mm transparency is around 18mb. This indicates that they are halfway there with regards resolution. They also need to get much faster in operation ( my present camera takes several seconds to write an image to the card which is not much good for recording a sequence of action shots).

On the other hand if you are using a digital for casual snapshots, for the web or as a reference for painting etc and are not particularly interested in making optimum quality prints larger than 5"x7" then a 3 megapixel digital is all you will ever need.

My local camera supplier loaned me the nifty little Canon Powershot G1 http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canong1_samples1/ for a test run and it really is superb, even for finnicky people like me.

Kevin

bluespade
02-23-2001, 03:49 PM
Actually, even with a 2megapixel camera, you can do some decent 8x10 photography, although you may need special skills with pricy software (like Genuine Fractals 2.0). Soon, however, there will be affordable 6meg cameras out there, maybe 1-3 yeas away, but it is coming.

For prof. portrait photographers, the real problem with the digital age is the ease with which scanning and reproduction will cut into their main source of income: reprints. I guess they will just adapt by charging more for the initial labor.

------------------
Doug
Blue Spade Productions
http://www.bluespade.com

spectru
02-23-2001, 11:22 PM
My daughter had her baby's picture made at a studio. Digital. She asked them to email the proofs to me so I could help her decide which to have printed. They declined but told her she could buy the pictures on a CD, so she did. Then they told her they are not print quality. I haven't seen them yet, but putting the full image on a disk would be like giving away the negatives.

Michael2
02-25-2001, 06:02 PM
Regular film cameras still take the best pictures.

Film photography has never been less expensive. I bought a Minolta X370s SLR with a 50mm F1.7 lens for only $200. This will take far better pictures than a $1000 digital camera.

Film has never been less exensive. I saw a 4 pack of Kodacolor 100 at Target for $5.99. (Low silver prices are contributing to this. I think that the silver bear market is over. Invest in silver stocks. I recommend PAAS and SIL.)

Digital cameras have limited memory to store pictures. You can put enough rolls of film to take hundres of pictures in your clothing pockets.

If you just want an image for your computer, than the digital camera can do this conveniently, but if you want to print it then inkjet printers use costly ink, and the results are not lightfast. After a few months the colors will have faded.

J.Dillon
03-04-2001, 09:47 PM
Read this thread with great interest. Have been thinking of going digital for a while. But don't know what to get.

Michael, I agree with you that "conventional" is better in reproduction, but I disagree about the cost of film. I only use Kodachrome. It cost over 9 bucks for a 36 exposure roll, IF I can find it. local stores here in CT don't even carry it any more and if they have a roll lying around it is out of date.
JD

------------------
JFD

Michael2
03-05-2001, 12:36 AM
They sell Kodachrome at Target.

I meant Kodak Gold 100... that's the best color print film to use.

Now, if you are used to slide film, then the quality of that is way beyond digital cameras.

But basic, inexpensive Kodak Gold 100, while not as good as Kodachrome, is still far superior to digital.

David Acres
03-05-2001, 08:23 AM
I took this a few weeks ago on my Kodak DC240. I'm untrained, but tell me what's wrong with this quality? It even shows my puffy eyes, tell tale signs of a big one the night before! http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/frown.gif <IMG SRC="http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/04-May-2001/Dave2.jpg" border=0>

Larger image (http://home.austarnet.com.au/dacres/Dave2.jpg)

------------------
Dave Acres...
Merely a student of life! http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

'The artist is no more than a receptacle for sensations, a brain, a recording apparatus. But if it interferes, if it dares, feeble apparatus that it is, to deliberately intervene in what it should be translating, its own pettiness gets into the picture. The work becomes inferior.... Paul Cezanne...



[This message has been edited by llis (edited May 04, 2001).]

spectru
03-05-2001, 08:35 AM
I shoot slides mostly. I also use print film in my Point-and-shoot camera. For my business, I use a digital camera.

I buy slides mail order for about $5.50 for a roll of 36, including shipping. Processing costs $5.99. That comes to about 32 cents per frame.

Print film can be had for $2 for a roll of 24 plus about $5 for processing. 29 cents per frame

So, in round numbers, with film you get about 3 frames per dollar. (Maybe 2.5 if you buy Kodachrome retail)

I bought the digital camera about 2 years ago. So far is has taken over 2500 pictures with no cost for film or processing.
If I had had the cost and inconvenience of film, I probably wouldn't have taken nearly so many pictures. At 3 shots for a dollar, the digital camera has paid for itself.

As far as quality goes. If your intended use is to put your pictures on the web, you can'r get better pictures with a film camera because they have to be scanned. A scanner is, after all, just a digital camera.

If you want to print small pictures on an inkjet printer, you can get good 5x7s or 4x6s (if you have a good printer). They probably will cost a little more than getting reprints from film negatives at a photolab, but with digital images, you have the option of changing them any way you want.

I have seen ads in camera stores for printing pictures from digital cameras. As digital cameras become more popular, I would expect to see digital printing services to become common.

I participate in a photography website. I am impressed with the photos taken by digital cameras and posted there.

gill
03-05-2001, 12:11 PM
I have been using a Sony Mavica for a couple of years. It has different settings for type of quality. It takes takes mpeg movies with the flip of a switch which is great for family stuff. I like the rechargable battery which pops out in a flash. Best of all it uses floppy disks but I hear this is going towards RW CDs. I take a lot more photos now because they are basically free. My photos are mostly used as sketches for painting, they print out large enough to paint from and since I am not doing a copy of the photo I am only concerned with capturing basic details thus I use a lower quality setting.
For web page shots I can increase the quality but usually keep the size down for speed of pulling up images.
I do miss using my 35mm Olympus OM1, it did the job for 20 years, wish the Sony had some kind of viewfinder like an SLR, as it is difficult to see under some outdoor light situations.
BTW I backup my images onto a RW CD, just like storing negatives off site.
gill

-paul-
03-06-2001, 02:14 AM
i just have one thing to add, and that is...what makes any new digital or "updated" and "improved" technology so popular?
i find it sad.....SAD.......that people always reach for the newer, faster, and more "effecient" technologies to live by......sure, this may be a topic far greater than the realm of photography, but really, how much are we to let (computer) technology run our lives?...sure, ironically i am sharing this on a computer....but if people buy a digital camera for efficiency....sad.....what, they don't have the "extra" time to get film developed? no you say? that's crap.....who's to tell you how fast and what type of standerds of efficiency you should live by? o.k., o.k., i've really gone off the topic here, into another world....but really, i hope people see what i'm saying and that some agree that keeping "updated" to what "everyone else i doing and expects" is garbage.....i personally love the feel of raising a slr, focusing, adjusting aperature, pressing the shutter realease at just the right moment, and hearing the sound of the mirror slap inside, followed by the fowarding of film....the sound of completeness....the sound of a captured sight, thought, and future memory....it's romantic really...
ya, ya, ya, i know digital stuff can be manually done, ie:aperature....so what....o.k., gotta go...i'm thinking about not posting this, but here it is anyways, i'm tired so please excuse if you don't follow me here..........


------------------
Everybody is an artist;
now, whether one choses to be referred to as one or not is another story...

nancymae
03-06-2001, 08:27 AM
I enjoy my digital camera to photograph my art work to place on the web. I have an Olympus ($300). I take many of my family pix with it too and put them on OFOTO to share with my family. They will also print them for you too...and do an excellent job of it. (I don't have a great printer). I particularly love it to take reference photos for my art work. I can take a bunch..and the ones I don't use, I just erase them. No costs involved. I have HUNDREDS of reference photos around...that I took with my old film type camera...some I will never use. So the digital thing is a great money saver. It has probably saved the cost of itself in this past year just for reference pics.

Oh...OFOTO will allow your family to order prints from your pictures (you have to give them permission). THAT is a big time and money saver. How many times do people ask if they can have copies!!!

But for artisic shots...unless you want to spend mucho dollars...stick to your 35mm. I love mine when I feel like going out and shooting a roll.....so I usually bring both my digital and my 35mm on outings.

Hope this helps.

Nancy

Michael2
03-07-2001, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by David Acres:
I took this a few weeks ago on my Kodak DC240. I'm untrained, but tell me what's wrong with this quality?


I think the quality looks pretty darn good. How much does the Kodak DC240 cost?

David Acres
03-08-2001, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by Michael:
I think the quality looks pretty darn good. How much does the Kodak DC240 cost?

I think they're around $900 here in Aust!
I was spending about $50 per week in film & developing with my Nikon f-50.

Naturally they keep getting cheaper as the bigger newer models come out! I'm happy as Larry with it! But I mainly use it for taking pics of my paintings NOT as an Art medium itself. So I guess different courses for differt horses! http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Dave Acres...
Merely a student of life!:)

'The artist is no more than a receptacle for sensations, a brain, a recording apparatus. But if it interferes, if it dares, feeble apparatus that it is, to deliberately intervene in what it should be translating, its own pettiness gets into the picture. The work becomes inferior.... Paul Cezanne...

Michael2
03-08-2001, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by David Acres:
I think they're around $900 here in Aust!


I guess you get what you pay for. But that's a lot of money. You can buy a decent point and shoot 35mm for 1/10th that, and a top quality SLR setup for 1/3 that.

spectru
03-09-2001, 09:52 AM
Good quality consumer level digital cameras are available in the same price range as consumer level SLRs, and a bit more than good point-&-shoot film camers with comparable features. Professional level digital cameras cost as much as professional level film cameras, and even more. Digital cameras are following the same trend as computers - they are getting better and less expensive.

I don't think you could find a new "top quality SLR setup" for $300 US, but you can certainly find a pretty good digital camera for that price.

I paid about $800 for my Kodak DC260 in 1998. I recently purchased a 35mm SLR body for a good bit more than that. Today, for about half what I paid for it, I could buy a digital camera comparable to, or better than the DC260, which is no longer available.

If you are not ready to shell out the cash for a digital camera - just wait. I think their prices will fall until they rival 35mm and APS point-&-shoot cameras. They're almost there now.

Michael2
03-11-2001, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by spectru:
Digital cameras are following the same trend as computers - they are getting better and less expensive.

I don't think you could find a new "top quality SLR setup" for $300 US, but you can certainly find a pretty good digital camera for that price.


I agree with you that digital cameras are getting better. In a few years they may be just as good as film.

I disagree that you can't get a "top quality" SLR setup for $300. All SLR's from the major manufacturers are top quality. I bought a Minolta X-370s and the body was $150 and the F1.7 lense was $50, and a flash was $50. So this setup cost only $250, and the quality is super exceptional.

Beth Duri
03-12-2001, 12:16 AM
I have the same camera as David A kodak 240 Mine is a zoom Im not sure if his is. I love mine. It is great for putting artwork on the web. Its fast to upload images into my computer. It also has a flash. i've taken pictures in the dark and they have turned out good for being in the dark. Cant turn on the light to take pictures of my little guy sleeping so I'm glad it has a flash.

I have yet to find a problem with it. Its very easy to use. I'm getting excited for good weather to come so I can get creative with the camera.

Take care, I hope you find what you are looking for.
by the way. Kodak has little kiosks that will upload pictures from the flash card in the camera and you can print photos with it. Have yet to try it, but it sounds simple.

Beth Duri

David Acres
03-15-2001, 07:58 AM
You can buy a decent point and shoot 35mm for 1/10th that, and a top quality SLR setup for 1/3 that.[/B]

Yes but are the shots FREE & FAST to develop! http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif I've saved that $900 long ago!
I seldom use my Nikon now! http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif Suits me anyway! http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif btw Beth, mine is zoom too!

------------------
Dave Acres...
Merely a student of life!:)

'The artist is no more than a receptacle for sensations, a brain, a recording apparatus. But if it interferes, if it dares, feeble apparatus that it is, to deliberately intervene in what it should be translating, its own pettiness gets into the picture. The work becomes inferior.... Paul Cezanne...

BJE
04-30-2001, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by gill:
I have been using a Sony Mavica for a couple of years. It has different settings for type of quality. I do miss using my 35mm Olympus OM1, it did the job for 20 years, wish the Sony had some kind of viewfinder like an SLR, as it is difficult to see under some outdoor light situations.
gill
Hi gill: I also use a Sony Mavica, but have trouble seeing the display in outdoor light. Practically impossible to tell what I am taking a photo of. Otherwise, a good camera. I wonder if there is a way to rig a sunscreen or something???
Jean

Rose Queen
05-18-2001, 10:20 PM
If you want to get something functional but inexpensive to play around with, I'd recommend the Aiptek PenCam. It's about 1" by 5", so it's easy to carry in a pocket or purse, it's less than $100US, and it takes pretty good pictures if you have decent light. Here's their website: http://www.aiptek.com/ . I've had a lot of fun fooling around with it and, as someone else here said, you can take a lot more pictures than you ever would with film and just discard them without a qualm or any expense if they don't please you. The PenCam holds 80 pictures and will do video, although I doubt it does much video. It also eats batteries, but I've found they last longer if I take the batteries out when the camera's not in use. I've posted a number of pictures of roses and one of the Colorado Street Bridge in the Reference Library on this site, if you'd like to see what kind of quality the images it produces have.

A site I've had very good luck with for buying cameras and film is http://www.cameraworld.com . They have excellent prices and they ship things out immediately. However, I'd do the research for what you're looking for on the site, but use the toll-free number to actually order, because the salespeople can usually undercut the price on the website. Seems odd to me, but there it is. One thing I don't know is if they ship outside the U.S.

------------------
Art is anything you can get away with. ~Terence Trent D'Arby

[This message has been edited by Rose Queen (edited May 18, 2001).]

joemajury
05-19-2001, 01:33 AM
Von,
I have an Olympus C830L digital, which I paid 450 for.
I then bought, for 70 a Fujifilm, floppy disc converter, now my smart cards go straight into the disc converter and are loaded into my computer.
I LOVE the Digital for uploading pictures, but if I want a really good clear shot to work of, I would use 35mm.
Im sorry Dave, but I think your photograph is way out of focus, the face is not at all sharp like you could get with a good self adjusting lens.
Pluses for digital, HAS to be convienience, as Pixel said, get a half decent digital, and you can see immediately, if your shot has turned out well, and retake it if it hasnt, most have flash.
Using 35mm film for my Portraits, I would take maybe 2 or 3 rolls of film, just to get that 1 Picture that I wanted, film is costly here.
I would agree that all in all 35mm, takes the better picture, but if its convenience you want - then it has to be Digital.

Joe


------------------
Today - Im going to make someone smile !

Yorky
05-19-2001, 01:48 AM
I wouldn't be without my KodakDC210. It's not on a par with today's digital cameras, but good enough for most PC uses. I have used it extensively for taking pictures for use in DTP leaflets and the like and am quite satisfied. I bought NiMh batteries which last longer and have no charge memory.
CAUTION. Most of my pics don't end up as prints, so I archive them on to CD-R's. BUT anything which may be needed in 20yrs time (family photos etc) would be safer printed out. Are we likely to still be using the CD-ROM hardware by then?

Doug

Paintbrush74
06-01-2001, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Rose Queen:
I've posted a number of pictures of roses and one of the Colorado Street Bridge in the Reference Library on this site, if you'd like to see what kind of quality the images it produces have.




Rose,
I can't figure out what rose pics are yours. Could you maybe post one on here? I'm thinking about getting a digital for reference photos. I know it won't be as sharp as my Pentax SLR 35 mm, but it'll do for things that don't need as much detail, and I can take bunches of pictures.

Lenora

Rose Queen
06-01-2001, 06:33 PM
Paintbrush, if you do a search on the word "rose" in the general photos, all of them are mine except the one labeled "copper rose." If you do a search on "bridge," you'll get two photos, but one comes up because of the label "Cambridge." The only one of a real bridge is mine. I'd post them, as you ask, but I can't remember how to get a photo into a post! Anyway, bear in mind that these photos were taken with the cheapest possible digital camera, retailing for about $100.

------------------
Art is anything you can get away with. ~Terence Trent D'Arby

MissMouse
06-01-2001, 09:12 PM
I have been into photography since I was a teen ( will not tell how long ago that was but lets say I did a photo shoot of
JFK on Long Island when in High School). I must admit I love my coolpix 990 ! combined with photoshop you can't beat it. I still use my old cannon but not as much. I take lots of close up pictures of nature and my orchids. Example is
peek-a-boo on this site. Taken with the coolpix at the spur of the moment. I don't think you could have done better
with a traditional camera.

------------------
Life is too short to be stuck in a box! Open the top and hop out!