PDA

View Full Version : Which Digital Camera and WHY ?


Mario
07-12-2001, 08:32 AM
Hi, it would be a great service to future digital camera buyers, to read the experiences of those of us whom have already selected and bought one. Have you bought a digital camera? Do you like it? Any regrets? What would you have done differently? Which camera do you wish you had bought? What looks good to you, now? Could you show us a sample pic from your camera? Is there something that you can't do with it, that you wish you could? Do you have another question that I should be asking? Many Thanks!

jwaskey
07-15-2001, 01:58 AM
Mario,

I had the Canon A50, which I never liked much. I now hve the Nikon CoolPix 880 -sort of top end of the mid-range. Shoots up to 3.3 megapixels, and 40 second Quicktime movies. It keeps the battery life pretty well, allows you to shoot successive shots rapidly, and takes additional lenses. The body is like a compact SLR, and the feature set is impressive.
I like it very much and have been recommending it to just about everybody.

Jason

Midwest Painter
07-15-2001, 10:43 AM
I have just purchased a digital camera that I intend to be used for my artwork. I did a lot of on-line research and settled on the Olympus C-3040Z. It was a great choice. I've only had it about a week and it is my first digital camera. It is a 3 megapixel design that uses smart media cards as a file trasfer media.

I am simply amazed by the capabilities of this little camera. I'm including a picture I shot at this ostrich farm near my house.

Christie
07-15-2001, 11:01 AM
I have an Olympus Camedia D-360L (no longer being made). It is a 1.3 megapixel and uses smart cards to store the pictures. I love it! It is a point and shoot version and I do wish that it had a physical telephoto lens. Otherwise, it is everything I want.

I take really awful pictures, and this allows me to take all I want and edit on the computer to make them a bit better. Given the sheer volume of photos that i have taken in the past year and a half, I seem to be getting less awful too.:)

Mario
07-15-2001, 04:54 PM
Charming , Midwest but what camera are you using? This input is helping a lot. More , please!

Midwest Painter
07-15-2001, 07:58 PM
Mario,


I am using an Olympus C-3040Z. I just got it and there is an awfull lot to learn about using to its fullest capability. While it has a "point and shoot" mode, it has a full manual mode as well. I bought mine on-line at http://www.zerodelivery.com I got it for about $160 less than list.


A good source of info about digital camera can be found at Digital Photography Review.


http://www.dpreview.com/


More info, and the best pricing, can be found at CNET. They have a section on digital cameras.


http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-1078.html?tag=st.co.1016.dir.1078


I hope this is of help to all who is interested.

RuthT
07-16-2001, 08:18 PM
This is a terrific thread Mario, thank you for starting it. I am in the market for a digital camera and this is just what I need. :)

Gerak
07-17-2001, 12:05 AM
Digicam thread#1 (http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12157)

Digicam thread#2 (http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13211)

Useful threads from the past.....

pencils4me
07-21-2001, 03:05 AM
Wow ... someone read my mind! I came to this forum just to look for this info... and wah la! Here it is!

Great thread, will try the links! Need all the info I can get on this. ;) (The scanner has got to go!)

pencils4me

Midwest Painter
07-21-2001, 02:29 PM
If you are willing to wait a month or so, Sony is about to release a blockbuster design. It's a 4.1 megapixel design called the DSC-S85. Here is a review: (go to the photo sample section of this review to see the astonishing quality of this little camera)


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscs85/


One of the important items to get, with any digital camera, is a printer that can produce photo-quality results. I did some research on this and purchased the Canon S600. It is fantastic. Less then US$200 and has a 2048x1024 resolution. I can not tell the difference between professionally developed prints and the ones I can now make myself. Here is a review:


http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-2375165-404-5529028.html?tag=st.co.1063-401.pdtl.2375165-404-5529028


As far as my camera, I got the Olympus C-3040Z. It's a 3.2 megapixel but it matches the performance of my computer system and printer. It uses a smartmedia card. I purchased a SanDisk card reader and a 64Mb card as well. This card is good for 81 2048x1024 jpeg images. If you at all are interested in photography here is another good source of equipment:


http://www02.bhphotovideo.com/default.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=StartLink__Aindex_html


I hope this helps...

Christie
07-23-2001, 10:05 PM
Further on this thread, I have just acquired a Canon S800 printer to go with my camera. It is a 2400 X 2400 dpi and I think we paid about $199 US (on sale).

A photo printer is a really great thing to have if you have a digital camera and the prices are getting better all the time.

Midwest Painter
07-24-2001, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by Christie
Further on this thread, I have just acquired a Canon S800 printer to go with my camera. It is a 2400 X 2400 dpi and I think we paid about $199 US (on sale).

A photo printer is a really great thing to have if you have a digital camera and the prices are getting better all the time.

Very good choice. I know you will be happy with it. Plus, the ink is not that expensive to replace as with other makes.

Christie
07-24-2001, 10:39 AM
Indeed, ink replacement costs were one of the reasons that we went with this printer. In my former life, I was a user support person and the number of half full all-in-one cartridges that got thrown out was amazing!

Right now it is hard to find the ink for it up here, but I can always order from the US if I have to.

Midwest Painter
07-24-2001, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Christie
Indeed, ink replacement costs were one of the reasons that we went with this printer. In my former life, I was a user support person and the number of half full all-in-one cartridges that got thrown out was amazing!

Right now it is hard to find the ink for it up here, but I can always order from the US if I have to.

I always use the Canon e-store to order my supplies. When you loaded your printer drivers, there should have been a Canon website added to your favorites list. That is a good place for ink and photopapers.

Christie
07-24-2001, 01:57 PM
I have been to the estore for Canon a few times and it looks good. Right now it may be my only hope (for now). with any luck Staples up here will start carrying the ink soon.

Linda Boebinger
08-03-2001, 07:11 AM
This is great info on cameras. A question tho about accompanying computer software. Unless you want to manipulate the images, is it necessary to purchase software to store or attach the images to a file? I'm thinking about sizing the photos, etc.
Thanks

TPS
08-03-2001, 12:44 PM
I think a program sufficient for your needs will be included with the camera, as it does with a scanner.

Midwest Painter
08-04-2001, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Linda Boebinger
This is great info on cameras. A question tho about accompanying computer software. Unless you want to manipulate the images, is it necessary to purchase software to store or attach the images to a file? I'm thinking about sizing the photos, etc.
Thanks


Usually your camera includes image manipulation software. But if you want to do a lot more with your images you can get other imaging software such as Adobe Photoshop. But for general use the software supplied with your camera should be ok.

CathyD
08-10-2001, 01:32 AM
Can anyone recommend an inexpensive camera (around $150-$200 )that is pretty decent ? Or should I wait and save up? :confused:

Midwest Painter
08-10-2001, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by CathyD
Can anyone recommend an inexpensive camera (around $150-$200 )that is pretty decent ? Or should I wait and save up? :confused:

Hi Cathy,

I've done a little research and in your price range there isn't a whole lot that is good. However, if you spend just a tad more a good camera can be had. I lot of good information can be found on the internet. Here are two sites that may be of inerest:

http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-2645842-7-1463352.html?tag=dir

http://www.dpreview.com/

The Fujifilm FinePix 1400 Zoom is well regarded by users.

http://computers.cnet.com/hardware/0-2295745-404-1589154.html?tag=st.co.2645842-7-1463352.topfive.2295745-404-1589154

The retail price is $399 but the best price I've found is at Beach Camera for $224.

http://www.beachcamera.com/product_query.asp?query=product&i=FJFINEPIX-1400

I hope this helps.

CathyD
08-10-2001, 02:03 PM
Thanks Midwest for the directions, I will check those links out.

:D

ldallen
12-14-2001, 07:07 PM
Great reviews - I was interested in the Nikon Coolpix 995 until I looked at the price. I'm pretty much settled on the Olympus C3040Z - just hope it's still available by the time I go to buy it (which should be in the next two weeks - I hope!!)

impressionist2
12-17-2001, 06:41 AM
Cathy D, I just upgraded to a SonyDCS-50 because I needed larger imaging but I have used the HP200c for two years. I have taken over a thousand photos with it. The batteries last an average amount of time. All the shots come out great. Every photo on my website was taken with this camera.

It's simple and inexpensive. They don't make it anymore but you can still find some overstock ( brand new) on it at E-Bay in digital cameras ( $125.-$150. It retailed originally at $300.). Other than that, probably the HP215 is the same camera. Good luck.

Renee

shawn gibson
12-26-2001, 04:15 PM
I just bought a C3040z myself, and I'm noticing it to be quite accepted as one of the most popular cameras among artist-types. I wonder why? For me, it was manual control, external flash ability, good Oly glass (I heard...more on that in a second), and the fit and feel, as one who is coming from a whole slew of traditional gear.

I have a lot of hopes for this camera in the future, after--as always--getting use to it, but I do have one concern that maybe some of you have noticed, addressed, and hopefully fixed.

I photograph people (and chase my cat around when I can't find anyone and am curious or experimental...never photographed an apple or a shoe yet LOL), but very much of the time, I'm in LOW LIGHT conditions. I can hand hold it after much experience with SLRs, TLRS, and rangefinders, so that's not an issue. But I'm noticing a TERRIBLE LACK OF LOCAL CONTRAST in anything mid-valued which is in half-tone/shadow.

For example, no matter my white balance, if I have a face in side light, where half is only lighted with whatever bounce is available, the whole half-lighted shadowy area opposite the light-source is very flat, very red, and very ugly. It's happened on all my shoots so far in low light. It's the lack of contrast that bothers me, as it looks unreal and gives me little to play with later.

I've noticed this thing is more like shooting chromes than traditional neg film, so simply opening up does not seem the answer if I want to keep the highs.

Any suggestions? I've noodled in Photoshop for hours, but the camera just doesn't seem to put much pixel information there to play with, in that range.

All in all, to get back to the post, I'd reccommend this camera for digital work, and my circumstances are probably quite atypical:)

shawn:)

arlene
01-31-2002, 11:58 AM
shawn,
how do you find the camera for macro work, or haven't you used it for that yet?

Trimoon
01-31-2002, 08:29 PM
Canon EOS D30, 3.11 million pixels, 2:3 aspect ratio ,Compact Flash Card, I use a The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM telephoto lens offers a 4x zoom ratio, high resolution, superb contrast, neutral color balance and built-in Image Stabilizer for sharp, steady close-up shots. Purchase in oct 2001 for 2000 US
now you can purchase 1600 US, I Love it.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/31-Jan-2002/IMG_3329_B.jpg

Crested Caracara

ldallen
02-01-2002, 10:35 AM
WOW!! Did you take that shot???? That's marvelous.

I wound up buying the Nikon 995 after all. Didn't want to spend the money but fell in love with the camera and said what the heck!! I've learned how to turn it on and off and set the date!! LOL!! Actually I took a few shots in Auto and they look great on the screen - will attempt to hook up to my computer today. If I succeed I'll try to upload something in a few days.

Bought the camera in great part for macro work - it's supposed to have the best macro of all the mid priced cameras - first thing I'm going to try to shoot is my dollhouse!!

impressionist2
02-04-2002, 07:55 AM
Cathy D. Wrote:Can anyone recommend an inexpensive camera (around $150-$200 )that is
pretty decent ? Or should I wait and save up? "



Cathy, I have used the inexpensive HP200c camera for the last two years and taken thousands of good shots with it. It's only 1.3 megapixels but for a first time digital it's a great little camera.

That model has been replaced with the HP215, but you can still find the 200c on e-bay for about $125. to $150.

Renee

CathyD
02-04-2002, 02:06 PM
Thanks Impressionist2 for your help. That is a great picture. Guess what??? Someone in my family gave me a Kodak 3500dx for Christmas, and although simple, it does a really great job. My main use of it will be to collect subject matter, so I am really happy with it! And it certainly fit the budget! :D

I did bite the bullet and buy a new computer, a sony viao pentium 4 and it is loaded with some great graphic software. I really love it! My poor pentium 2 was getting so bogged down with all my graphics that it would take forever to do my ebay stuff. So I am happy!

I appreciate everyone's tips, this is great!
Cathy

shawn gibson
02-05-2002, 08:16 AM
Hi Arlene, sorry for the late response. I've been using the camera for macro work, and it works fine in my opinion. I'm doing a page on my sink for my website (hopefully up soon...). Here's a macro shot from the Camedia.

shawn:)

shawn gibson
02-05-2002, 08:21 AM
Here's one more with higher contrast to give you a feel. It's not very saturated once you save using web colours:(

ldallen
02-05-2002, 08:29 AM
Hi Shawn - That's great!!

Don't really want to talk cameras right now but I'll get back to you in a week or so.

Midwest Painter
02-05-2002, 10:19 PM
Hi Les,

Check your email. I think I have a solution for your problem. Here's a picture I took with my Olympus C-3040Z. I love the thing.

ldallen
02-06-2002, 07:34 AM
Lauren - I answered your E before I saw this photo. What a gorgeous picture. That is unbelievable!!

The 995 and the 3040 were my final choices. I picked the 995 for two reasons: 1) because the 995 supposedly has the best macro of all the "midpriced" digitals (and I've already seen what it can do), and 2) because I was told that the Olympus manual was awful - by two photographers - also saw some negative comments on the manual and support on dpreview - although the camera review was great. How do you feel about the manual? The Nikon manual is pretty good although it's so small that I may have to print some of the pages from the computer if I keep the camera. I must say that Nikon and Dell have both been wonderful - just haven't solved the problem.

philwms
02-11-2002, 11:19 AM
I used the Nikon 850 and then upgraded to the Nikon 5000, which has a 5.1 meg pixel plate. I like the way the Nikon 5000 (and the 850) have a swivel viewing screen, which let's you easily shoot at floor level or from as high as you can reach upward - great when you're behind a crowd of people...

Here are two shots. The second is a full rez detail from the first, which is greatly reduced in size.

<img src="http://mojoko.com/stuff/nikon5000_photo.jpg">

<img src="http://mojoko.com/stuff/nikon5000_detail.jpg">

BTW... I'm selling my 850 soon... probably on eBay. Not sure what to charge as yet. Have to do a bit of research...

ldallen
02-11-2002, 06:31 PM
Well the Nikon 995 went back! I was never able to get it to work with my computer. As soon as the credit goes through I will start looking at cameras again. One thing I learned about XP, never buy anything unless it has the software included in the box. Attempting to download it from the Internet was an exercise in futility - and totally frustrating. I wouldn't even take my blood pressure. Printer, too. My son who is a technological coordinator for the computer systems where he works said they just installed XP into six of their computers and "they" had trouble installing the printers. This time if he can't come down and install them for me I will pay someone to do it. He said to get the printer installed first. The software with the printer said right on the disc for "XP" but when you went in they referred you to the internet to download the drivers. One guy at Dell told me that XP is too sensitive to download anything from the Internet to ONLY use the software. They told me at Dell that they are only installing XP in all their new computers.

philwms
02-11-2002, 07:40 PM
hmmmm.... I've not had any problems with XP...

...but if you use a digital camera that employs a compact flash disk, then check out the SanDisk system... http://www.sandisk.com . They provide a relatively inexpensive device that uses the compact flash cards as if they were just another disk drive on your system. Put the card into their SanDisk drive (it's external) and just drag and drop your photos where ever you want them.

XP simply recognizes it when you attach it to your computer... no drivers to install.

ldallen
02-12-2002, 06:56 PM
I LOVE XP! I LOVED the Nikon camera!! The printer was o.k. and worked fine - except with the photo program. The problem was getting it all to work together. Please tell me what peripherals you are using with XP! It was suggested that I use a card reader and that is what I was planning to do, but I will look at your suggestion as well. Sounds very interesting - and easy. I'd love to know why the "experts," at Nikon or Dell, didn't suggest any of these things???

philwms
02-12-2002, 07:10 PM
I'd love to know why the "experts," at Nikon or Dell, didn't suggest any of these things???

I guess, unless they have shares in SanDisk, it doesn't really do anything for them to recommend the SanDisk card reader...

ldallen
02-13-2002, 07:43 AM
That's what my husband said. Nikon tried very hard to help resolve the problem, Dell just kept passing the buck and in one instance gave me wrong information. :rolleyes:

KanuK
02-15-2002, 06:42 PM
I use XP at the office all day and I love it. If I wasn't such a die hard Mac lover, I'd definitely move everything over to XP. Very easy to configure... It's funny. I work with IT guys and they have a hard time getting things to work in XP but I try it and do it and it works. They say the interface is a hinderance. Maybe it's because I've been using a similar interface for over 18 years on the Mac!

ldallen
02-15-2002, 07:40 PM
Same thing with my son. He the technical coordinator for his office and they just put XP into six of their computers. They had a very hard time setting up the printers - so I didn't feel so inferior after all. But as I said, I love XP and loved the camera - and as soon as the credit clears I'll start all over. But this time I think I'll be armed with some better information. Was just reading an article by Bill Husted and he talks about how useless the support lines are with these companies. I can't say they didn't try - but it was like one hand didn't know what the other was doing.

cwnyc
02-21-2002, 03:33 PM
In the sub $200 range, I must nominate my wonderful little Fuji A101.
You can find it for like $160 these days, and it really gives a lot of bang for the buck.
1.3 megapixels, decent low-light shots, usb, and a lens cover - which is not as common as one would think or hope.
It even does 20 second video clips (no sound).

For the price, it's a fantastic camera that I recommend to anyone who wants to get into the world of instant gratification pictures without lousy quality.

Plus it works great with Windows or MacOS X with iPhoto.

I love this little thing :)

ldallen
02-21-2002, 06:48 PM
I originally planned on buying a less expensive camera (and might still) but I was pushed to a more expensive camera because of the macro capabilities since I collect miniatures and have a dollhouse and several room boxes. You can get pretty good closeups with most of them, but the Nikon 995 has great depth of field which is very important in photographing a miniature "setting." The credit cleared on the returned merchandise and I will start looking again next week. BTW, it was purchased through B&H in New York and I must say their service was wonderful. They were recommended by a photographer who has been using them for a long time and I was very satisfied. I will work locally this time, however, only because of the XP problems.

Anthony Carter
03-05-2002, 10:40 PM
I have been using an Olympus E-10 for about a year(4 megapixels). I have recently upgraded to their E-20 (5 megapixels) I like the camera. It can use smart media, compact flash or microdrive and can record up to 2560 x 1920. It has a 14 element f2 lens and is built like a traditional slr It`s well balanced for vertical or horizontal shooting. There is no delay when I press the shutter.
You can find E-10`s in the $1200-$1400 range. E-20`s run up to about $1800.
The attached photo was taken with an E-10.

TracyN
03-19-2002, 09:53 PM
Mine is a Mavica FD75. It stores pics directly to a 3.5 disk and I absolutely LOVE it! It has a 10X zoom and handles macro beautifully.

http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/~smaug/pencil.jpg

blkros
04-13-2002, 10:47 PM
I just got a Canon PowerShot A40. I love it. Got it basically because of the price (about $200). It's 2 megapixals with a 3X zoom, and takes compact flash cards. Battery life is alright, but not great--I'll be investing in rechargables, and a charger. I got a card reader for the computer, which act just like any removable drive (like a Zip or Jaz drive). I would love a fancier one, but can't afford that. This is a real good starter, and, with a decent printer, makes nice prints.

Geoff
04-13-2002, 10:52 PM
Mines a Fuji FinePix 4700zoom. 3x zoom normally, with an extra 3x if one uses the viewing screen.

I got this a couple of years ago - at 4.3meg it was the best I could afford at the time.

It is used more now, ( since I found WC ) than previously LOL.

Simple to use, but I think it has been superceded by another version.

geckonia
04-14-2002, 09:45 PM
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/13-Apr-2002/gear2.jpg

I began shooting digital photography 4 years ago with the Nikon 900s because I had enjoyed 35mm Nikon gear in the past (N8008) and because of it's superior optics and swivel design. Back in '98 I read many comparisons online and printed out a lot of test shots from several cameras and none of them could expose or capture detail like the Nikon. I eventually upgraded to the 950 (2.1mp), then came the 990 (3.3mp). I use the 950 for near infrared photography (the 990 isn't IR sensitive enough for me and the 950 is one of the best for IR) and the 990 for everything else, mostly macro. (I believe it is considered the best digital camera for macro photography, you can get so close you have to back off or you'll block the light! The lenses and filters all work well with either camera. The spotting scope turns the built in 35-115 mm lens into a 920 mm wonder! My motto: Get the best. That way you'll always be happy with it!

Some recent examples:

990 Macro: Poppy Innards
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/14-Apr-2002/9poppy2.jpg

950 IR: Horsetails
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/14-Apr-2002/4IRhorsetails.jpg

robinsn
04-23-2002, 10:18 AM
I have an Olympus 2020 and love it. I've had it a while, it does everything I want and does it great. Since I bought, the 3030 and other upgrades have come out, but I have no desire to change. I have a very fast lense (and the upgrades are slower) and I've blown shots up to 8x10 and can't tell that it wasn't shot from my Nikon film camera. I don't need bigger photos to require more memory! :)

So, I'm very happy with it and would highly recommend it or one of the newer Olympus cameras.

Midwest Painter
04-23-2002, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by robinsn
I have an Olympus 2020 and love it. I've had it a while, it does everything I want and does it great. Since I bought, the 3030 and other upgrades have come out, but I have no desire to change. I have a very fast lense (and the upgrades are slower) and I've blown shots up to 8x10 and can't tell that it wasn't shot from my Nikon film camera. I don't need bigger photos to require more memory! :)

So, I'm very happy with it and would highly recommend it or one of the newer Olympus cameras.

I agree. I've had an Olympus 3040-Z for about 6 months. I love it and would suggest it to anybody.

Here's a shot I took from the top of a hill in Chihuahua Mexico last week.

francinekohn
06-19-2002, 03:09 PM
A great place to learn all about digital cameras, with examples of the same shot taken by different cameras, to how to operate the camera is:

http://www.dpreview.com/

All Stars! Great resource.:D

Zarathustra
06-19-2002, 04:12 PM
I've owned a Casio QV-3000 3.3MP digital camera for over two years now, and it is still a great camera. I recommend getting an IBM microdrive so you can store plenty on there, the prices have really dropped since I bought mine.

I've got some of my photo's on a page where you can view them full size if you wish (2048pxx1536px) - none have been digitally enhanced, what you see is what you get straight out of the camera. There's a newer version of the casio out now, but if you have the money I'd recommend a Nikon.

http://www.visipix.com/Search.asp?sector=0&theme=&place=&person=Authors/Banns,+Gavin,+Ashby+de+la+Zouch+UK&page=1

Striver
06-24-2002, 07:28 AM
Hi, I have just purchased a cannon S520 and to date am very happy, Cannon seems popular doesn't it. I wonder if any of you have used the self filling ink process which appears half price approx to reccommended ink cartridges? Comments will be appreciated.

MarshaSavage
06-30-2002, 03:01 PM
Okay, you guys,

I have been checking this thread for a long time now and reading all you have said. Now I am about to buy a digital camera and I want one of the best smaller cameras. Not the small pocket ones, though. I also do not want a professional camera that is in the thousands $$$. I don't need the more complicated camera.

I have been to CNet and read reviews several times. I have narrowed it down to the Canon Power Shot G2 because it has 4 mega pixels, can take the 128 megabyte memory card, and also can take a macro converter lens. Some of my paintings are 5x7 and I need a macro lens to get a good shot of them. Most of my picture taking will be for reference photos to paint from, for taking photos of my paintings for the internet and for printing my brochures, and hopefully for creating a demo from in-progress paintings without having to wait to have film processed.

The camera sells around $690 at a "not rated" company and $700 at ecost.com. The card for $54 and the macro lens for $80. It also is not one of the heavier cameras -- seems to be about average for this type of camera.

If you have any other suggestion, or if you know of problems, please let me know and I will check it out.

Thanks for your help -- I will probably order sometime next week.

Marsha Hamby Savage Art (http://www.marshasavage.com)

Madim
07-02-2002, 07:55 PM
Enjoying the thread !

I got a SONY Cybershot DSC-S50

has 2.1 Mp, 6x zoom, angle LCD
I love it, can get fairly near with the zoom (does this mean Macro ?)
I am very happy with the snappy, small, lightweight camera and the display LCD, that's movable, so you can take unusual shot and still see the dispaly (helps when the sun is in the 'wrong' place).
The only thing I could possibly fault, is the shutter speed (?)
Means, if taking pictures of animals or something moving, it takes too long before you can take the next shot.

The Photo Suite program (with the camera) is marvellous too.

I got a Canon BJC - 265 SP printer and can take fantastique A4 pictures, depends on the paper I print it on.

Keep smiling,
Madeleine

ldallen
07-03-2002, 07:07 PM
I think most of the new digital cameras are excellent. I chose the Nikon 995 for exactly the same reason you did - I enjoy doing small paintings at times. The particular one I am attaching measures 1 1/2 X 2 inches - this one is for my dollhouse. The macro is built in. It originally cost $1200, but the price is now down to less than $600 - I paid $520. So far I have only used the automatic - but it has manual settings as well. I bought several cards and can take as many as 170 pictures on one card (low pixel rate of course). If it ever stops raining I plan to spend some time taking landscape shots to use for painting.


http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/03-Jul-2002/CO1226~1.JPG

ldallen
07-03-2002, 07:43 PM
Well, the sun came out (for a minute) so I ran outside and grabbed this shot real quick. One thing I didn't mention is that you really have to hold the camera steady - with all of the digitals as I understand it. When I am photographing my work I always use a tripod.

By the bye - Madim - that is a terrific shot!!!!



http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/03-Jul-2002/DSCN1559.JPG

Midwest Painter
07-04-2002, 08:58 AM
I am just starting to shoot flowers. I really find them interesting, Here is one I took in my yard with an Olympus 3040Z.

ldallen
07-04-2002, 09:58 AM
That's very good!! I've seen amazing pictures with the 3040 and I hope I will be able to do as well with the 995!!! The sun is actually shining here and I hope within the next day or two I'll be able to get out and do some shooting!! My biggest problem is holding the camera steady!!!

Will take my mini paintings out on a sunny morning to shoot them outside - the clown is actually brighter than it looks. Can't use the flash on oil paintings.

Gerak
07-04-2002, 12:52 PM
I like flowers too.Here is a shot I took with my Olympus 2100 UZ

ldallen
07-04-2002, 03:47 PM
That's gorgeous. Dogwood, isn't it? The sky couldn't be bluer!!

Gerak
07-05-2002, 12:34 PM
I'm not sure what kind of wood, but I liked it, thank you! :)

ReallyColorBlind
07-07-2002, 07:30 PM
I also have the Olympus C2100UZ. It's a 2.1 MP camera and has a 10x lens. The long lens allows me to get a lot closer to my subject as compared to the standard 3x optical lenses that most digitals seem to have.

Midwest Painter
07-07-2002, 10:16 PM
One of the things I like about the Olympus 3040Z is how true it shows color. For example, this picture I took today on the Elroy-Sparta bike trail in western Wisconsin. For me this was a celebration of the color green.

Madim
07-08-2002, 03:48 AM
:D thanks to your talks of 'macro' !

I realised I did the taking of near shots wrong,
I tried to stand back and pull the image near with the zoom.
But that is the wrong way with the Sony.
I can go to 2-3 cm (one inch for you lot) near the object
and get a clear picture.
There you go, you all made my day.

And just to show you,
here is my sharpener:

keep smiling,

Madeleine

Linarty
07-26-2002, 10:15 AM
We are awaiting delivery of the Minolta S404 camera we ordered. At $499, it was favorably compared to the Sony and the Canon G2 which were $200 & $300 more. Check out http://www.dpreview.com/

Striver
07-31-2002, 04:28 AM
Hi, Has anyone used telephoto extensions with Digital camera's? I understand combination rings are available for this. I would assume no problem with performance?
Les

ldallen
08-07-2002, 08:14 AM
Sorry I didn't reply sooner - haven't been on the computer for a while. No, I haven't tried the telephoto lenses yet but I am hoping to in the near future. I bought my camera (Nikon 995) from B&H in N.Y. (on the phone) and they are wonderful, reliable and will gladly give you any information you need. Their prices are also very good - I only paid $520 for my Nikon.

BigBear
08-09-2002, 02:27 AM
I have never been in this forum before, but I just bought a digital camera and want to start posting some of my paintings so folks can help point out my numerous flaws ;) Anyway I saw this thread and wanted to share my info too.

I bought a Fujifilm FinePix 2800Zoom. I love it. It is only a 2.0 megapixel but it has a 6X optical zoom and 2.5X digital zoom. The pictures are very clear and true color. Walmart just started carrying this model, and it is considerably cheaper there than other places (like Circuit City for example).

nonamac
08-09-2002, 04:14 AM
I went for 5 megapixels as I output at very large sizes.

Mine is the Sony DSC F707. The Nikon Coolpix 5000 was the "also ran"...if I were more into macros I would have gone that way, because it does better closer macros and you can add the extra telephoto, increasing the cost. But the Sony has Nightshot, which allows me to shoot in the dark without a flash.

I'm not attaching any of my nightshots here, as I didn't get model releases for them (remind me to do that), but it's great for pub interiors and people just being themselves, not posing. And I hope to shoot Wellington's alleged Little Blue Penguins some evening soon.

nonamac

robinsn
08-17-2002, 05:00 PM
Striver,

I've used an eagleeye opticzoom for my Olympus 2020z for a year or so and I think it's great! I have been able to get handheld shots with 15x (optical, not digital zoom!) (@500mm telephoto). It's a good lens. You can read about it here: http://www.steves-digicams.com/opticzoom.html

The only problem I see with the lens is that the 2020z must be mostly zoomed out to avoid vignetting. But it's not much of a problem unless your telephoto subjects vary a great deal in distance. My need is mostly reference photos so it's not a problem for me.

Striver
08-19-2002, 02:02 AM
Ho
Many thanks for the info, have visited the web site and it is all impressive. Have a better idea about it especially the possibility of vigenting. Have to make allowances if that happens. Again thank you, it all helps with buying a digi camera which is suitable. It all seems big bucks. Get what you buy obviously.
Les

Barbymae
08-21-2002, 10:39 AM
Hello all.

I have a sony cybershot F505V.

It is a wonderful camera and I am very happy with it indeed.

There is only one complaint that I would have and that is the lack of a conventional view-finder.

It comes with just an LCD, which is fine indoors or on a dull day, however, when the sun shines it's nearly impossible to see the display.

I have been told that the later model includes a view-finder, if that's true, you would go a long way to buy a better camera.

Barbara:D

micksear
08-28-2002, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by Midwest Painter
One of the things I like about the Olympus 3040Z is how true it shows color. For example, this picture I took today on the Elroy-Sparta bike trail in western Wisconsin. For me this was a celebration of the color green.
Sorry this is a bit late, but I've only just found this forum. Green is generally a good colour for digital cameras - all but the most expensive and newest use a CCD where pixels are sensitive to different colours, like this:

GR
BG

So, if you can understand that excuse for an illustration, a CCD normally has half it's pixels sensitive to green, and the other half split evenly between red and blue. At least, that's how I understand it... This is why you get strange artifacts when images are jpegged and then manipulated (convert to Lab mode in Photoshop and work only on the lightness channel, then convert back to RGB if you want to avoid introducing artifacts, since each pixel is sensitive to lightness info). A human eye works the same way - we have more green stemens than red or blue. TIF files are the best if your memory card can cope, since they don't exaggerate the problems inherent in this layout of CCD.

I think my theory here is correct - If I'm wrong, please tell me!

Striver
09-08-2002, 04:56 PM
Optical and digital zoom. When both are named am I right in assuming that the view-finder is both LCD and manual. Seems strange they are both different. When you have both is there also an automatic exposure reading? Can you set settings practical? (Speed and aperture) I realize it depends on the type of camera, if so I possibly am talking big bucks. This digital talk is like buying a computer the first time.

ldallen
09-09-2002, 07:03 AM
I haven't progressed further than using my Nikon 995 automatically - for exactly the reason you mentioned - it's complicated and I want to get completely used to all the auto functions before I get into it - and I'm slow. You are also right in assuming that in order to get all the manual functions as well, it's an expensive proposition. However, I have noticed that the prices are coming down. If you are willing to go for last year's model (and why not), you should be able to get a better camera at a lower price.

Yes mine has an LCD and manual viewfinder - I use the LCD indoors and the manual outdoors as it's almost impossible to use the LCD in bright light. Obviously when you are using it on auto you don't need all the details but I've been getting pretty good shots.

But ahhhh, digital cameras. It's so great to have a camera handy all the time - at a moments notice, and download and send it instantly.

Striver
09-11-2002, 01:51 AM
Hi & thanks for the reply. I think I will take some time to decide on which camera. Two reasons, a new one seems to appear each week and yes I am considering a second hand one. However there does not appear to be much on the market at present. I think I need some time to get used to this foreign lanquage and understand what a particular camera will do. As such it is prudent I await and soak what info I can before the plunge. I need also find the market where the 2nd hand stuff is here in Auckland. I will make a list of what features I want to start while I suss the market.
Cheers
Les

ldallen
09-11-2002, 07:05 AM
If you want a really good source to check out both old and new cameras and prices look at http://www.bhphotovideo.com I don't know how that would translate but it might give you some ideas and if the price is right it might even be worth ordering from them. They are in New York and my experience with them, and other (real) photographers I've spoken to, is that they are very reliable. If not, at least it's a good source to look at cameras.

BTW, my name is "Leslie." I think I may have to change my user name because everyone thinks I'm "Ida."

Happy shopping.

TPS
10-14-2002, 11:22 PM
Zoom has nothing to do with whether a digital camera as an LCD or view-finder for framing your shot. Optical zoom means the lens does the enlarging as with a regular camera. Digital zoom is done by cropping the area to zoom and enlarging it digitally. Some digital cameras have only digital zoom capability and some both. The LCD on a digital substitutes for the through the lens viewing available on a SLR camera. Exposure metering is measuring the light for determining aperture and speed settings to gain a proper result. However, it doesn't mean you have manual control of the settings. Some lower priced models are automatic only, while more sophisticated models provide both auto and manual control. Digital cameras are not that different from analog cameras; but do offer features not available in traditional models. I suggest you visit the Photography forum where extensive discussion of this topic is available in "sticky" posts at the top; and numerous resources for learning more are mentioned.

Leslie M. Ficcaglia
10-15-2002, 10:13 AM
I just bought a Canon PowerShot G2, a 4 megapixel camera, after doing a lot of research. I have not progressed beyond shooting in the automatic mode but I'm very impressed with it. My SLR system is Nikon (5005 and N60 bodies and wide angle and telephoto lenses) but I noticed that reviews complained about chromatic aberrations along edges with the Nikon series so I went with Canon. Their reviews in Mac magazines and in dpreview.com were top notch, and Consumer Report just rated them second under a much pricier Sony for the top cameras in the 3 - 5 megapixel category.

One thing that isn't being discussed here is shutter lag, which is a problem with almost all digitals. This refers to the pause between the initial pressing of the shutter release and the actual exposing of the picture media to the image. The G2 seems to be relatively quick in this area but I still don't think I could use it for the kind of grab shots that I'm accustomed to taking when I shoot references photos for my portrait work. Since I specialize in "portraits in a natural setting" I need to be able to catch those fleeting spontaneous expressions that possibly only an SLR can record for me. But the G2 may eventually convert me.

Leslie

Striver
10-15-2002, 02:58 PM
Tps & Leslie

Hi and thank you for info, truly appreciated. These pages and the help form people like you on different subjects is great.

Any comments on the Olympic C720 will be gratefully received. All the info on different camera's is overwhelming for the lay person. At present the C720 seems to cover most of what I think I want and need? It would be a new one and some shops offer a discount worth having. C720 has ability to fix a telephoto on as well and I think perhaps the 3 mp would be suitable. Any more thoughts on the above?

bswilson1147
11-06-2002, 11:39 AM
Hi, everybody,

I have been browsing the wealth of information here on the site and am overwhelmed by your exhaustive research.

Unfortunately, I still need help.....:(

I want to use a digital camera to take photos of my watercolor paintings for upload to my future website. Something simple, not too expensive, would be just right. Any ideas?

Mary Smith
12-11-2002, 11:09 AM
I have a Sony Mavica FD73. I bought it several years ago for around $800. I love it! I bought this one because it was in my price range and it stores photos on a FLOPPY. That was very important to me. The battery lasted about 2.5 hours when it was new, now I am getting about 2 hours on a full charge. I can get 20-25 photos on a floppy with the right resolution. I dont have any accesories for it, so don't ask. I have had it about 3 years I think so the loss of battery power is ok. Time for a new battery.
Mary

Lindzy
12-22-2002, 08:18 PM
This thread has been very helpful and I did some research on some digital cameras that are affordable. I have about 2 days to decide on a camera (which will be a gift for my dad). My mom and I know nothing about cameras so hopefully you all can help me decide :) Here is a list of a few affordable cameras I came across..
I'm trying to narrow down the choices, so please give me as much info as you can about which camera/s has the best/worst quality and which you would reccomend... Thanks a bunch!

Sony 2.0 Megapixel 3x Digital Zoom Digital Camera $199.99 - Circuit City

Fuji 2.0 Megapixel 3x Optical/2.5x Digital Zoom Digital Camera 199.99$ - Circuit City

Fuji FinePix A200 2.0-Megapixel
Digital Camera $179.00- Best Buy

Kodak CX4230 2-MP Digital Camera $197.86- Walmart

Nikon 2-MP Coolpix 2000 Digital Camera $229.84 - Walmart

Samsung 2.1-MP Digimax 200 Digital Camera $148.64 - Walmart

HP 320 PhotoSmart 2-MP Digital Camera $148.37 - Walmart

Michael Rutherford
01-07-2003, 11:51 AM
Tips for buying a digital camera.

dont listen to sales people especially those that get a commission LOL :)

lithium ion batterys are the best they dont retain a memory like nickle cadmium or nickle metal hydrides.

compact flash is better than smart media, memory sticks, etc.
heres why.
compact flash is more robust package than smart media which has exposed contacts which wear over time. Also smart media has issues with some of the older cameras and newer with different voltages 3.3v and 5v cards not working in certain cameras. smart media are very thin and break easily.
Compact flash works in many more devices than just digital cameras can be bought in larger sizes and more robust and cheaper per megabyte.

digital zoom Dont buy the hype dont bye anything based on digital zoom this is like cropping or guessing and the camera istn as good at this as it is at OPTICAL zoom. this is really what you want to know. how good the lens of the camera is not how much digital zoom it has. Never use the digital zoom try to keep it within the optical limits of the lens the picture quality will be much better.

ah MEGAPIXLES how many do you really need?
depends on what you want to do with the final image.
for just webpage and emailing of images buy a cheaper camera with lower megapixels.
But if you ever want to print out those images then buy the most megapixels you can afford.
This is not a exact science but here is my little list .
4x6 1 or 2 megapixels
5x7 1 or 2 megapixels
8x10 2 or 3 megapixels
11x14 3 or 4 megapixels
16x20 4-6 megapixels
20x30 5-8 megapixels
so in my list above if you want to print a 4x6 you can get by with a 1 or 2 megapixel camera but if you want to print out a 20x30 you better have a 5-8 megapixel camera. Understand? I hope so.
This is not exact but its a good guide go go by.

By the way this is knowledge from being a photographer for over 10 years and working at a camera store for around 3 years and doing digital since they first came out. I alos teach digital photography at the local community college.

Hope this all helps someone thanks Mike :)

cloudhand
04-25-2003, 12:21 AM
Hi,

I'm new here, and have been reading up on info about getting a digital camera. My computer was bought in '96 and I don't think it has a USB connection. Does anyone know what you do if that's the case, since most of the digital cameras now come with USB.

Thanks,

Alexandra

TracyN
04-25-2003, 12:32 AM
Alexandra, Mavica has camera's that save pics directly to a:disks. No having to plug into a computer port. It writes directly to a disk which you pop out of the camera and pop into your computer. Go to a local CompUSA or BestBuy and check em out. Prices vary depending on model perks. I have on of their basic ones, the MVC-FD75 and it's images are sharp and has a 10x zoom and handles crystal clear macro photos. I wouldn't trade my Mavica for anything! And a major plus is the rechargable battery. Buy a regular battery digital camera and you'll spend far more on batteries than you ever would have on film with a regular camera. The only downside is that the a:drive camera's are heavier and bulkier than the cable/memory card camera's.

cloudhand
04-25-2003, 12:41 AM
Thanks Tracy,

What's an a:disc ? Is it a floppy or a CD?

Alex

TracyN
04-25-2003, 01:40 AM
The 3.5 floppy disk :) You pop a disk into the camera drive, take up to like 20 pics and pop the disk into your a: drive. One battry charge gives you close to two hours of pic taking, the limit it how many 3.5 disks you have on hand or the time on the battery. I have two batteries so I can swap them out when doing lot's of pics.

Using the flash will drain your battery faster, but I've walked around places for hours on one battery taking pics with no problem

moomiji
04-26-2003, 01:07 PM
Dear Photographers,
Has anyone tried the Sigma SN 9 with the fancy Foveon chip that supposedly gives an image with the quality of medium-format film?
It sounds too good to be true, so I wonder if it is.

Thanks for any news!

:confused:

Michael Rutherford
04-27-2003, 10:01 PM
Alexandra you can purchase a card that plugs into your computer that is a usb card it will have between 3-5 usb ports on it can buy one at the local circuit city or electronics store for around $49.00
hope that helps. Also you may need to upgrade your software windows 98 98se and ME need to download a file from microsoft to support usb.
hope that helps thanks Mike :0

cloudhand
04-27-2003, 11:46 PM
Thank you, Mike - this sounds like what I was looking for. I appreciate your posting. Alex

derrickito
01-14-2004, 01:43 AM
ive been using a sony f707 for about a year and a half. 5 megapixel.

just teamed that up with a canon i9100 13x19 photo printer (YAY)..

finally getting to the point where this sony 5megapixel isnt enough camera for me. for high quality print work with low noise and great detail, im needing to shoot in RAW/TIFF formats exclusively now. fine JPGS as nice as they are just dont cut it when im trying to do 300 dpi prints in large formats..

my sony does do TIFF files, but sony has a horrible 30-45 second write time for these files, doable if im in my studio shooting static items, but if im at a concert shoot or trying to do people its just murder.

there are some nikon and canon cameras (6 +) megapixels that im looking into now. the write times of their RAW files are mere seconds, and the RAW files are a fraction of the filesize of sony TIFFs.

im going to give the new 8 megapixel f828 a try as soon as i can, id love to use that camera (the swivel lens ive fallen in love with) .. but if the TIFF write times are as horrible as they are for the F707, ill have to switch brands :(

Crias
01-16-2004, 12:06 AM
I've got 3 digitals as of currently...

First digital was the Olympus C2100 UZ; several otehrs have mentioned the camera and it has been a FANTASTIC learning camera for me. Sharp pics even at 10X optical zoom (equals 300mm), image stabilization, excellent colors and manual ability. Biggest drawback is that it is only 2.1 megapixels and macros are not its strong point (though not bad either). I've recomended this camera to a number of my friends. I've taken about 15,000 shots on it in just over a year. This camera is no longer available new, but can be found refurbished. I purchased mine in Sept 2002 for about $500 refurbished. I have printed up to 8"x10" with excellent results.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/16-Jan-2004/2921-oly.jpg




Second camera bought specifically for macro use was coolpix 4500. The macro work can't be beat, though I did have some focusing issues with it. Colors and detail that it can capture are amazing. I also like the swivel design. It is 4 megapixels, 4x optical zoom. A nice little camera, but not as user friendly as the olympus. I've shot about 5,000 pics on it in about 8 months. I paid about $500 for it too. It also is no longer made, but can still be picked up new and refurbished. I've printed 8"x10", but I am sure the camera could go larger.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/16-Jan-2004/2921-nik.jpg



Most recent addition to the family is a digital SLR, Canon Digital Rebel. I just got it, so can't give much of a review, except to say that it has some really great features. Firstly...interchangable lenses (works with almost all canon EOS designed lenses)!! Second, minimal shutter lag and burst shooting mode is pretty fast. 6.3 megapixels, excellent quality Canon parts. Currently pretty new on the market and sells for $899 w/o a lens, $999 w/ a small lens. Photos should be able to be printed as large as 20"x30" if the image is sharp and correctly exposed.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/16-Jan-2004/2921-canon.jpg

derrickito
01-16-2004, 12:11 AM
what dpi are you printing to get 20x30 on that rebel? 150 or so?

moomiji
01-16-2004, 12:52 PM
I've got 3 digitals as of currently...

Photos should be able to be printed as large as 20"x30" if the image is sharp and correctly exposed.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/16-Jan-2004/2921-canon.jpg

Hi Cathy, Thank you for these ideas!
would you let us know when you try printing the teasels at 20x30? Even if you print 'em at 11x14, I'd really like to know how they look. Very nice photo! :D (Of course the flamingo goes without saying, it's such a wonder.)

I'm not in a position to rave about the D100 (Nikon) yet because it's so new (to our house), but I love it. Can't decide on a lens for it so am using a friend's old Nikkor 28, which is fine except for close-ups. If anyone happens to know how to attach old non-AI lenses to it (i.e., ALL of mine), I'd love to know. I imagined I could use them on the D100, but they don't want to fit, and it doesn't want them to fit, so I had to track down an AI lens.

moomiji

outlawed artist
01-30-2004, 01:42 PM
I'd love to know why the "experts," at Nikon or Dell, didn't suggest any of these things???

I guess, unless they have shares in SanDisk, it doesn't really do anything for them to recommend the SanDisk card reader...

My wife and I both use to work for Dell tech support. They do not train their techs to support any peripheral equipment and had policies against supporting them (even if dell sold them). We were to refer you to the actual manufacture for that support after we checked to make sure it was not dell equipment malfunctioning. That policy even included software, dell does not support that either.
So unless the tech had an interest in digital cameras they normally don't know how to fix your problems.
Dell techs only support the computer hardware.

cassie8187
01-30-2004, 06:58 PM
Thought this might be a good place to post a request for info. My husband is looking for a camera and is leaning toward the Olympus 5050. I looked at the Fuji S7000 and liked that. Any Pros or Cons on either camera? We want to stay about the $500 range.

roberj
02-01-2004, 10:52 AM
I've been using a Nikon D100 since December 1. I love it. I've not really done much art photography with it, but have taken over 2000 investigative photos so far and I have to say I'm very impressed. I shoot fire scenes, the most ctitical images are basically black on black. BY that I mean charred and soot covered evidence located inside of a heavily sooted and usually boarded up house. Kind of a black cat on a dark night scenario. My film camera relied on 400 ISO film and a big slave flash. The D100 out preforms my old Nikon in almost every aspect. We rarely enlarge above 8x10 and there is no pixilation at that size. I would like to try pushing some larger prints and seeing how far it will go. I have also printed some digital zoom images at 8x10 and the image is still clear. I use a 18-35 lens for most interior work and have a 35-75 that I rarely use with this camera. With the old Nikon, I used the longer lens for macro work, the digital zoom seems to be sufficient now. I have used the D100 for a few candids and some landscape photography. In all aspects it performs well.

DGrau
02-01-2004, 12:49 PM
Tips for buying a digital camera.

dont listen to sales people especially those that get a commission LOL :)

lithium ion batterys are the best they dont retain a memory like nickle cadmium or nickle metal hydrides.

compact flash is better than smart media, memory sticks, etc.
heres why.
compact flash is more robust package than smart media which has exposed contacts which wear over time. Also smart media has issues with some of the older cameras and newer with different voltages 3.3v and 5v cards not working in certain cameras. smart media are very thin and break easily.
Compact flash works in many more devices than just digital cameras can be bought in larger sizes and more robust and cheaper per megabyte.

digital zoom Dont buy the hype dont bye anything based on digital zoom this is like cropping or guessing and the camera istn as good at this as it is at OPTICAL zoom. this is really what you want to know. how good the lens of the camera is not how much digital zoom it has. Never use the digital zoom try to keep it within the optical limits of the lens the picture quality will be much better.

ah MEGAPIXLES how many do you really need?
depends on what you want to do with the final image.
for just webpage and emailing of images buy a cheaper camera with lower megapixels.
But if you ever want to print out those images then buy the most megapixels you can afford.
This is not a exact science but here is my little list .
4x6 1 or 2 megapixels
5x7 1 or 2 megapixels
8x10 2 or 3 megapixels
11x14 3 or 4 megapixels
16x20 4-6 megapixels
20x30 5-8 megapixels
so in my list above if you want to print a 4x6 you can get by with a 1 or 2 megapixel camera but if you want to print out a 20x30 you better have a 5-8 megapixel camera. Understand? I hope so.
This is not exact but its a good guide go go by.

By the way this is knowledge from being a photographer for over 10 years and working at a camera store for around 3 years and doing digital since they first came out. I alos teach digital photography at the local community college.

Hope this all helps someone thanks Mike :)





FIRST OFF THANK YOU VERY MUCH...this was info which I was looking for, however this brings up a ?.... my art work is typically 20x30 and may be going larger. Eventually I wish to post a web site and also for digital images on disc for future submittals to gallery's. My question is, if I were to purchase a 3 meg digital cam and do a retro shoot of my paintings, based on a 8x10 digital image max. would I be able to blow up a section of that photo to show close to actuall size of actuall portion of the painting to show the close up detail showing brush work and painting details or should I be looking at the 6~8 meg cameras so when I crop and blow up the details image , it would show clearly.
Thank you very much again for this post
David
P.S. it takes me a long time getting the camera set up and square to the painting so the painting fills the screen and the edges dont appear to be warpped, tilted, or bowed in any way..setting up the camera 3~4 times to take close ups of each painting isn't really a viable option to me at this time unless it is absolutely necessary. ~ thanks again....D.

AbstractRituals
02-01-2004, 05:01 PM
I was wondering about the minolta dimage z1. Has anyone tried this or heard anything about it yet. I know its got a 3.2(I think) megapixel. But I dunno how good it is. Im looking for a camera under 400 dollars. I researched this and reviews seem good but I havent talked to anyone who actually used it.

ArtistGary
02-06-2004, 02:09 AM
Tips for buying a digital camera.

dont listen to sales people especially those that get a commission LOL :)

lithium ion batterys are the best they dont retain a memory like nickle cadmium or nickle metal hydrides.

compact flash is better than smart media, memory sticks, etc.
heres why.
compact flash is more robust package than smart media which has exposed contacts which wear over time. Also smart media has issues with some of the older cameras and newer with different voltages 3.3v and 5v cards not working in certain cameras. smart media are very thin and break easily.
Compact flash works in many more devices than just digital cameras can be bought in larger sizes and more robust and cheaper per megabyte.

digital zoom Dont buy the hype dont bye anything based on digital zoom this is like cropping or guessing and the camera istn as good at this as it is at OPTICAL zoom. this is really what you want to know. how good the lens of the camera is not how much digital zoom it has. Never use the digital zoom try to keep it within the optical limits of the lens the picture quality will be much better.

ah MEGAPIXLES how many do you really need?
depends on what you want to do with the final image.
for just webpage and emailing of images buy a cheaper camera with lower megapixels.
But if you ever want to print out those images then buy the most megapixels you can afford.
This is not a exact science but here is my little list .
4x6 1 or 2 megapixels
5x7 1 or 2 megapixels
8x10 2 or 3 megapixels
11x14 3 or 4 megapixels
16x20 4-6 megapixels
20x30 5-8 megapixels
so in my list above if you want to print a 4x6 you can get by with a 1 or 2 megapixel camera but if you want to print out a 20x30 you better have a 5-8 megapixel camera. Understand? I hope so.
This is not exact but its a good guide go go by.

By the way this is knowledge from being a photographer for over 10 years and working at a camera store for around 3 years and doing digital since they first came out. I alos teach digital photography at the local community college.

Hope this all helps someone thanks Mike :)

Thanks again, Mike. A year later, and this info is still relevant.df

ArtistGary
02-09-2004, 01:07 AM
After much research and deliberation, I bought the Minolta Dimage A1. It has 5 MegaPixels, 7X optical and 2X digital zoom, image stabilization, great manual controls, tilting LCD and Viewfinder, and MUCH more. Built like and SLR and acts like one so far today. Pics to follow soon.

pouto1
02-11-2004, 06:24 PM
Thought this might be a good place to post a request for info. My husband is looking for a camera and is leaning toward the Olympus 5050. I looked at the Fuji S7000 and liked that. Any Pros or Cons on either camera? We want to stay about the $500 range.


Hi
I puchased the Fuji 7000 and have been very happy after the 602.

It can be used in auto or full manual that almost non of the others can be so
as a photographer it is perfect
Pouto :music:

AbstractRituals
02-20-2004, 09:03 AM
I was wondering about Minoltas. Does anyone have any good info on minoltas?

Grasshopper
02-21-2004, 08:54 AM
I am not a photographer; the last and only camera I ever owned was a polaroid one in 1969. I need a digital one, though, to photograph my artwork with as much clarity/trueness as possilbe, and to mainly get sharp details of things I want to photograph to paint/draw from, too. My dear husband has promised to get me one for my b'day next month. I don't think he wants to spend over $300 tops at this time. Is that realistic at all? Can I get a good one for my needs? My twin-sister is a photographer & will help me learn some basics. My son has a digital that goes through batteries like crazy, by the way. I appreciate the info that's here but some of it's pretty old and I don't know if it's still applicable...
Thank you.

sheilsoft
02-23-2004, 06:43 AM
Grasshopper,

My recommendation would be to buy a Nikon digital. Not only does the brand have a long and trusted pedigree in photography, but their digital range has been long credited with the best in picture quality, colour purity and white balance control.

I have had a couple of Nikon digitals over the past few years and can highly recommend them. For their size they have excellent lenses and image resolution, and the macro quality is top drawer.

My only gripe with the newer, cheaper models is their diminishing size. As a fairly 'big-handed' chap, I find some of the models quite small in the hand, and feature buttons miniscule. Not only a Nikon problem mind you.

My personal recommend would be the Nikon 5000. Once the top flagship (non SLR) model, this has been superceded by a couple of models, but is still available at excellent prices if you shop around.

See a review here...
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp5000/

I still use this camera, and it gives me excellent results.

I hope this is of some use.

Grasshopper
02-23-2004, 08:50 AM
Sheilsoft, thank you so much for your response. Well, my husband got me a Minolta DiMage S414 yesterday - 4 megapixels. It was over a hundred dollars off, on sale. Cost $279 before tax. I wanted at least 4 meg, and a brand I've at least heard of. Is this one any good, do you know? How does it compare to the particular Minolta you recommended?

I used the batteries that came with it, had the camera on for probably a total of 25 mins. the entire day and the batteries are already dead - first day. I was absolutely careful about turning it off, not keeping the LCD on, etc. I took 3 pictures with it. frickin'frackin'#*!!^$##!!!! The manual recommends "special batteries," of course, from Minolta, I guess. Dang.

My pastor is from Scotland, by the way - don't remember where. He's very well known here, on the radio daily, too. Absolutely brilliant guy...

Grasshopper
02-23-2004, 09:40 AM
Sheilsoft, I just read some of the reviews. The camera I have had some bad and some good ratings. Now I'm really confused. I am disturbed by the focusing problems I read about for interiors, particularly closeups. Very disturbed.

Allegro
02-23-2004, 11:58 AM
Hi Grasshopper;

The camera sounds like a good one. Your disposable batteries sound like they maybe the shelf life had expired?

Try buying 2 sets (8) NiMH batteries and a battery charger. The batteries are relative inexpensive (about 9$ for a set of 4 Lenmar pro) and the charger is around $40.

These batteries should last for a couple of years and you should get around 100 hours between charges.

I read that after charging your spare set of NiMH batteries wrap them tightly in saran wrap (to avoid moisture) and keep them in the freezer. They will hold their charge, while they are not being used, much better.

Hope this helps.

Leslie

pinkbubelz
02-23-2004, 12:20 PM
I've been using a Nikon D100 since December 1. I love it. I've not really done much art photography with it, but have taken over 2000 investigative photos so far and I have to say I'm very impressed. I shoot fire scenes, the most ctitical images are basically black on black. BY that I mean charred and soot covered evidence located inside of a heavily sooted and usually boarded up house. Kind of a black cat on a dark night scenario. My film camera relied on 400 ISO film and a big slave flash. The D100 out preforms my old Nikon in almost every aspect. We rarely enlarge above 8x10 and there is no pixilation at that size. I would like to try pushing some larger prints and seeing how far it will go. I have also printed some digital zoom images at 8x10 and the image is still clear. I use a 18-35 lens for most interior work and have a 35-75 that I rarely use with this camera. With the old Nikon, I used the longer lens for macro work, the digital zoom seems to be sufficient now. I have used the D100 for a few candids and some landscape photography. In all aspects it performs well.

I agree with you about the D100-- I bought it in November, and since then, I've taken about 1800+ photos!!! I just love it! Learning a lot from WC-- on how to use the different settings. Mostly, I've only used 35 mm. and my last camera was a Nikon N80 (which I now rarely use.) The cool thing about it is that my lenses are interchangeable (which is great!) and, I can take pix with both.... :D

The drawback is that the D100 is a bit heavier, but after having gotten used to using it, my N80 now feels like a feather-weight... :-)

--Iris

Oh, and I went out and bought 2 battery packs (the Lithium ones) and 2 compact flash cards (256 MB) however, I'm finding that that is limiting me quite a bit-- can only take 25 raw images that way, but the cool thing is that since it's digital, I can edit and erase the not-so-good images as I go along... (hard for me-- I'm used to shooting 8-14 rolls at a time at weddings, parties, etc.... LOL

sheilsoft
02-23-2004, 12:25 PM
Grasshopper,

Sorry to hear about your uncertainties with your new camera.

If you're really not happy with it, I'd see if I could take it back, and exchange for another. We have a 'Consumer Act' in the UK which allows you to do this.

I know this doesn't help you, but Nikon have their own lithium battery packs which have a reasonably good life and fast recharge rate.

AbstractRituals
02-23-2004, 08:53 PM
Sheilsoft, I just read some of the reviews. The camera I have had some bad and some good ratings. Now I'm really confused. I am disturbed by the focusing problems I read about for interiors, particularly closeups. Very disturbed.


You should take a pick up close and one from far away and post it. Mainly because Im looking at a Minolta Dimage Z1. I wanted to see how the close up shots were. I havent heard that much responses about minoltas.

christyc82
03-02-2004, 10:19 PM
My parents bought me the Digital Rebel for Christmas and I LOVE it. I know its a little steep in price, all together the kit I got with it was about $1200 total. For someone who is big into photography, the digital SLR's are really cool. I can interchange the lens from my 35 Rebel with the Digital, so it will save money in the long run there. The digital Rebel is 6.3 megapixles, and when I open the file in photoshop, taking it on the highest and best settings, they are almost 30x40 inches in size, and super high quality. Im still learning the camera, but fora nyone who's into photography and can swing it, the digital SLR's are really funt o play with :)

Striver
03-03-2004, 01:02 PM
wow, sounds great, interchangable lens as well. Must be top of the tree and fantastic to use. What fitting does the lense have? when I bought my Olympus I was told the lense was interchangable, think it was salesman blurb. The rim is smooth and dont seem to unsrew. Dont need to change for what I want as its a 10 optical zoom & 4mp . What zoom is yours. Your resolution must be incredible. Happy days ahead for you.
Les

christyc82
03-03-2004, 05:31 PM
this camera looks and works just like a normal 35mm camera as far as the lens goes. it has a screw on type for the lens, like the 35mm *professional* cameras. the lens I have right now is a 28-80....i need to invest in some more though ;).

pinkbubelz
03-03-2004, 05:42 PM
this camera looks and works just like a normal 35mm camera as far as the lens goes. it has a screw on type for the lens, like the 35mm *professional* cameras. the lens I have right now is a 28-80....i need to invest in some more though ;).

I agree! Digital SLRs are awesome!!! So much more like a regular SLR and much better quality of pictures.... :D The Nikon D100 is totally interchangable with my Nikon N80.... I just bought a 70-200mm F2.8 Sigma lens myself. Cost about $800 US, but well worth the investment-- I cannot wait to do some nature photography this summer! I used it for the 1st time at a rock concert about 10 days ago! :)

BTW-- You MUST try out the lenses on both cameras to make sure they are compatible with both-- some lenses are not...

--Iris

christyc82
03-03-2004, 05:51 PM
yeah with mine any lens that works on the 35mm rebel (long as its newer) will also work on the digital rebel, thats why I chose the rebel instead of a nikon or any other digital slr.

pinkbubelz
03-03-2004, 06:16 PM
yeah with mine any lens that works on the 35mm rebel (long as its newer) will also work on the digital rebel, thats why I chose the rebel instead of a nikon or any other digital slr.

LOL... that is why I chose the NIkon vs. the Canon and other cameras... both cameras are nearly identical in the placement of the buttons and except for some that are digital-specific, the buttons are pretty much same in use as well!

:D

Gotta love it! :D

--IRis

christyc82
03-04-2004, 03:05 PM
Im still learnin this camera...but here's a shot from a concert a couple weeks ago...keep in mind I had to size it down A LOT lol...from 30 inches to like 3

http://www.angelfire.com/biz7/cmcreations/wetcanvasjoe.jpg

christyc82
03-04-2004, 03:06 PM
okay i dont know how to put it into the message anymore sorry guys!

sheilsoft
03-07-2004, 07:26 PM
yeah with mine any lens that works on the 35mm rebel (long as its newer) will also work on the digital rebel, thats why I chose the rebel instead of a nikon or any other digital slr.

Remember, Sigma and other makes, sell lenses compatible with the new digital SLRs, and are generally cheaper too, so don't be too put off by compatability issues. Sometimes it's actually cheaper to buy a 'body only' SLR, and buy the Sigma lense. They do some excellent zooms.

pinkbubelz
03-09-2004, 09:11 AM
sheilsoft,
You are right-- the Sigma Lenses I have are very sharp. I would definitely recommend them, as they are about 1/2 the cost of the Nikkor lenses! :-)

Twice as much bang for the buck!

--Iris

DigitalDust
03-09-2004, 10:33 PM
Hey All

I've just spent some time reading threads on digital cameras and the various preferences.

I'm posting to find out if anyone here can give some good advice, pro's and con's on two particualr digital cameras: the Canon EOS Digital Rebel and the Sony Cyber-shot Pro DSC-F828.

They are both priced the same, but I would like to get input as which would have more longevity, usefulness, etc.

This will be primarily for amateur(?) photography, art reference and art realted usage, and for taking photos of custom costuming on dancers, actors, etc in poses and action.

I'm not sure I would ever need 20x30 outputs, but would not rule out the possibilty 11x14 of 16x20 (approx.)

I'm really "stressing" about the cost, but can presently get either on a 15 month same as cash payment plan from Ultimate Electronics, so the cost may be managable that way, but I really want to get the best and most useful, flexible buy when plunking that kind of cash down for a camera.

I have heard preferences, opinions, etc. form sales people and counter tenders, but would like to hear from those who actually know and use the products.

Or maybe it is just over-kill for what I'm using it for?

Crias said he/she (sorry! didn't check your profile!!!) bought a Canon Digital Rebel but hadn't had it long enough to offer an opinion yet. If you're out there, Crias, what are your thoughts on it now?

Any help from anyone in the know would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.

sheilsoft
03-10-2004, 12:53 PM
I don't want to add confusion here, but at the price bracket you are talking about, I think you should also consider the brand new Nikon digital SLR D70. Brought out to compete at the same level as the Canon, it is already being acclaimed as a classic. Loads of features taken and updated from their professional range of SLRs, you can buy it as a 'body only' and buy a third party lense, or but it with the excellent Nikon zoom lense.

Good though the Sony is, I don't really think it comes into the same catagory as the Canon or Nikon, such is their pedigree in photography.

Here's in depth reviews of both cameras...

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond70/

My personal preference is the Nikon... I've just ordered one!

moomiji
03-10-2004, 01:40 PM
you can buy it as a 'body only' and buy a third party lense, or but it with the excellent Nikon zoom lense.

My personal preference is the Nikon... I've just ordered one!

Thank you for letting us know!
Does this mean you've actually tried one out????
How does it compare to the D100 (in 23 words or less :) )

sheilsoft
03-10-2004, 04:13 PM
Moomiji,

No I haven't tried it out, as it hasn't made it into the UK shops yet, but I bought it based on the quality of the Nikon brand, and I had a couple of Nikon digitals previously. A lot of the development came from the hugely successful D100, and they've taken the best bits from that, plus added and updated features developed since, like a new CCD, faster FPS, quick start-up, fantastic lense etc. etc.

If you look at the D70 preview above, you'll see a side-by-side comparison with the D100 and the Canon.

Due here in a couple of weeks, but apparently already available in Australia and the Far East, where buyers are raving about it.

DigitalDust
03-10-2004, 07:55 PM
[QUOTE=sheilsoft]Good though the Sony is, I don't really think it comes into the same catagory as the Canon or Nikon, such is their pedigree in photography.

Sheilsoft - thanks for the links, tho I'm not "photographically educated" enough to understand some of the info.

Right now, with your recommendations, it's between the digital SLRs (Canon Rebel or Nikon D70) and the Sony Cyber-Shot. I'm hoping I can pick your brain a bit more.

The Sony boasts the new emerald-colored pixel to the filter pattern (RGB+E) 8 megapixs, and a 200mm (?) built in lens. What, if anything, does this mean in quality comparison to the Canon or Nikon?

Which digicam do you personally think has more longevity and upgradability?

Will the Sony eventually be obsolete because of a fixed lens/megapixal set-up, and the digital SLRs not?

I've had a Minolta SLR since 1982 - got my money's worth on such a purchase for what I used it for, or is technology simply going t require an every 5-10 year upgrade on digicams anyway?

Go ahead, use your crystal ball! :) Really, just interested in your thoughts.

Does the Nikon come with a better lens (quality and I belive a 35-77mm?) than the Canon? Can the Canon use third party lenses?

Thanks for your help!!!

sheilsoft
03-11-2004, 06:56 AM
Darren,

I can't really comment in depth about the Sony, as I have no real experience of it. All I was really saying above was when you get to the point where you are going to invest serious money on a high-end camera, my preference would be to go for a company with many years experience in photography, rather than an electronics company. I'm not saying that the Sony camera must therefore be bad, but in all the years I've been into photography (and it's been a few) I've never seen a professional photographer using one, or a Sony camera or lense making into a top equipment list.

I had a look at its review in DPreview, and although there are a lot of good points to it, in the conclusion it listed quite a few cons that I would be wary of, such as...

* Strong visible chromatic aberrations in backlit or reflections in bright sunny conditions
* Higher noise levels than the current crop of five megapixel digital cameras
* Potential hue shift on overexposed greens
* Visible sharpening 'white halo' around black lines
* Barrel distortion at wide angle (although expected of such a wide angle DC lens)
* Difficult to get good macro performance without barrel distortion
* Annoying shutter release locking issue where you must wait before re-pressing


As for the 'emerald-colored pixel to the filter pattern'... every camera uses some sort of integrated software/firmware to convert the data from the CCD into an image... this just appears to be Sony's method of doing that.

As for crystal balls, I can't really say what's round the corner, any more than you can, but things will change... that's the nature of the beast. I'm sure there'll be a lot more cheaper digital SLRs appearing, and probably Megapixel resolution will probably plateau at ~8-10 MP because of the image file sizes, unless they come up with a new lossless way to compress files.

The new Nikkor lense which is being bundled with the D70 (18-70 DX) is already being praised in Nikon circles and beyond, and is a very useful range (27-105mm in 35mm speak)... a nice wide angle through to a medium zoom. Is it better than the Canon... can't really comment, but it is a Nikkor lense, tried and trusted by many a professional.

I'd say you'll still feel like changing equipment every five years or so (if you can afford it), but you can cover yourself to a certain extent from equipment redundancy by going for a quality brand, whose main design criteria is image quality, rather than number of 'features'.

DigitalDust
03-11-2004, 01:23 PM
Thanks for your time and knowledgable input, Howard, and the links to the review sites as I've just been perusing them for more in depth input from owners. It's so far and above what any salesperson has been able give.

I'll "ferret out" my decision between the Nikon and Canon and weigh the pros and cons if any between them.

Pricing and whether or not I can get financing will probably sway the purchase either way.

Thanks again, it was extremely helpful. Feel free to be a little bad as you've done your good turn for the day!

Later...

Danteism
03-12-2004, 06:07 AM
A few more thoughts to consider on the Sony vs. SLR issue.

I've been researching this intensely myself for the last couple of months and have just today settled on the Sony F717 which is the predecessor to the 828.

After all of the reading I've done I finally had the chance to have a good long chat with a full time professional photographer that was shooting our work today for a feature in an international travel magazine.

Personally, I'm opting for the 717 because he helped me see that I just don't need the 8MP. Nothing I'll be doing will be printed over 8X11 and 5MP is more than adequate for this.

What I want to touch on though...

They are both priced the same, but I would like to get input as which would have more longevity, usefulness, etc...


...I'm really "stressing" about the cost

Just wanted to let you know that these cameras aren't really priced the same at all.

In the SLR market the quotes you're seeing for cameras are for the "body" only. Lenses, accessories, and other necessities are extra. Once you've outfitted your camera sufficiently you can easily be $500 deeper into your purchase over the base cost.

The Sony you're looking at on the other hand is ready to take an incredibly diverse array of shots right out of the box.

The other consideration is photographic experience. While the Sony certainly has an impressive range of features that can be manipulated manually, I've been told it takes brilliant pictures in fully and semi automatic modes as well. This means that as an enthusiastic newcomer to digital photography there's a considerably smaller learning curve standing between me and quality pictures than I would be facing in the SLR market.

Ultimately it's almost unfair to compare the 828 or 717 to the Digital Rebel or D70 because of the price and class differential. The Sonys are "prosumer" cameras, while the SLRs are professional cameras.

That said, I'd need to invest roughly $1400+ outfitting the D70 or EOS to handle the range of shots available to the Sony right out of the box.

Since I don't need more than 5MP, it's a no brainer for me to choose the 717 for it's ease of use and savings of roughly $750 over a well outfitted SLR.

Unfortunately it might not be quite as easy given your circumstances. If you really do want to make poster size prints, then the 828's 8MP would obviously be more attractive as far as Sonys go... and then you're only looking at a jump of $4-500 from "pro-sumer" to "pro-fessional".

For me, it really helped to talk with somebody that has owned so many different digital cameras that he wasn't "married" to one. As a result he was able to really listen to what my needs were and make a fairly unbiased recommendation. (he recommended the older model Sony for me, but shot our work with a higher end Nikon... the D100 perhaps?)

Hopefully with continued inquiry, you'll find your way to an a-ha moment like I did today in finding just the right camera to fit your unique needs. :)

Aloha,
Dante

ElGeeko
03-15-2004, 01:06 PM
My 2Ę

I recently bought an HP Photosmart 850, for a couple reasons... firstly, it uses an electronic viewfinder that is nearly the exact same thing as an SLR. It shows a bit MORE than the actual picture taken, but it came with a frame with which you can compose the snap.

Secondly, it has an 8X optical zoom, which was pretty good when I got it. A versatile lens was important to me, for a fixed lens camera. It also has a macro mode, for the occasional flora and fauna shots.

It uses SD cards, as well as fully compliant MMC cards, which are coming down in price. It has shutter priority, for action mode, where you can get several (my experience has shown 4-6) snaps in a row, until internal memory buffer is full, then it'll process them all to the flash memory. It's 3.9 MP actual, advertised 4.13 MP, a nice big 2 inch LCD for those awkward positions where you cannot get to the viewfinder, and both aperture priority and shutter priority. It has a landscape mode, action mode, portrait mode and fully automatic. The lens starts at f/2.8, and steps down to f/11. Another big plus was the manual white balance, and NO PROPRIETARY BATTERY PACK!! Man, I love being able to go to a store and get a dozen AA batteries while waiting for my NiCads to recharge!

Lastly, I got the camera for $300 US, with the docking station and another $100 for two 256 MB SD cards. An 'almost' SLR for one fifth the price!

Things I don't like: Slow shutter, a delay of nearly a second, after the shutter is pressed, but before the shutter fires. No solution to this, as yet.

No RAW or TIFF mode. JPG only, and moreover, only two settings, 1 MP or 4 MP.

Only two ISO modes, 100 and 400. While I'm sure the camera would have troubles with the shutter delay for any shot requiring 800 ISO, I'd still like the choice, to allow a smaller f-stop and corresponding depth of field increase.

The 850 was replaced by the Photosmart 945, with the same TTL viewfinder, and some say, better shutter reactions.

It's a great camera for pretty much anything except super fast sports snaps. Capturing a hummingbirds' wings with this cam is not going to happen!

bdawg
03-17-2004, 12:19 PM
I am contemplating buying a mid-to-high end digital camera for the express purpose of photographing fine art paintings and then printing them on an EPSON 9600. My output sizes range from 18" X 24" (Smallest) to 30" X 40" (Largest). My preffered output ppi is 225+.

My question for anyone here is, what cameras--and more specifically--what megapixels--would be required for output of this ppi and size? I am leaning towards a Digital Rebel (6.3 megapizel), but I want to be sure that this camera can provide me with the ppi quality and output image sizes that I need. Thanks...

pouto1
03-17-2004, 08:31 PM
Hi
I have just made the same decision about Ultrachrome ink, ( for epson printers) but I have decided on the 4000 model as it holds 8 inks, both matt and photo black for gloss and matt paper. The problem is it hard to get and only 17 inch wide. The 9600 is wonderfull.

File sizes I was told 150 dpi was acceptable for matt paper therefor for these large prints it does not need quite the same file size.

For copying art work I would go to a manual focus camera such as any of the SLR types with real interchangaable lenses to get the best copy lens, not the same as sports lenses and they wereee used a lot on enlargers, not cameras.
Usually made by schnieder and can cost a lot. There are a lot, I have severel ex mini lab processing machines. These lenses have high acutness which is far betteer for copy work than standard camera lenses.
All the best

POUTO 1 :music:
P.S. Where can I get an Epson 4000 quickly?????

Marc Hanson
03-19-2004, 09:01 PM
.I've been researching this intensely myself for the last couple of months and have just today settled on the Sony F717 which is the predecessor to the 828.

I love this camera. Have had mine for a year and am constantly amazed at how well this camera will capture the depth of color in shadow, and still maintain detail in the light.

I'm sneeking in here from the painting threads and am not a photographer in the true sense of the word, but for years I have been frustrated by dissapointing 35mm results and expense. With the Sony I am able to 'point and shoot' and the camera does the rest. I realize that to all of you 'real' photographers, I probably sound like the typical photo idiot, but I have shot thousands,s,s,s of frames over the years, although for the purpose of reference and information, not for the art of the photograph. So I really appreciate the image quality in this camera!!!

'ZEISS' says a lot for what the quality of the images are like.

reynolds
03-26-2004, 01:06 AM
well, i just jumped in and bought one of these:

hp photosmart 945
5.3MP 56x Total Zoom
Photosmart 8881 Dock, Rechargeable Batteries & 32MB SD Card

from costco, it was $469 tax and shipping and here we go...
anything i need to know?

shutterbug lady
04-11-2004, 11:09 PM
Even this post is quite old, I had to add my two cents worth. I just bought a Canon EOS Digital Rebel, a little pricey for many but worth every penny for me. :D The camera is a 6.3 mp. I already have two lenses (one zoom, one wide angle) from my Elan (35mm SLR)that I can transfer from one camera to another. The best feature is that it's very user friendly and I can customize all the settings to my own preference. The way I justify the cost is all the money I'm saving from film and printing, and that's a LOT!!

sheilsoft
04-12-2004, 07:23 AM
Rachel,

You're absolutely right. A lot of people when deciding on their budget for a first time purchase of a digital camera, tend to forget the processing costs of film and prints. If your an avid photographer, these costs can be considerable, and yet for the all-in cost of a digital camera and flash card you have virtually limitless images at no extra cost.

I'm sure you're going to enjoy your new toy! :)

ldallen
04-12-2004, 08:04 AM
This post started a long time ago indeed - but in that time frame cameras have changed so much that it doesn't hurt to reopen it. I bought a Nikon Coolpix 995 a couple of years ago and I still love it, but it's much larger than the newer cameras and I'm about ready to move on to something newer - so any opinions about the newer cameras would be welcomed. I'd LOVE to get a digital SLR but they are still very expensive - maybe soon.

shutterbug lady
04-15-2004, 05:03 PM
Rachel,

You're absolutely right. A lot of people when deciding on their budget for a first time purchase of a digital camera, tend to forget the processing costs of film and prints. If your an avid photographer, these costs can be considerable, and yet for the all-in cost of a digital camera and flash card you have virtually limitless images at no extra cost.

I'm sure you're going to enjoy your new toy! :)

I am enjoying it!!! :clap: today I went out and did some playing with it - we have no flowers to capture except dandylions, so that's what I shot (see the pub). I have a question to pose since it has come up on this thread: PRINTERS. Does anyone have an off-brand printer that they have had success with? I'm looking for one with the colors separate... please help.

Danteism
04-15-2004, 05:13 PM
I bought a Nikon Coolpix 995 a couple of years ago and I still love it, but it's much larger than the newer cameras and I'm about ready to move on to something newer - so any opinions about the newer cameras would be welcomed.

What will you be using the camera for... web... prints? If printing, how large are you hoping to print?

What subject matter will you mostly be shooting under what conditions? Indoor? Outdoor? Macro? Action?

What's your budget?

All of these factors weigh heavily on any recommendations you may receive.

PhyllisCh
04-26-2004, 02:24 PM
I had the Nikon 885 and just dropped it. They said it would cost about $285 to repair. So, I am looking for something that can still use the compact flash cards that I used (just bought a very large one and don't want to waste it) and have so many photos that I want to be able to use with the camera. I like the feature making it so easy to make the photo into a "small photo" for the web. I also liked the size. I was not happy with the length of time it took for it to focus. As I photograph animals a great deal, I always lost the shot by the time the camera was ready. I want a camera that does well with portraits (people and animals). The reds were often too pink with my camera as well (especially with skin tone). I am looking to spend somewhere in the area of $500.00, give or take a bit. Any advice?
I have heard to much about Olympus, but then I can't use the compact flash cards.
Phyllis

DigitalDevo
04-27-2004, 04:23 AM
I oown a Canon 300D (Rebel) and a Sony DSC-F717. I saw foremention of the F828.. stear clerar of it.. too micuh purple fringing and Chromatic abberations and a ton of noise at anything aboove 100iso .. If looking that directiuon try looking at Sony DSC-F717, Minolta A1, Nikon 5800, Minolta A2 Fuji S5000.. Not real impression with the noise in the S7000! All of these use small CCD to capture the image which makes for noise at norm,ally anything above 200 iso. But monst P&S cameras like these come with nice glass (lense) and focal distance covered. I prefer the 300D in the is price range as you get superb canon glass as lens replacements! You have adjustable lenses, shooting at say 1600iso is like shooting in 400iso in the P&S cameras.

If want to shoot fast shutter speeds, low light, and have flawless prints at 8x10 and above then go dSLR hands down! If going to do nothing but post cropped images for the internet or print 3.5x5, 4x6, 5x7 prints then save yourself some $$$ and buy an all in one P&S style camera like the Sony DSC-F717, Minolta A1, A2, Fuji S5000, etc.One last word.. if into IR or MAcro photography then the Sony DSC-F717 or DSC-F707 would be the way to go as they are superb in both those aspects!

http://home.earthlink.net/~swisher/folkofart/IMG_1311_filteredsm1.jpg

Taken with my 300D and an El Cheapo Sigma 70-300mm Macxro DL LL lenses.

http://home.earthlink.net/~swisher/folkofart/DSC00432_filtered-sm.jpg

Taken with Sony DSC-F717


Both are great cameras.. All depends what you plan oon doing with them, how muc flexibility you will need, and how large of prints you plan on making. I have had 20x30's from the 300D already that look as flawless as a 4x6.. Sony starts to fade out at about 11x14 for top notch stuff. Also, remeber MP (MegaPixles) aren't everything! The glass, CCD or CMOS sensor size and brand/quality all play a large part of the ending result! Just my ramblings ;)

PhyllisCh
04-27-2004, 07:03 AM
Anybody familiar with Olympus 765 or 750 with 10x zoom, or the Olympus 5060. I was told that Olympus does well in low light situations.
Phyllis

ldallen
04-27-2004, 09:53 AM
Hi Devo - great information. Thanks a lot!!!

DigitalDust
04-30-2004, 12:34 PM
...Taken with my 300D and an El Cheapo Sigma 70-300mm Macxro DL LL lenses...

Devo, just took the Digital Rebel plunge myself and am all a tingle with excitement. I've been messing around with it a few days now.

A question to you since you have a Sigma 70-300mm, but open to any who would like to chime in:

How do you like the Sigma "el cheapo"? Would you suggest it? I'm so excited about my new purchase and it's capabilites that a zoom is not far off.

Heard anything about the series of Phoenix lenses out of Japan and how they rate?

I will start a thread along these same lines as I'm looking into some imput about how well these lower cost lenses operate, comparatively or how "sufficient".

Thanks in advance.

sheilsoft
04-30-2004, 01:38 PM
Hi,

I posted in the other forum too. I wouldn't recommend the cheap DL version of this lens, but I would highly recommend spending just a few bucks more for the APO version... great zoom lens!

BabsW
04-30-2004, 08:56 PM
I think it is time to start a new thread for this similar topic but forum would not let me do that....wonder why?

Anyhow, I have an opportunity to write articles for magazines and newspapers and am considering the Sony DSC-f717 because of price drop to $539 and no add ons. Most of the photos would be in macro mode, I could also see using it to make art prints of my paintings that are larger than 11 X 14 . Professional photographers suggested the Canon EOS Rebel. Having seen some of the outstanding photos in this thread, I am torn about which way to go.

How soon do you all think it will be before the Canon Rebel, currently $799.) goes down in price?
My Mavica F 85(?) 1.3 MPx is still usable for web site work. I paid $799 for it...can't believe I did :crying:

Any absolute advice? Remember print quality is required. I don't want to be turned down because of unusable photo files.

Thanks.

DigitalDevo
04-30-2004, 08:58 PM
Hi,

I posted in the other forum too. I wouldn't recommend the cheap DL version of this lens, but I would highly recommend spending just a few bucks more for the APO version... great zoom lens!
Agreed! Definitely spend the extra few $$ and get the APO.. Another alternative is the Quantaray (Ritz/Wolf Camera brand.. made by Sigma) 100-300 lens.. great lens for the ~$129ish price tag! I may recommend picking up a 50mm f1.8 mkII Prime also for lower light situations and portraits... nice cheap ~$70ish lens that produces fantastic results! I will give ya slight hint about the ~300mm cheaper zooms.. they produce best results with FAST shutter speeds and your aperature between f8-f11.. Not saying you can't add the umph back in using PS or soemthing.. because you can... The lens just produces the best "out of camera" shots in this range. I do have to say that the macro ability of the el cheapo DL lens is great! I am looking into the Bigma (Sigma) 50-500mm lens right now and even still I will end up keeping my 70-300mm just for macros :)

DigitalDevo
04-30-2004, 09:19 PM
For macros.. the Sony DSC-F717 (I own one also) is fantastic! I often tend to use the Sony for macros moreso then my 300D. The 3000D will produce great macros even with the kit lens.. but the Sony is hard to beat in macros unless dish out some $$ for a macro lens on the 300D. This link has some of my shots I have taken in Macro with the Sony F717 and the Canon 300D.. marked -Sony or -Canon. The lens used on the Canon was the Sigma 70-300mm Super Macro DL II El Cheapo lens with switch set to Macro (actual on lens switch.. camera was in AV Mode).. the Sony was of course the stock lens in macro mode (camera) and the dandelion with the ant was a +4 Hoya Diopter used also.

http://home.earthlink.net/~swisher/wetcanvas/

Both camera can do great mmacro shots as well as other shots. The 3000D excels in image quality and ability to shoot in higher ISO and lower light with much less noise then the Sony.. The 300D at 1600ISO produces less noise then the F717 at ISO400. I have had prints from the Sony upto 11x114 with top notch quality and definitely good quality at 16x20 (if sent to a good place and with lots of post processing done to eliminate noise and such).. I have had prints from the 300D upto 20x30 with top notch quality! Either way I suggest investing in Neat Image for noise reduction. Also bear in mind that the iimages staright from the camera in the 300D will be much softer then the F717 as with all dSLRs. dSLR camera images are really meant to be post processed (i.e. Adobe PS) for best results. Hope this helps out a bit.

DigitalDust
04-30-2004, 09:43 PM
How soon do you all think it will be before the Canon Rebel, currently $799.) goes down in price?

Digital Rebel prices are already coming down. The place I bought the DigiReb kit from had lowered the price from $999 to $935, so I'm assuming the $799 price tag will fall too.

How fast and how much more may depend on how the newly released Nikon D70 and the new 8.0 megapixel, fixed lens Canon digital model ($999) sells.

Here tell they've released a black bodied version of the DigiReb in Japan (called "Kiss") which should hit the US and other countries fairly soon.

DigitalDust
04-30-2004, 09:49 PM
... Hope this helps out a bit.


Helps out a lot Divo. Great shots on the link, BTW.

You guys have been great for gleening info from - far more straight up and forthcoming (and knowledgeable) than the camera bar guys and the customer support at the online/mail order stores.

Is "Neat Image" a Mac compatible application? When you had the 20x30 enlargements made from the 300D, were you shooting in the RAW quality mode?

Thanks. Anymore anyone might want to add, please indulge us.

Norma623
05-10-2004, 09:04 PM
OK - so I'm usually in the "Glass Arts" section - but I had to put my 2 cents because (in addition to glass beads and stained glass) my other passion is digital photography. I bought a Canon 10D almost a year ago and LOVE IT! For awhile, I used my 25year old zoom lens that I had with my old Rebel years ago (the box still had Andre Agassi with hair! It fits with the new body, but (like most things when they grow older) it doesn't "zoom" quite as fast as it used to. Over the past years, I have owned 2 Kodaks, a Sony, an Casio Exilim (my daughter) - and another Casio with a huge drive in it that held 300 pix. So I've climbed up through the ranks and I have a little advice to share.

1. Don't waste your time with digital zoom - I always turn mine off. They try to sell it to ya - but don't listen. You will always get a clearer picture with only OPTICAL zoom. Besides - you can zoom on your computer. Some of the newer cameras have some pretty decent lenses on them - just don't get caught in the digital trap .
2. Be ready to purchase LOTS more memory - most cameras sell you a package with puny memory. The last thing you want is to be in Cancun with no memory and no way to unload your pix - try finding a memory card there! I have 4 flash memory cards, 256mg each and I'm thinking about getting a 5th. Each one holds around 80 6.6megapixal pictures, or 40 RAW
3. Speaking of megapixels - after a certain point, bigger isn't necessarily better. If you aren't going to play with your pictures on the computer - blow them up, manipulate them etc. I don't think you need more than 3.3 or 4 megapixels to get good pictures. I'd rather see you spend extra money on a better optical lens than more megapixels. On the other hand, if you love to play with your pictures on the computer you want to have more pixels to play with however, you will still probably limited by your printer - so everything above 3.3 or so is overkill.
4. Speaking of printers - I have a Canon S9000 and love it. It has 6 inktanks so you have more control over refilling. I use Inktec ink refill kits. You will truly be AMAZED at how much money you can save if you aren't afraid to get a little ink on your fingers. I recently purchased $80 worth of Intec refill ink and figure the same amount of Canon cartridges would cost between $300-400. I print a lot and see no difference in ink quality.

There - I put my two cents in. Hope this helps some of you make a decision! If anyone wants more info - or has a differing opinion - feel free to email me....norma623@aol.com

Norma
http://normabrink.com

Jackmorgan
05-19-2004, 03:55 PM
I bought the Canon D10 with the 300 zoom lense. It takes a 6 megapixel picture. It's the most fantastic camera. We were driving semi this winter, over the road, I took photos that would amaze you when we were driving down the road, 65 mph. I just put the setting to the action shots, aimed it out the window and shot...I love this camera so much!

I'll try to post a photo I took with it here in this message. We were driving logging truck near Glacier Park, at St. Mary's in Montana of course. I took this shot out the window from the passenger side of the truck. I liked the effect with all the mirrors and reflections...

For some reason I can't post new threads or attatchments, I don't know what's going on. I read all the help t hreads on this subject and thought I had the problem fixed...gotta solve it before I can post the photo....
donna

DAS-Arts
05-20-2004, 08:56 PM
Does anybody have any experience with the Kodak DX6490? I am looking into purchasing
a new camera and this is the one that I am thinking about.

David Sercel

Mart_Rowley
05-22-2004, 07:04 PM
Hi David, I ordered a Kodak DX6490 on Thursday and am expecting it to arrive early next week. I'll try to remember to let you know how I get along with it!

Sounds like you've been looking into similar cameras. So out of interest I'll run through my short list, and why I didn't think they were right for me (it took me hours of research last week to decide the Kodak was the one to go for!). All of these cameras are 3-4 megapixel and 10x optical zoom.

Minolta Dimage Z1 or Z2 - The Z2 seems to be the same as the Z1 but with enhanced video capture - which wasn't important for me and can take 4 MP shots instead of 3... The Z1 was my number 2 choice because its amazing value now and performs really well. But I wasn't happy with the way the LCD monitor flips inward to double as the viewfinder. It must be a design that works well since its unchanged from last year but those extra moving parts worried me. Also, I'm sure its just me being old fashioned but I prefer my cameras to be black or dark coloured rather than shiny!

Fuji Finepix S5000 - I really liked the look of this one.. very SLR like. Good lens etc, but every review I read raised the issue of Jpeg compression. Apparently this camera is very aggressive, even on the highest quality setting. A real turn-off for me.

I also looked at the Olympus Camedia C750UZ.. A very nice camera (even if it is shiny). I liked the fact it allows you to save out tiffs too, which is something the Kodak doesnít do. Unfortunately it was too high in price compared to the Kodak, and seems to have the same optics.

So.. although I'm a little unsure about the Kodaks proprietary battery, it seemed to have the right balance of ability/cost/build quality. Plus, I love the size of that LCD screen!

If there are any seasoned DX6490 users out there it would be cool hear their experiences.

JayD
05-24-2004, 04:23 PM
Hi, I am new to this forum. I just purchased a Kodak EasyShare CX7430 with 4.0 megapixels and a 3x zoom--still experimenting on it but if anyone has any tips on this camera I would appreciate the input.--so far, I like the camera and the way it handles--I shot some video with sound that came out fairly well and it is compatible with both my macs and my pcs. Honestly though I purchased the Kodak because there a ton of cameras out there and I decided to go with a brand name that I trusted--my wife has a Kodak and she had some problem with hers so she contacted them and got back an EXTREMELY helpful response from their customer service group so when I was shopping I had that email resounding in my head. --my last digital was an Agfa 780C--a very bizarre camera with very poor resolution...--I like the Kodak much much better. Before Digital I owned a Minolta SLR (that has been so long--I think it was an X5-70 or something like that...

Cronious
05-26-2004, 05:41 AM
Hi folks just thought I would drop in, new to this forum... normally in digital

I have the Sigma SD9, and it is a really beautiful piece of kit. The colours are very realistic and I haven't found the contrast problems that plague some digital cameras.
I will post a few pics taken with it if anyone would like me to.

I progressed from the Casio EV3000 to the sigma. I also still love the Casio, it is great for web shots and quick still life reference images for painting with.

My mother has recently spent a few penies on the Olympus C760 and I have been impressed with the quality of the macro and general usage shots that have come out of it.

Hope this helps someone on there quest into digital, any questions about the Sigma please just ask........ I know not many people have the camera, and someone asked about it..... I think it was back on page two. Hmmm

Crone

Mart_Rowley
06-05-2004, 11:03 AM
Well, Ive had my DX6490 for over a week now, and I am truly impressed! I've not taken many photos since my college days (10yrs ago now) so I am well out of practice, but I think having the new Kodak will change that.. So far, I've used up a full battery charge after taking well over 100 photos, all using the zoom fairly extensively and about 15 shots with the flash.

Anyway, I'll post a thread with some of my shots in a second, rather than clutter up this thread :)

edit - about the only thing I cant get the DX6490 to do is auto bracketing, which would be nice.. but its fairly easy to change settings manually - but will take practice to do quickly and without upsetting the composition.

Jackmorgan
06-05-2004, 11:14 AM
I bet you would be very happy with the kodak camera, I have a dx4900 and love it. I use it for all my wide angle stuff and the canon 10d for far away. Some of the shots this little dx4900 have got are amazing. What are some of the specs on your Kodak? Does it take more than a 4 megapixel photo? the 4900 is 4 mgpx. THey're so small, and easy to carry around, I've had it horseback and on four wheelers...they're tough too. Donna

JayD
06-05-2004, 11:20 AM
You know I almost picked up that camera--but I went with something that was a little more in turn with my purposes--which is to shoot reference photos for drawing. I found a quicktime tour of your camera in case anyone wants to see it--you can go here:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/DX6490_qtvr.html


What kept me from buying this camera was sheer paranoia--my old Minotlta ( my first expensive and decent camera) was stolen and I am convinced I would spend more time protecting it then using it. Very slick camera though--very tops. :)

That 10X zoom would have been nice to have.

Mart_Rowley
06-05-2004, 12:06 PM
Moochkiss, yep its only 4 mgpx.. the option of more mgpx would have been nice, but I think I prefer smaller images so I can get more onto a memory card. And also, I'm unlikely to go with larger than A4 prints, so its fine for me. I picked it because of the zoom and that it can also give a lot of manual control as well as having the selection of auto modes. Oh and the video quality is surprisingly good too! Small for showing on a PC, but ideal for TV viewing. Oh and Steves-digicams is also a good place to go for a full run-down of the specs, they have a good review there.

JayD, that 10x zoom is fantastic.. and yes, I know what you mean about taking it out! Sorry to hear you lost a previous camera. I'm planning a trip to London, but it does concern me slightly a) looking like a tourist and b) waving over £200 worth of kit around with me!

Mart_Rowley
06-08-2004, 03:52 PM
Having said that 4 megapixels is fine.. I do find I often crop images, so 7 or 8 mgpx would be nice!

prospector
06-12-2004, 06:01 PM
I am seriously thinking of buying a Canon digital Rebel with an EF-S 18-55 lens with it. I will use it for getting photos of wild life, and western subjects for drawings, and paintings. I will also use it to take picts of my art work to post on web site. The 18-55 lens should work for the art work, but I will need a longer lense for wildlife. Any suggestions?

Now using a Canon Power Shot S 30, 3.2 MP It was ok for gettin started in digital work, but I need more camera for serious work. I love Canon lenses, and would rather pay fer Canon quality, but if someone knows a third party lense that is proven to Canons quality I will listen. I understand that a long Canon lense will be pricey. Also what high speed flash card with at least 512 memory? My budget for this rig is about $1'500

meriadoc
06-12-2004, 06:30 PM
if you're budget is that much - here's what would be good:

- the rebel (of course) kit (if you want the lens) = $1000
- a 1gb compact flash card (trust me, 512 ain't enough -- I get about 110 shots when i shoot in raw, about 270 when I shoot jpeg fine) - again, probably about $250 or thereabouts - could me more depending on where you go (Ritz sell their own brand (made by lexar) for around $280). ($1300 so far - i'm being conservative)
- the canon EF 75-300mm f4-5.6. Now, thats not the best lens on the market, but its better than nothing when you're starting out.

I use primarily that lens on my rebel, and the cropping factor of the sensor will give you something of a 480mm lens. Good enough for wildlife. Bigger would be better, but since your budget is limited, thats what I'd go for. :)

that'll pretty much hit your budget. :)

-- L

prospector
06-12-2004, 08:36 PM
meriadoc, G'day mate, and thanks fer the promp re. I was looking at a deal on the Rebel at 17th Street Photo.. $839.oo fer the body, $ 279.00 fer t he Lexar 1gb card, and $434.00 fer the ef- 75-300 mm. Could I live without the EF 18-55, for close ups of art work? cause I'm gona need a tripod also. Appriciate yer help..

Jack/prospector

meriadoc
06-12-2004, 08:47 PM
if you're going to buy online - always, ALWAYS check the BBB first. I bought my rebel from B+H photo (based in NYC) with a 1gb card for $1175 including UPS second day air, not bad really.

There are alot of NYC based camera retailers that really should be shut down, but thats all a matter of personal opinion. as the old addage goes, if its too good to be true, then avoid it ;)

but there are many places where the price of the rebel is coming down. I know ritz/wolf have a promotion going where if you bring in an old camera and get the camera there, you get a $50 discount off the kit, so it would be $949.99 rather than $999.99 :) (I work at a wolf camera in dallas)

always look around - you'd probably be able to find a better deal from a reputable retailer :).

DigitalDust
06-12-2004, 10:48 PM
Jack

Have had my DigiReb for a little over a month now. 1500 shots later I couldn't be more happy with my purchase.

I never would have dreamed of that with a film camera.

We had a discussion about lenses for the DigiReb at:

http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185739

... if you want some of that good information - a good deal of it from Lisa/meriadoc. Check it out.

DO NOT pay $999 for the DigiReb kit. PC Mall/Mac Mall (reputable company; it's where I got mine) is running it for $899, free shipping with rebate, and Amazon.com has it for $890 w/ free super-shipping.

A friend of mine came over to look my DigiReb over because he was thinkling of getting one for the exact reason you are - photographing wildlife/other stuff for art reference. He was so impressed with the quality he got after snapping off some shots, he went and ordered his own.

He said his price was $818, but I don't know where he ordered from.

Don't buy expensive CompactFlash cards. Lisa is correct, 256MB isn't enough when you start rapping the photos off (kind'a addicting, too!), but I can get Lexar and SimpleTech 256 MB CompactFlash cards as Sam's Club for $41 a piece - x4= $164, nearly a $100 cheaper than a 1 GB card, and I prefer to have a few different cards to rely on instead of just one in case I lose it, damage it, etc. Kind of the "all your eggs in one basket" concept, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, have fun. The DigiReb is amazing and just plain fun!!! :clap:

prospector
06-12-2004, 11:08 PM
DigitalDust, Thanks fer the info. Good idea about haveing 4 cheap cards than 1 expinsive one. I have learned that good lenses are very important, and I have been using a Canon A1 SLR since 1980, but my lenses are not compatible with the rebel. When ya wait all day fer the right wildlife shot; ya better have the right lense the card is not important if ya dont save the image ya want. Think I will start with the 75-300 until I hit the motherload, or the lottery.. :D BTW what would the 75-300 leangth be on the dig reb?

Jack/prospector

DigitalDust
06-12-2004, 11:44 PM
BTW what would the 75-300 leangth be on the dig reb?

Hoo boy... I dunno. Lisa, Howard, etc. would be the ones to ask the tech questions - unless you are talking about the actual "physical" length of the lens - I've looked at a few (Tamron, Sigma, Canon, Quantaray) in that category - anywhere from 4 to 6 inches (if I remember correctly)

I'm still in the "finder" mode myself as what the best zoom/macro lens for the DigiReb is - I just know I keep finding myself in situations where I need one so as to not "invade" the personal space of my subject, be that animal or human.

meriadoc
06-13-2004, 12:52 AM
depends on what you mean by length ;)

if you mean physical length, there are three different 75-300mm lenses that canon makes. One with image stabilization, another with a Ultrasonic Motor (USM), and another that doesnt' have either of those two features (I have the basic one).

The basic one runs about $160 thereabouts, and is 5" roughly long, and weighs a little over a pound.

The second one runs about $170 (although there is currently a $10 rebate through canon - so the price after rebate is $160)

The third one runs about $420 before a $20 rebate through canon.

It all depends on what you want. If you want to later on upgrade to a nicer quality lens, it'd be pointless spending $400+ on a lens only to upgrade it later. I'm in the process of saving to get either the 70-200 USM 2.8L ($1200 thereabouts) or the 100-400 f4-5.6L IS USM lens ($1500 thereabouts) (only cuz I get staff discount), and i'll be selling off my 75-300 after I get the new lens.

But if you're talking focal length on the digital rebel, the 75-300 will get you 120 - 480mm focal lengths.

But what else would you be doing? My lens arsenal currently consists of the EF-S 18-55mm lens (wide angle), a sigma 24-70 and the 75-300. It essentially covers most of my bases, but I'm also on the lookout for a nicer telephoto (and longer lens), and also a wider wide angle (sigma 12-24 is what i've currently got my eyes on).

Always good to have at least a wide, standard and telephoto in your collection, and if you're hiking or whatever, the less you carry the better.

Eventually I'm hoping my arsenal will be something similar to this :
1. Ultra Wide (somewhere around 12-24mm)
2. Wide-tele (the canon 28-135 IS USM hopefully)
3. Tele (either 70-200 2.8 or 100-400)
4. Macro (probably the sigma 180mm macro)
5. 50mm or 85mm prime.

Course, its mainly wishful thinking, but having a job helps all that much :)

Think in the long run when buying lenses. Do you want the best you can afford now, or would you prefer to save and get the 'motherload' ? I'm quite fussy with my photos - so I save to get the best I can afford, and sacrifice quality in the short term.

But its all a matter of preference.

TeaSoiree
06-13-2004, 11:49 PM
I have just purchased a digital camera that I intend to be used for my artwork. I did a lot of on-line research and settled on the Olympus C-3040Z. It was a great choice. I've only had it about a week and it is my first digital camera. It is a 3 megapixel design that uses smart media cards as a file trasfer media.

I am simply amazed by the capabilities of this little camera. I'm including a picture I shot at this ostrich farm near my house.


How good is the quality? And how much was it?

meriadoc
06-14-2004, 12:19 AM
Just so you know - there are very few companies that produce the smart media cards these days, and there aren't many companies that sell them either. I work for wolf camera - and we don't even stock them.

I'd recommend getting a camera that takes either a SD (most cameras these days), xD (fuji and the latest olympus cameras), or compact flash (larger 5 + cameras like the nikon 5700, 8700 and the digital SLRs). Memory sticks for sony are getting more common now that they've released the patent for third party companies to make them.

There is a minolta (6mp) that takes both memory sticks and SD cards. It runs around $450 thereabouts.

prospector
07-13-2004, 08:08 PM
I just ordered the Canon EOS Digital Rebel from B&H photo. I ordered the body only, with the Lexor 80x 1gb card, and the 75-300, F4.0-5.6 ef Canon lense. Do Y'all think this will get me started with wildlife, and nature photo for my art work? The whole deal was under $1500. Will have to get shorter lenses later. Will motavate me to sell my art work to supply my photo, and art material habit.. :D

Jack

circular
08-24-2004, 03:08 PM
I know this is late in the game to ask this question, but concerning digitial camera's is there a particualr brand or setup that anyone would recommend to take photographs at night especially moonlit scenes. :confused: :cool:

francinekohn
08-24-2004, 03:42 PM
Canon. Great photos! Prior to the emergence of digital cameras, I took terrible photos. Thanks to Canon that's all in the past. Any of their models that have battery recharger. PowerShot SD100 and others. They provide excellent customer service, toll free phone number and friendly, helpful tech support using native American English (so they understand your question!).

Half Moon
08-25-2004, 01:26 PM
Thanks Francine :clap: I will pursue that idea :cool:

circular
08-25-2004, 01:30 PM
Thanks Francine I will pursue Canon. Now I just need to pursue the cash :p :cool:

muzza22au
09-12-2004, 11:42 AM
I am due for an upgrade from my existing camera and have been looking at the FujiFilm FinePix S5500 Zoom with 10X optical zoom!!! Does anyone have an opinion (good or bad) on this camera... I can buy it for approx $570 au...

Cheers

jbitzel
09-13-2004, 08:30 AM
Digital photography being my first love over acrylics. I own a Nikon D100 and if you like to micromanage your shots then definately go with a digital slr. However if you just want to take family photos and refrence pics then Kodak's CX and DX line are superb, my wife has a 6mp DX model and it operates fantastic, and alot more portable than my SLR. :wave:

muzza22au
09-13-2004, 08:53 AM
Digital photography being my first love over acrylics. I own a Nikon D100 and if you like to micromanage your shots then definately go with a digital slr. However if you just want to take family photos and refrence pics then Kodak's CX and DX line are superb, my wife has a 6mp DX model and it operates fantastic, and alot more portable than my SLR. :wave:

I currently have a Kodak CX3700 and I am using it to its limits, which becomes frustrating because I want more out of the camera like macro shots, good quality zooming, I take ALOT of landscape and sunset/rise photos aswell as any living creature that I come across... That is why I am thinking of the new Fuji finepix as I really like the 10X Optical zoom and the way the S5"" range of cameras feel in the hand! But I am curious about things like lense quality, ability to get add on lenses, and the quality that a 4mp camera would be as my old one is only 3.2 mp...

Some examples of the types of photos that I take are under My Photos in the signature bar... If that helps...

Cheers

Michael Rutherford
09-15-2004, 09:57 PM
How to pick a digital camera....By me>
One you have to ask yourself what are you going to use it for?
several possible answers are
snapshots to post on the web of my work
for my fulltime camera to take photos as reference for my paintings.
sports or fast moving nature subjects (birds butterflys etcetc.)
landscapes or slow non moving objects fruit in a bowl things like that etcetc.

Then you have to ask your self how big of an image do I need
for the web
4x6
5x7
8x10
11x14
16x20
or larger

All of these things are going to determine what kind of camera you buy.
First and foremost never buy a camera from online unless you know someone who already has one and you can play with theirs or theres a camera store near you and you can go in and play with that one. I feel that is is very important that you physically see and hold and use the camera before buying it. This has alot to do with personal taste. It may be heavy or light or too big for your hands or too small for your hands to use all the little buttons. This one you are on your own as it has alot to do with personal taste and convienice.
But to answer the questions above. if all you want to do is shoot small images for the web or an ocassional 4x6 then buy a cheaper camera no need to go in debt buying a thousand dollar job when a 200 dollar camera will do just fine. thi si smy chart.
web and 4x6 1.3 megapixel camera
5x7 8x10 2 or 3 megapixel camera
8x10 11x14 3 or 4 megapixel
11x14 16x20 4 to 6 megapixel
16x20 or larger 6 megapixel or better
dont buy into digitial hype alot of cameras have zoom lenses you are more interested in Optical quality not digital. It may have a 4x optical and a 100x digital wow sounds great i can zoom in 100 times digitally. You just got caught by the sales gimick dont buy into it. Digital zoom is the computer or cameras way of guessing dont buy a camera because of digital zoom.
Media cards there are many types.
Smart media seem to be thin and fragile there are also compatibility issues with older or smaller cameras in voltages of cards. They also have a metal contact that is not protected in my opinion this is not a good design and should be avoided.
Compact Flash somewhat larger but more well protected a good industry standard comes in larger sizes to hold more images no compatibility issues. this is the one to get.
SD cards postage stamp size once again newer technology similar to smart media more expensive in some cases to compariable sized comapct flash and too easy to loose.
Microdrives fit the same as compact flash make sure your camera supports Compact flash Type II cards a bit thicker card if so you can use a microdrive These are actual little hard drives with spinning platters if dropped can be damaged more fragile, cheaper for larger sizes makes it a good option but because of fragielness becareful with it
there are a few other propritary lke sony memory stick and others but stick with either the SD smart media or compact flash or microdrive
compact flash is my choice
things you may want to check are the speed of the camera and when i say that i mean how long does it take to take a picture once you touch the button some are faster than others this would depend on what kind of photography you are going to do. if its sports nature or kids then get the fastest one you can afford if its landscapes sunsets bowls of fruit thing like that then dont worry about the speed of the camera or how long it takes to react from the time you pres the shutter button to the time it takes a photo.
Batterys and battery life
you definately want a rechargeable battery system there are those that use double a batterys they also go thru them very quickly. Lithium is the best Cadmium or nickle metal hydride are next best
lithium doesnt build up a memory like the nickle metal ydride and cadmium batterys do over time of not properly chargeing and depleating them.
other accessories.
do you need other toys to add on like interchangeable lenses, filters, etcetc.
Interchagneable lenses on digital cameras usually increase the cost now your stepping up to a more professional SLR camera these are nice because not one lens does the job for everything. I have a few SLR digital cameras but all the same brnad so i can interchange any of the lenses i buy from the same manufacture. I personally have owned a Canon D30, Canon D60 and now Canon Mark II i can use all of my canon lenses on any of my cameras. Weather you decide canon nikon olympus sony or whoever relize that each company sells many different levels a cheap a mid range a prosumer and a professional model of their camera line.
Hope this helps a little and hope it makes you think before you buy. any questions give me a holler Thanks Mike :)

asy
10-01-2004, 08:01 PM
Hi all,

Well, I have finally got my new digital camera, and I thought I'd let you know what I bought and why...

I looked long and hard at the Canon 1d and eos series, and was all set, until... I saw the Panasonic Lumix range.

I have ended up buying a Panasonic Lumix
FZ20 (http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/vModelDetail?displayTab=O&storeId=11251&catalogId=11005&itemId=71418&catGroupId=17168&modelNo=DMC-FZ20K&surfModel=DMC-FZ20K).

It's just beautiful.

I bought it from This guy on ebay (http://cgi6.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=it2300&completed=0&sort=3&since=-1) . He was the cheapest I could find AND the only one who would guarantee delivery within the 4 days I had before I went on holidays! I paid $875 AUD including delivery. I bought it on Wednesday, and emailed the seller letting him know I was desperate for delivery (my fault, I had left it a little late...). I rang him thursday afternoon (in Hong Kong) to check whether he'd received my payment, and he told me that he had seen my email, so he checked especially for the payment, and since it was there, he shipped the camera immediately, and it was on it's way! Then I was able to track it through the post and it was delivered Monday morning!!! Unbelieveable!

I was looking at the FZ10, which is pretty much the same, except it's 4mp instead of 5, and whilst I don't really think I 'need' 5mp, it's only about an extra $50 at the moment, so I thought 'why not'!

The main features, for me, are that it's fully automatic, but has manual everything (for when I figure out how to use it all), it has 12x zoom, a large lcd screen which is VERY clear, and the main thing for me, OIS (Optical Image Stabilising) since my hands shake awfully. I am still finding some fuzzy photos, but nothing near what I was getting.

It's VERY easy to use, and very light, which is also a consideration for me since I find it very painful to carry anything heavy around my neck.

I will try to add a couple of my early photos here so you can see what it does. I just have to figure out how to properly resize them. (I was so excited with my photos I sent a few of them home to my partner (am on holidays without him :( ) and didn't realise I had sent him a 15meg email!!!)

asy_excited_with_camera :D

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/01-Oct-2004/31576-P1000080web.jpg

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/01-Oct-2004/31576-P1000118web.jpg

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/01-Oct-2004/31576-P1000085a.jpg

man from ironbark
10-03-2004, 07:29 PM
Rachel,

You're absolutely right. A lot of people when deciding on their budget for a first time purchase of a digital camera, tend to forget the processing costs of film and prints. If your an avid photographer, these costs can be considerable, and yet for the all-in cost of a digital camera and flash card you have virtually limitless images at no extra cost.

I'm sure you're going to enjoy your new toy! :)

This would be the main reason for me to purchase a digital camera.. processing expense has always been a problem but this cost has now gone through the roof.
Methinks you left a computer and printer out of the above equation though.
Because I want to utilize my Nikkor lenses and really I am an SLR type camera user, I think maybe my choice will be limited to either Nikon D70 or maybe even the D2. The D70 is currently on special in my local camera store. Now where do I find the money.. :(

man from ironbark
10-03-2004, 07:42 PM
Ah.. asy .. A friend recommended the lumix to me yesterday and here it is in your post for me to evaluate .. thank you.
I love the lenses on the lumix. I can see that this is a beautiful camera but digital zoom? I think I prefer to use optical in that department.

Still after all these years I have not yet ever been completely at ease with electronics in my camera. These are always the first components to fail, without fail.
My wife borrowed one camera for a holiday.. There was a lot of rain. I don't know what she did but the camera came back not functioning perfectly in the electronics section.
I know that on full manual my film camera's still work flawlessly. Even if I am limited to one shutter speed and manual meter/calculations, without a battery. To replace any one of my SLR's with digital will cost quite a lot of money. The last thing I really want is a camera that will not function due to electronic failure. Ever been right at the climax of a great novel .. and your reading light dies?

asy
10-04-2004, 05:45 AM
Ah.. asy .. A friend recommended the lumix to me yesterday and here it is in your post for me to evaluate .. thank you.
I love the lenses on the lumix. I can see that this is a beautiful camera but digital zoom? I think I prefer to use optical in that department.


Hiya Ironbark,

It's just a beautiful camera, I love it.

The 12x zoom is optical, there's also a 4x digi zoom, but I have it turned off, I'd rather crop where I want in ps than worry about digi zoom!

Here is another one for you, first full frame, then crop. The little guy's name is 'budgie', and he visits a friend of mine for dinner...

asy :D

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/04-Oct-2004/31576-P1000220web.jpg

Budgie, full frame.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/04-Oct-2004/31576-P1000220crop.jpg

Budgie, crop.

All of my photos so far were taken on about the middle resolution setting of the camera, by the way.

asy :D

man from ironbark
10-04-2004, 09:34 AM
but they are not budgies.
these are budgies (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/3749/bm-wild2.jpg)

asy
10-05-2004, 10:16 AM
I know he's not a budgie, he's a magpie...

his NAME is budgie!

by the way, great photo of the budgies, did you take it?

asy :D

man from ironbark
10-06-2004, 03:34 PM
Just as I know it is a magpie, yep.

I also have 200+ budgies in my own backyard ..but no. I have never bothered to take a photo.

In the wild? Well that is another matter.

kdkbrown
10-09-2004, 08:59 PM
I just bought the Nikon D70 Digital SLR. I absolutly love it! Here is two pics out of the box.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/09-Oct-2004/12318-PepperAnnmyfavaa.jpg

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/09-Oct-2004/12318-PepperAnn1aa.jpg

RiverLynn
11-07-2004, 11:22 PM
Hi!

I have 3 questions i'm hoping someone can answer...

Can someone tell me what I need to take photos of tiny details for pics to place on ebay? (I'm talking bare minium cost because things are tight right now.) Here's an example of an ebay auction photo for sculpture similar to what I do-

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dllViewItem&category=84626&item=5533655968&rd=1

If it doesn't work you can type "OOAK fairy" into the search and they'll come up.


Or is there anything i can do to take better photos with the one I have? It's an HP Photosmart 435 3.1 MP


My third question is- How did kdkbrown post a message on the 9th when it's only the 7th? Is Idaho on a different day then we are in AZ? I realize there's some pretty slow ppl here, but good grief!!! ... j/k :D lol But i do love your kittens - Absolutely adorable! :cat:


River

bobt54
11-14-2004, 12:50 AM
at 3.1 megapixels you should be able to get some pretty good detail. Make sure your camera is set to take the highest quality picture possible. With that quality you should then be able to crop it down to something usable.

If you really need really tiny detail then see if you can find someone with a macro lense on their camera.

Here are a few other alternatives, tho not necessarily recomendations.

Single use digital camera:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0307/03073101dakotadigital.asp

Do you have a good 35mm film camera. Even with one of the disposables, you should be able to take half way decent pics and then opt for the CD instead of or along with the prints when you take it to be developed.

In regards to your last question, please recheck the posting date of kdkbrown's post. I think you will find that it was posted last month.

bobt54
11-14-2004, 01:13 AM
I purchased a Canon S1 IS and I have been very happy with it. At the time my thought was that I wanted a camera for taking good low light shots and that I would be displaying all my pictures online. Up until recently, this camera has met all of my needs. Then I joined a camera club and I found that the camera I have does not have the megapixels to create anything but a good, not great, but good 8 x 10 picture. Anything above that is too pixelated. So in a year or two, I would like to invest in a digital SLR camera. A few that come to mind are the Canon Rebel and the Canon D20 priced at around $1000 and $1500 respectively. That was a bit rich for my blood, but since I have become very serious about my photography, I think it is an investment I will probably have to make, if I am to continue to improve.

Still, I love the camera I have. With the image stabilization, I am able to take some low light pictures handheld that others would need a tripod for. The 10x optical zoom really helps with image composition.

I recommend this camera to someone who has been taking pictures with point and shoot cameras and is ready to move up to something they can truly control. While it can go automatic, you will find that the really great pics you take are when you start to learn all of its features and put the thing on manual.

Once you get the hang of it you will find, with a few simple web searchs that there are a number of lenses, filters and other accessories you can buy for this camera.

Check out my pictures on my pbase site. You can also search Pbase for other members who also have this camera.

So if you want a great camera for taking digital only pictures, this is for you but if you want something for taking large prints, look for something with more megapixels than the S1 IS's 3.2 mp.

PS Here is an example of one of the pictures I took with this.

http://www.pbase.com/bobt54/image/32015628/large

RiverLynn
11-16-2004, 06:09 PM
at 3.1 megapixels you should be able to get some pretty good detail. Make sure your camera is set to take the highest quality picture possible. With that quality you should then be able to crop it down to something usable.

If you really need really tiny detail then see if you can find someone with a macro lense on their camera.

Here are a few other alternatives, tho not necessarily recomendations.

Single use digital camera:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0307/03073101dakotadigital.asp

Do you have a good 35mm film camera. Even with one of the disposables, you should be able to take half way decent pics and then opt for the CD instead of or along with the prints when you take it to be developed.

In regards to your last question, please recheck the posting date of kdkbrown's post. I think you will find that it was posted last month.

Thank you so much Bob!

[Ohhhhhhhhhhh... is it Nov already? ;) ]

droll13
11-23-2004, 11:34 AM
I stumbled across this thread by accident, and have read through most of the more recent postings. That has been pretty helpful but also incredibly confusing.

I'm a newbie considering moving up to a better camera. (Currently using a Sony Mavica FD95.) My price range is $500 to $800.

Here's what I use a camera for:

Landscapes
Beach scenes
Macros
Birds
volunteer team photographer for daughter's adult soccer team.

I'd like to start printing (up to legal size) some of the shots I like on my Epson.

I want to learn how to use the manual settings and not rely blindly on the automatic ones.

Given the kinds of shots I take, the wish to make good quality prints at home, and the urge to use manual settings more, I'm looking for some recommendations.

So far, here's what I think I should be looking for:

* Optical zoom of at least 8x, preferably 10x
* very good macro capabilities
* bracketing mode
* burst mode
* 5 megapixel or more

Other than this, I'm not sure what else I should consider. There are probably other features I should be aware of. And I really have no feel for which makes & models would suit me. I'd appreciate hearing what you all think.

Thanks.

meriadoc
11-23-2004, 09:21 PM
have a look at something like the nikon coolpix 8800, 8700, 5700 series.

The 8700 and 8800 have an 8x and 10x zoom respectively, and the 8800 has vibration reduction also. 8700 retails for around $800, the 8800 retails for around $1000 unfortunately.

If you can get a new 5700, its a 5megapixel (the 8700/8800 are 8 megapixel) with i think an 8x zoom. Its an older model, but i know some places still sell them - around $500-$700 depending on where you go.

droll13
11-24-2004, 07:02 AM
Thanks meriadoc - I appreciate the suggestions.

I stopped by one small local store yesterday - they had a very limited selection. But I did look at 2 of the 3 Nikons you mentioned. They had a 5700. Yes I think it's 8x and 5 megapixel. They show a sticker price of $699, but indicated they could come down a bit from that. They also had an 8700, for $799.

I imagine that 5 megapixel would suffice for my purposes, and I could probably accept the 8x zoom (compared to the 10x optical + 2x digital I now have), but of course we always want more.

I'll do some more hunting around and dreaming later today.

droll13
11-24-2004, 05:10 PM
My thanks again for this thread.

I think I've narrowed it down to 2 choices:

1) Minolta Dimage Z3, 4 megapixels, 12x optical zoom, around $500 list.

2) Panasonic Lumix FZ20, 5 megapixel, 12x optical zoom, around $600 list.

I'm leaning towards the Lumix because of the higher megapixel. And I've found a local shop that promised to order it for me for $550.

shu246
11-25-2004, 10:35 PM
have ordered panasonic lumix fz20; delivery expected immenently. immediate impetus for purchase was loss of our olympus d510 (2.1mpx, 3x optical) while travelling. our particular needs are: 1) photograph various subjects (flowers, wild life, street scenes, etc) as subjects for wife's watercolors; 2) photograph wife's watercolors for reproduction as prints.

for first need, wife continually complained pictures with the d510 lacked detail. to overcome that, i wanted more pixels and more zoom.

for second need, printing 300dpi on 11 x 17 inch paper, i wanted more pixels and storage in .tif format (as detail is lost when manipulating images stored in .jpg).

i wanted 10x optical zoom and 6+mpx. in addition, i wanted power by ordinary AA batteries and no more than $500.00 for camera (exclusive of the extra memory, filters, etc which would be needed).

after reviewing the players at the buyers guide http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp
it seemed i was not going to get that. olympus (c-750, c-765, c-770) had the zoom and .tif, but not the megapixels. the minolta dimages lacked .tif storage. but mostly, 11x17 inches at 300 dpi means 16.8 mpx! ccd photorecptors in the common run of digital cameras stop at 5 mpx; some with 6 mpx. to get anything like 16.8 mpx would mean a ccd twice as large; bigger camera, bigger lenses, probably at least 4x the cost. it just was not going to happen.

i would have to live with 5 or 6 mpx. i found that by accepting proprietary batteries (giving up the requirement for power by AA cells) i could get 12x optical zoom and 5 mpx with the panasonic lumix fz20. the extra zoom would add detail otherwise available only with more pixels. the fz20 has data storage in .tif as well as .jpg. list price is 599.00; street price close to 500.00.

i found forum boards at
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/
and
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/
which showed a lively and satisfied ownership of the panasonic lumix line.

i was sold.

droll13
11-26-2004, 07:54 AM
Thanks for your post, shu246.

I've reached the same conclusion (I'm hoping to buy my FZ20 today) for many of the same reasons:

#1 priority was good zoom (current camera has 10x optical)
#2 was higher resolution, preferably 7 megapixels or more (currently have 2.1)
#3 wanted burst & bracketing
#4 good macro capability
#5 I wanted lots of manual controls (not because I know how to use them, but because I want to learn)
#6 price range was around $500

I too learned that I could get top resolution or ultra zoom, but not both. After reading lots of reviews, I narrowed my choices down to a short list: Fuji FinePix S5100, Konica DiMage Z3, and Lumina FZ20.

The Fuji was the first of these 3 to be voted off the island. Several reviews mentioned noticeable vignetting. This, combined with just 4 megapixel resolution, was enough to offset the lower price.

I eliminated the DiMage mainly for the lower resolution and because of reviews reporting just average picture quality, poor low-light focusing, and a card slot cover likely to break easily.

This left me with the FZ20. At least one reviewer said Panasonic is the clear leader in the Ultra Zoom category. The FZ20 is supposed to have better photo quality than most of its competition. It has most of what I want, and there is very little that I want that it doesn't have. Of course it's the most expensive of the 3, but I think will be worth it.

So far I've only found one store locally that has it in stock, and their price is $599. Another place will order it for me for $549 (but I may be going to a soccer tournament this weekend and would like to have the camera today). I'll brave the crowds and look around today to see if I can beat the $599 price.

droll13
11-27-2004, 02:34 PM
FWIW, here's what I decided on...

I went with the Panasonic Lumix model DMC-FZ20PP. Itís way too soon for a full analysis, but so far Iím very happy with it.

Some of the features:

5.0 megapixels
12x optical zoom, 4x digital (which I have turned off)
It will accept 2 conversion lenses:
* Telephoto
* Wide angle
Still photo formats:
* JPEG (standard and fine)
* TIFF
Movie mode (which Iíll probably never use)
Auto-bracketing
Burst mode (up to 3 fps)
Many pre-defined modes:
* Portrait
* Sports
* Scenery
* Night Scenery
* Night Portrait
* Panning
* Fireworks
* Party
* Snow
Macro capabilities as close as 5 cm with the standard lens, down to 1 cm with the optional wide lens)
Full manual controls (not that I know how to use them)
Uses SD Memory cards

It came with a massive 16 MB SD card (wow Ė thatís enough to hold 5 JPGs in fine res, 11 JPGs in standard res, and 0 TIFFS). So I bought two 512 MB cards. I also got an extra battery.

Total cost (before mail-in rebates) was under $725 Ė not too bad.

coachgns
11-28-2004, 11:25 AM
I am in the market to move up from my Point & Shoot. Was not aware of the Panasonic FZ20 - but now that I saw your comments & read about it elsewhere, looks like a good choice.

What kind of software comes with it?
Have you tried it on Macro yet?

Thanks

droll13
11-29-2004, 08:08 AM
I am in the market to move up from my Point & Shoot. Was not aware of the Panasonic FZ20 - but now that I saw your comments & read about it elsewhere, looks like a good choice.

What kind of software comes with it?
Have you tried it on Macro yet?

Thanks
So far I'm happy with it. I would have preferred another megapixel or two, but 5 isn't bad for my usual purposes.

Here's a list of the SW that comes with it, plus brief descriptions quoted from the user's manual. I haven't looked at any of the SW packages yet - I have others that I use for the same purposes.

SD Viewer Version 2.0 for DSC (Windows only)
Thumbnail of the pictures in the memory card can be displayed. In addition, a SlideShow for playback on TV monitor can be created easily.

ArcSoft Software Suite (Editing and processing software)
ArcSoft PhotoBase
Software which enables catalogue-making by bundling files together containing still pictures, etc.

ArcSoft PhotoImpression
Editing, processing and printing of still pictures can be done. Pictures can be stored in albums.

ArcSoft Panorama Maker
It is possible to combine several still pictures to make panoramic photos.

QuickTime (Picture playback software)

I shot a few quick macros the other day - works well.

What I found really useful today at my daughter's soccer tournament was the burst mode. I'm the amateur photographer for the team. Given the delays (shutter lag, prefocusing, etc.) I often took pics just a second too late, or when I overcompensated, too early. With the burst mode, as long as I hold the shutter down, it can keep going until the card is full (or I can set it to take just 3 consecutively), so I'll miss fewer shots of the action.

Another useful feature is the Sports mode. It automatically sets shutter speed & aperture for the best results when taking pictures of outside sports. I've also played around with the Auto-Bracketing mode (takes 3 photos - one at the set exposure, one lighter, and one darker (you can control how much lighter and darker. This should work well in low-light situations.

Now I gotta start saving up for the Telephoto conversion lens.

romans611
12-02-2004, 11:32 AM
I have been in photography for 20+ years (not a professional, but a serious amateur). Up till now it has all been in film (35mm, 645, and 4x5). I just recently made the jump to digital by purchasing a Nikon D70.

I knew I was making a major (long term) investment. I keep my cameras for years. I bought my Mamiya 645 in 1980 and still use it. However, the first limiting factor is cost Ė had to be under $2000. This eliminated the top end cameras. After that, my primary criterion was a balance between cost and image quality. Other features are nice, but image quality is where the rubber meets the road. Being able to upload custom curves is nice, but if the noise level is too high the quality photo is lost.

From what I have read, even though there are many cameras that can take great low noise photos at lower ISOs, the DSLRs can take quality photos at higher settings. That narrowed the decision significantly - down to 2 cameras (Nikon D70 and Canon Rebel). If you get the better zoom lens for the Canon rebel (and you should Ė the kit lens is the week link), the price between the Rebel and the D70 are about the same. The choice between Canon and Nikon was difficult since the image quality is basically then same (at ISO 200). Canon may have a slight edge since it has a 100 ISO setting. However, after reading various end user reviews, it appeared that the Canon has slightly more manufacturing problems (more complaints/returns) than Nikon. Since I was buying via the web, I did not want to hassle with returns. I imagine I would have been happy with the Canon also.

I did not let the features play a major role in the decision. Both cameras have adequate controls and options (although Nikon has more variations in settings and control). Keep in mind, I plan to shot in RAW mode, so I can make changes to the image on the computer.

I am pleased with the photos. Next I need to purchase a photo quality

shu246
12-05-2004, 10:58 PM
Have had the Panasonic Lumix FZ20 about 4 days now. I am not familiar with any comparable models (nor had I touched the FZ20 before ordering it).

I found the buttons and menu well laid out. The expected manual controls (shutter, aperture, 'film' speed, and focus) are all there as well as some thoughtful and welcome tweeks (offsetting exposure or flash, bracketing exposure, tuning white balance).

After re-visiting the alternatives (to fend off buyer's remorse) the FZ20 does seem to be the apex of both pixels and optical zoom in its class; the best available without going to a larger body and expensive interchangeable lenses.

I have only three negative observations:

1) The lens hood could be better designed. Most folks will want to mount a skylight or uv filter in front of the lens, if for no other reason than to shield the inevitable dust and finger prints. On the FZ20 this would be mounted not directly to the lens (which moves forward a fixed distance when the camera is turned on) but to an adapter which extends the lens shroud ahead of the lens stopping point. The adapter which comes with the camera extends both wider and farther than necessary. Third party adapters are available (pemaraal, phayee) which are shorter and narrower. Smaller (less expensive) filters are thus mounted closer to the lens (minimizing problem of light reflections in the cavity between filter and lens).

2) The auto-focus assist light could be better placed. This light comes on under low available light to assist in auto-focus. I favor holding the camera with two hands, left hand wrapped around the lens, which blocks the light. Actually, this would not be a problem with the camera alone, or with the Panasonic adapter (see above). However I bought (sight unseen) the pemaraal aluminum adapter (they do have a plastic one) which proved to be quite heavy, creating the need for the supporting left hand.

3) The memory card door could be better placed. The camera comes with a battery charger, but not a DC adapter to power the camera from 110v AC. As I want check my work on the memory card frequently, and do not want to connect camera to computer by battery power, I pull the memory card and put it in a reader at the computer. Much of my work is copying, with camera mounted on tripod. The camera must be dismounted to remove the memory card.

mckittre
12-08-2004, 12:30 AM
I just purchased the Canon digital rebel, and am very happy with it. It was a difficult choice between this camera and the Nikon D70. I agree with romans611 that image quality is the most important thing. I think both the D70 and digital rebel are good cameras, and relatively affordable for DSLRs. I ended up going with the Canon mostly because their current rebate offer made it significantly cheaper, allowing me to purchase better lenses (I didn't get the kit lens). I also had a canon camera before, so I already knew some of the controls. I shoot most of my pictures on RAW these days, so I also had to get myself a 1GB card to go with it.

Eisenhower
12-27-2004, 01:27 AM
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/13-Apr-2002/gear2.jpg

I began shooting digital photography 4 years ago with the Nikon 900s because I had enjoyed 35mm Nikon gear in the past (N8008) and because of it's superior optics and swivel design. Back in '98 I read many comparisons online and printed out a lot of test shots from several cameras and none of them could expose or capture detail like the Nikon. I eventually upgraded to the 950 (2.1mp), then came the 990 (3.3mp). I use the 950 for near infrared photography (the 990 isn't IR sensitive enough for me and the 950 is one of the best for IR) and the 990 for everything else, mostly macro. (I believe it is considered the best digital camera for macro photography, you can get so close you have to back off or you'll block the light! The lenses and filters all work well with either camera. The spotting scope turns the built in 35-115 mm lens into a 920 mm wonder! My motto: Get the best. That way you'll always be happy with it!

Some recent examples:

990 Macro: Poppy Innards
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/14-Apr-2002/9poppy2.jpg

950 IR: Horsetails
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/14-Apr-2002/4IRhorsetails.jpg


Incredible pictures. Your post was in 2002, so what is the newest Nikon that would do great IR and Macro and night? I was also considering the Lumix FZ20 because of the Leica lense and glad to see people writing about it here, but I was surprised to see these pics using a Nikon 950 and 990. What is comparible now that it is almost 2005?

Thanks for posting the pics.
Kelly

greendragon
12-27-2004, 05:27 PM
OK, I have a stupid question. I currently have a HP Photosmart 318, which is 2.3mg (I think) and does pretty well. However it lacks certain features I need:

1. at least 3.0 Mg capability
2. Optical zoom at least of 3x
3. Macro ability (able to focus on really close objects)
4. NO delay on shooting (mine delays 2 seconds, it drives me CRAZY)!!

And features I want (but probably can't afford right now):
5. SLR
6. add-on lens capability for zoom, etc.

Now, does anyone have a recommendation that fits at least the needs? All four of the needs are non-negotiable, I do need them.

Also, does anyone know the technical term for #4??? I can't find what this feature is called in the 'specs', and it is very important for action shots!

Thank you so much!!!

droll13
12-27-2004, 05:41 PM
I believe #4 would be either "shutter lag" and/or the required time for pre-focusing.

Sorry, but I can't give you any knowledgeable recommendations. Maybe others can (but you might get more appropriate responses if you could give us an idea of your price range).

I do know that I love my Panasonic Lumix FZ20 - it exceeds your minimum requirements for both resolution and zoom, has a very good macro mode, and 2 additional lenses (wide angle and telephoto) will be available in a couple of months. However, in some conditions it does have a noticeable delay for prefocusing, and there's nothing that can change that - I think all digital cameras will have this characteristic to some degree.

greendragon
12-27-2004, 06:36 PM
Well, my price range is under $400... my main purpose for photos is for making prints for sale, and so far my max size has been 5X7 -- I want at least up to 11X14 capability. I'm also looking into stock photo possibilities (selling to stock photo companies, that is), and they need the higher mps.

I understand that there will be SOME lag, since the camera needs to evaluate the situation and adjust, but if you have a particular mode on (outside, low light, sports, etc.), does the lag practically go away? My current camera has no modes, so this is a new area to me! :D

Thanks!

evelyne62
12-27-2004, 08:31 PM
First i lost everything i wrote down i want to give you a website that is very good before you buy a digital camera their are people who are giving you advise what camera for what use It will help you to buy your camera let me give you the website.

http://www.steves-digicams.com

Crias
12-27-2004, 09:24 PM
Well, my price range is under $400... Thanks!

I do not think you will find a camera without noticable lag in your price range at this time (maybe in a few years). The DSLR have essentually no lag, but are still well over $400.

terryb31
12-28-2004, 10:56 PM
I purchased a minolta z 1 this summer and love it has great battery life about three hours on just the veiw finder and also uses double a battries doing away with those annoying rechargables

terryb31
12-28-2004, 10:58 PM
I purchased a minolta z 1 this summer and love it has great battery life about three hours on just the veiw finder and also uses double a battries doing away with those annoying rechargables the only draw back to the newer cams is the plastic housings the old 35mm s had a solid metal frame this new stuff all seemes to be plastic

greendragon
12-30-2004, 11:44 AM
Actually, I did a lot of research in cameras in the 3-5MgP range and the 3x-12x Optical zoom range. If anyone wants my spreadsheet, email me and I'll send it to them (greendragon@bellsouth.net). I listed camera, MgP, Optical zoom, Digital zoom, macro (y/n), battery type, weight, f/stop, and price.

I ended up bidding and winning on a Minolta Dimage Z1, which has 3.1 MgP, and 10x Optical zoom (4x Digital zoom, but that part is not important, as I do postwork in Photoshop). I got it on ebay for $150 -- now I can afford the wide lens and extra memory cards!!! :D

It even uses AA rechargeables, which is what I had for my old camera. It's lightweight (10.8oz without batteries) which is important to me. Can't wait to get it and use it!!!

Aqua Artist
01-01-2005, 02:09 PM
I haven't been here for a about a year and used to hang out in the watercolor and color pencil area, but now that I have a great camera I rarely pick up the brush or pencil and yearn for a wacom!
I just got the Canon Digital Rebel less than a year ago after having a canon S10 and a canon G3 it has caused me to cross over from using the camera mainly as a referenece tool to now becoming a serious photographer. The Rebel takes amazing photos and makes crisp beautiful prints (mine are 12X18) I have entered and won many online photo contest with this camera and presently doing some magazine work. Have been an artist all my life so the evolution from artist-photographer is a natural transition and the creative editing is much like sitting at the canvas..digital art is an amazing new medium that I am throughly enjoying! I use Photoshop 7 and various plug-ins.
Anyway, got the Rebel for $600 on e-bay with the kit and prime lens and I highly recommend it. If you don't plan to do any professional work I would recommend the canon G series.

ElGeeko
02-24-2005, 09:14 PM
Personal update: Broke my HP850 at my sons' wedding in September, bought a Canon Digital Rebel (300D) in December as my Christmas gift to myself. Found a camera on eBay offered by an upgrading professional, came with the original kit lens (yes, it's soft, but sometimes I like that) plus a 24-85 and 70-210 zooms from Canon, and a 2X teleconverter, all for $710. Got three 1GB CF cards, a couple UV filters for each lens, and a circular polarizer. Price was right, spoke to the seller before I ever bid on it... he shot around a thousand actuations, still practically brand new. He had ordered himself a 20D, so he wanted the DR out the door... I was convinced he was truthful, and the camera arrived looking as if it had just come out of the box.

eBay isn't for everyone, used equipment is always a crapshoot, but for that rare seller willing to give you the time to make a rational decision, it really does pay off!

Since my old Nikon lenses would never work on the new digital SLR Nikons, I sold those to a pal, and still have the Pentax 6X7. Once I can afford it, I'll get a full frame digitalSLR (probably the Canon 1Ds MarkII) and the Pentax will be permanantly retired, too.

I also got a Canon i960 printer and Canon s9000 printer, both used, from an eBay seller for $100 shipped. I had to replace the printhead on the s9000, but luckily (and by my intent to purchase same) the newer Canon printers have user-replaceable printheads. I took my old Epson over to my brothers place and we shot it up with 12 gauges.... I had planned to take before and after photos, but there was no after... nothing but a fairly small pile of plastic.

No more 35 dollar cartridges!

Angi Caples
02-28-2005, 01:56 AM
I am currently still shooting 35mm. I have a Canon Rebel 2000, and I love it. I have been looking into buying the Canon digital rebel mainly because the lenses that I have bought for my rebel 2000 can be used with the digital rebel.

I am starting a photography business, and I am trying to find out which is best....digital or film. For fine portraits, can a 6mp digi do the job or would a bigger mp camera be better? I'm also considering a medium format camera, but wondering if it is worth it, since things are going to digital.

thanks !
angi

meriadoc
02-28-2005, 12:53 PM
its all a matter of personal preference. 6mp would be fine for portraits, an 8 won't be that much of a difference IMO.

as for the digital rebel - wait a while, prices have already started to drop as there is a new rebel coming out in a couple months.

ElGeeko
02-28-2005, 10:18 PM
I think a lot depends on the intended final print size. I'm finding that 13"x19" is pushing it, with a 6.3 MP camera.

If you'll never print anything larger than 8X10, NOW is the time to get a DRebel... Canon recently released their new Rebel, the XT, and prices on the original Rebel are falling through the floor.

meriadoc
02-28-2005, 10:24 PM
uhh, you shoot with what? the rebel?

i've easily gotten 16x20 without much hassle, in order to get some quality prints, all ya gotta do is some creative resampling in photoshop, or get genuine fractals and upsize with their program.

heck, i've seen 20x30 inch files from a D30! and thats a 3 megapixel camera.

ElGeeko
03-01-2005, 03:17 PM
uhh, you shoot with what? the rebel?

i've easily gotten 16x20 without much hassle, in order to get some quality prints, all ya gotta do is some creative resampling in photoshop, or get genuine fractals and upsize with their program.

heck, i've seen 20x30 inch files from a D30! and thats a 3 megapixel camera.


Yup, so have I... and they weren't real good 20X30s. I try to print at 200dpi, preferably 300dpi... at 3072X2048 native resolution for the DRebel, that's a 10X6.8 inches.

Purely a matter of opinion.. I've printed plenty at 13X19, and was satisfied with the results. Many people print at 100dpi, and hey, more power to them. However, Angi did say 'fine' portraits and mentioned a medium format camera, which implies a pretty serious portraiture.

Especially if she plans on doing this professionally.... I would go with the largest sensor I could afford, for professional portraits. I know those cameras are around 5 thousand or more.... but it IS an investment, and can be an income tax deduction for the business, as well.

Personally, I'd go for a medium format film camera, like a 6X7 (Pentax is my favorite), and in a couple years, move to digital. Right now, prices on ALL film cameras are dropping like rocks, because everyone is moving to digital. I've seen eBay auctions where people get a 6X7 for $300, with a lens or two, and probably pick up a digital film scanner while they're at it.

Oh, and I have used fractals several times... but again, I'm very careful... they claim 1600% size crops are possible, and I've never gone over 200%... even then, I see the artifacts from the resize. It can definitely help, but considering both the cost of photo paper AND ink, I'd rather make sure I am printing only the best I can produce.

No offense is intended here... these settings are ONLY mine opinion.... everyone is going to have their preferences. I do not use a loupe like the pros do, to search for tiny imperfections... my prints hang on the wall until I'm either sick of looking at them, or I print another one. My Canon printers do not make the best archival prints, however, that is something I knew from the get-go.... I'm still happier with them, than my old Epson.

aquarius7
03-02-2005, 08:00 AM
Hello from Greece.
I have a small miracle,a Pentax Optio S41.Excellent toy!
I shall try for a second hand Canon 10D.
I think if you want a camera for all seasons,days,nights etc,the small digitals are very good but if you want a camera for serious work,junp to DSLR.
Be creative.
kostas

dcolb121
03-04-2005, 10:26 AM
Hi everyone...great thread...

I'm on my 4th digicam right now, and while not going to recommend any particular brand, I will say what features I try to keep in mind.

1. Optical zoom. To me, digital zoom isn't very useful. At least a 3x will do for the optical.

2. Batteries it uses. These really small cameras are nice, but usually contain proprietary batteries that are expensive to replace or have a spare of. I look for one using AA's and always make sure they're NimH (nickel metal hydride) with a rating of at least 2100 (digicams luuuuv power). If they ever die while your using the camera, you can buy regular AA's just about anywhere.

3. Start up time. Very aggravating waiting 5 seconds for the camera to "boot" while the pic you're trying to capture is running away.

4. Focal range. Macro is macro...I'm talking about the range in normal mode...the closer the better and the wider the better (even with some fisheyeing).

5. Response time. Meaning when I press the shutter, how quickly the camera responds and takes the pic...I had one that took almost a second from press to response...couldn't hardly catch anything quick with out trying to predict what would happen next.

6. LCD display. Seems as the cameras get smaller, they rely on the back display for everything. I'm talking about the small LCD on top that shows just the basics (quality, number of pics, battery status...that kind of thing).

I didn't mention resolution, but anything over 4 megs is fine by me. Although I was told by one guy that if you buy a camera with anything over 3 megs, you're stupid (his words)...of course he was just into simple snapshots with no editing...so I was stupid cuz he was ignorant...lol...

Anything I missed?

Later...

Don

ArtistJensen
03-07-2005, 04:19 AM
Great thread. I'm one of the stupid guys that went over the 3.0 megapixels. I've one Canon Powershot S70 with 7.2 megapixel. I like the metal design and overall quality very much. It has all possible manul controls and the different automatic programs are working well too. It has a lot of possibilities packed into a relatively small camera. I can also shoot in RAW format with this one. That is great for manipulation and retouching with no loss of quality. The main drawback with the JPG format is that you loose quality whenever you save the file. Not much - but still.
The only thing I miss is a larger zoom and bigger aperture. I will buy me a digital SLR camera too one day. I miss the SLR possibilites, lenses and stuff I have with my old filmbased Nikon SLR. But the SLR cameras are much bigger so I will keep my small S70 camera anyway. It fits in the pocket and are going with me all the time.

Kanvas61
03-25-2005, 08:31 AM
Hi, it would be a great service to future digital camera buyers, to read the experiences of those of us whom have already selected and bought one. Have you bought a digital camera? Do you like it? Any regrets? What would you have done differently? Which camera do you wish you had bought? What looks good to you, now? Could you show us a sample pic from your camera? Is there something that you can't do with it, that you wish you could? Do you have another question that I should be asking? Many Thanks!
Hi, I use a digital camera called Samsung Digimax V5, it's a 5 megapixel camera and i use a Panasonic 256 Mb memory-chip. I bought it in Portland summer 2004 when I and my family spent our holiday in Port Orchard...somewhere not to far from Seattle in Washington. The camera takes great picture...even if your hand "shakes a little bit" when you shoot the picture. No regret. Price: Ca. 350 USD...256 Mb chips included. This chip can store 100 pictures (Picture size 2560 x 1920)....100 pics taken in daylight will "eat" approximately 4 AA batteries (no-chargeable). I will by batteries that can be re-charged, saves you a lot of battery-costs. When the memorychip is full, or whenever you like, you put the chip in a chip-reader (most printers have one) and move your pics from chip to computer by using the explorer in your computer. Since summer 2004 I guess I've shot 1000 - 2000 pics.
I can't focus and "do magic" with the digimax V5 as with my Canon EOS, but I can take endless amount of excellent pictures with no more than the batterycosts. I LOVE IT. :-) It's the first time I'm in here....don't know how to send in pics her....but will check it out.
In my opinion: the more megapixels the better....I want the picture of todays moment to be shown as clear as possible in the future. Good Luck!

azur
03-26-2005, 11:33 AM
:wave: Hey!
I have a new Canon A95 5 megapixel camera that I love. I researched on the web quite heavily before buying, incuding this site and CNET.com which is very informative. I was nervous about it but once I did a lot of research I was certain that this was the camera for me and it has not disappointed me so far and I have it about a month. I am still learning all the details about all the shooting modes and don't understand the zoom feature yet but it is really fairly easy to use compared to how fancy it looks.

I also have a new computer that came with a free printer. It is a Canon ip1500 PIXMA and it is great also. I think they only cost about $50.00 but it has really surprised me on the quality of the prints and I am thrilled wiht how inexpensive the ink cartridges are. I am sold :clap: on Canon products!

Dentan
04-06-2005, 01:23 AM
I used to own a Sony F707 which had 5.0 megapixels and the photos were quite decent. Now I am using a Sony 828 which has 8.0 megapixels. Now I am able to have files that are 25mb in RBG format. It is quicker than the previous models and I love the way the lens rotate up and down with little effort.

You can see my photos at www.fotop.net/Dentan
There are close to 4,00 shots there.

Den

only1tomb
04-15-2005, 04:52 PM
I started out with the Nikon N-80 SLR camera, moved up to the F-100 (still have the N-80) but my wife and I wanted the best of both worlds. We knew we wanted another Nikon and being that photography is very important to us, we wanted the best they had to offer. We decided on the D-70 and we are both thrilled with it. It's 6.1 mp and they come out, both on the computer and printed, extremely nice. It has many nice features, too many to go into here, and the lenses from our other Nikons are interchangeable with it, as is the mounted flash. It costs about $1200 so if you're really into photography or money is not an issue, it's most definitely the one I would recommend. Attached is a photo taken of a covered bridge in West Virginia. When I upload the images i can enlarge them over and over before any pixels start showing. You don't have to be a professional to use this camera, though many professionals do. Hope I've added some insights and helpful information to this link.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/Community/images/15-Apr-2005/21997-covered_bridge_upload.jpg

Al Combs

jonquil
05-30-2005, 05:12 PM
I just got a Canon digital rebel XT (released in March I think). It is an 8 mp...and is compatible with my existing canon lenses. Has anyone had any experience with this model?

christyc82
07-13-2005, 07:39 PM
I have the first one they released, Canon rebel that is, and LOVE it. I wish I had held off the 2 years and got the 8 mp...but honestly the 6.5 (or 5.6 whatever it is, my mind is blank right now) is awesome...and I love it. Just w/ this one, Ive blown up 1x1 inch crops of areas up to a 8x10 and had no blur at all..so its great for my digital work. You'll love it...Canon makes awesome products

Sceptre
08-07-2005, 10:45 AM
The camera I use is a Olympus C5050 zoom 5mp though it has rather more bells and whistles than I use. After a years ownership I am still finding things I did not know it could do. The build quality and performance are great, although to get the best prints I now take pictures in RAW mode and make any adjustments on the computer. Two annoying things with it are the lens cap that has to be removed before switching on, otherwise you risk damaging the lens mechanism and the delay between pressing the shutter button and the shutter actually firing. If I take the SLR route I would like another Olympus but am not sure about the 4/3 lens system they have adopted. There does not seem to be much enthusiasm for this system from other makers as yet.

Bergere
04-28-2008, 10:10 AM
Olympus Evolt 510...

Why.. wanted a better digital camera and to get away from 35mm film. To take better photo fodder for my paintings.

However.. it has grown into a side hobby over this last year.

I did have to send the camera back because of an up load firmwear issue.
Customer service is out standing.
It is working better but .....

I bought this camera at the time because it had the features I was looking for, price and the lenses.
Can shoot in RAW, RAW&SHQ, SHQ which is just as good as RAW in some shots, HQ and so on.

Only one draw back and if I had known at the time both about the camera,( which I did check out every review at the time) and that I was going to expand... I would of kept on looking.
For one big reason.. this camera is junk for low light.
I go to horse shows and in the young persons classes one is not allowed to use flash of any kind.
No matter how I have the Evolt 510 set up..it is horrible with mid/low light action shots.
My old Nikon is much better at handling such shots.
And the old 35mm had no issues...but then I knew that camera in and out.

The Evolt 510 is a nice camera.. takes outstanding sunset photos, macro and any shots not done in low or mid light.

So is there a DSL camera out there that is good to great in low light actions shots...that isn't going to break the bank?

Printmakerguy
04-28-2008, 05:30 PM
My canon is GREAT in low light, as long as I use the correct lens- Something FAST, like the 50mm f/1.8, or the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. They both do some amazing things in low light.

I suspect that you can get similar results out of just about any make/model SLR as long as you have the proper lens!

-Andrew

Bergere
04-30-2008, 09:11 AM
The lenses I use the most is ..
Zuiko
14-42 can go from f/1.3-to-f/5.6
and
40-150mm , can go from f/1.4 to f/5.6
As per what is on the lense but what I see on the web site for F-stop is different. hummm..
and

ZUIKO DIGITAL
ED 18-180mm F3.5-6.3

Was told the smaller one is faster.

Here is what they offer..

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/lens/dea/products/lens/index.asp

Any recommendations would be great.

karate0kat
04-30-2008, 11:19 AM
I'm glad there is a thread about this, maybe someone here can help me. My grandpa gave me his old digital camera a couple years ago. I've found that I really really enjoy photography, but the camera is very cheap. The resolution isn't very good, the zoom is fairly weak and if I use it the images are even worse quality. I have to use a tripod most of the time because everything gets blurry if I don't, and I have fairly steady hands but it's really uber sensitive to movement.

The problem is while I'm an art major I haven't taken my photography classes yet, so I don't really understand a lot of the technical jargon. I've tried to do some research, but I have a hard time understanding technology without an actual person teaching me. So I know what I want to be able to do, I just don't know what I need to do it.

I would like to be able to 'point and shoot'. I do a lot of walking around outside and shooting whatever I see, so having to carry a tripod is kind of a pain in the butt. I would like something that produces high resolution images. Something that has a really good zoom and/or allows for close up detail shots would be great.

If someone could point me in a good direction that would be great. I'm a student so I don't have unlimited funds, but I do have some left over financial aid that I can use. Somewhere around $500 or less would be ideal (less would be very ideal) but I could probably go a little higher for the right camera if needed.

karate0kat
04-30-2008, 01:52 PM
OK, in looking around on line I think that I've found a camera that looks promising to me, but as I said before I don't really know what I'm talking about, so if anyone is familiar with this camera and wants to voice an opinion that would be great.

It's the Olympus SP-57OUZ

Full list of specifications can be found here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Olympus/oly_sp570uz.asp

droll13
04-30-2008, 05:33 PM
...
I would like something that produces high resolution images. Something that has a really good zoom and/or allows for close up detail shots would be great.
...

As I've probably mentioned elsewhere, my Panasonic Lumix FZ20 has proven very good at both ultra close-up shots and shots requiring a good zoom. It has a Leica lens, a 12X optical zoom, and an outstanding macro mode. The FZ20 is several years old and probably not retailed anymore, but I'll bet the newer models in the same line are as good as - or probably better than - the older FZ20.

shootydog
05-20-2008, 12:10 PM
I have the go ahead on purchasing a new camera and I have it narrowed to 3 models.

Canon Digital Rebel XT w/ 18-55 ef S lens $449.00

Canon Digital Rebel XTi wi/18-55 ef s lens $674.95

Nikon D60 w 18-55 VR lens $699.00

Now I am leaning towards the Nikon as I have always been a Canon person and never used a NIkon. Curiosity I suppose.

Regardless of the body chosen....would it be a good idea to get a different lens other than the "stock" lens? If I buy the XT I have a few extra dollars for a second lens available. Mind you, Im on a budget but its flexible so I could move up a few bucks to make the choices easier.

And if anyone can find a better price it would be much appreciated. :)

jonquil
05-20-2008, 06:59 PM
I wouldn't know the answer to the stock lens question, but I do now that Canon tends to shoot "faster" and Nikon has better clarity... I have used both my Digital Rebel and a Nikon D50 at football games and the Canon gets better action shots. (I guess it depends on your subject matter).