[ WAY ot ;] Digital cameras

I've noticed that some here are into digital photography.
I'm beginning to look for a camera.
I suspect I would be "lowest common denominator" of
"Brownie" and "Instamatic".

Comments ( as he ducks ) &/or recommendations please.
[ rowlett@atlascomm.net is valid address - if heavily filtered ]

Hello Richard,
You have asked about one of my favorite topics. Usually when one asks me
about selecting a camera, I inquire about the types of pictures one wishes
to take and how he plans to use them.

You can think about breaking down the total set of digital cameras into 3
basic categories:

1) Digital SLRs

2) Prosumer

3) Point&Shoot

A couple of good sites are:

http://www.dpreview.com/

http://luminous-landscape.com/

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

http://www.normankoren.com/

http://www.bythom.com/

Also a good way to learn about this is to find and join a local photo club.

But please write back with what types of pictures you desire to take, and we
may be able to help guide in reducing the camera choices down to something
reasonable.  But you will have to watch out for "lens lust disease." I
already have 7 cameras and a pile of lenses.

Some of my pics are here:

http://personal.atl.bellsouth.net/p/h/physics/


Later,

Clay




"Richard Owlett" <rowlett@atlascomm.net> wrote in message
news:10qa69t9r4kv9c3@corp.supernews.com...
> I've noticed that some here are into digital photography.
> I'm beginning to look for a camera.
> I suspect I would be "lowest common denominator" of
> "Brownie" and "Instamatic".
>
> Comments ( as he ducks ) &/or recommendations please.
> [ rowlett@atlascomm.net is valid address - if heavily filtered ]

"Richard Owlett" <rowlett@atlascomm.net> wrote in message
news:10qa69t9r4kv9c3@corp.supernews.com...
> I've noticed that some here are into digital photography.
> I'm beginning to look for a camera.
> I suspect I would be "lowest common denominator" of
> "Brownie" and "Instamatic".
>
> Comments ( as he ducks ) &/or recommendations please.
> [ rowlett@atlascomm.net is valid address - if heavily filtered ]

As always...whether a DSP question or not, you need to provide us more info
on what your objective is ("what is the best DSP kit" requires what the
person wants to do with it).

So tell us
- price range
- why you want a digital camera (or what you expect to get out of it)
- what kind of pictures do you like to take (sports, nature, portraits, etc)
and what you want to do with these digital pictures (digital albums, prints
(what size), etc).

Cheers
Bhaskar

Richard Owlett <rowlett@atlascomm.net> wrote 

> I've noticed that some here are into digital photography.
> I'm beginning to look for a camera.
> I suspect I would be "lowest common denominator" of
> "Brownie" and "Instamatic".
> 
> Comments ( as he ducks ) &/or recommendations please.
> [ rowlett@atlascomm.net is valid address - if heavily filtered ]

Hi Richard,

I bought a Casio Exilim EX-Z40 camera back in June.

The things I like about it:

* It's small so I can slip it into my pocket when we're going anywhere
(usualy excuse for NOT taking photos).
* It has a relatively large LCD screen for its size.
* With the extra memory that I bought with it, I can take up to about
70 shots before having to upload.

Things that don't bother me, but might bother some:

* The camera requires a (small) docking station to connect to the USB
port on my computer.
* The camera does not charge from the USB port, so the docing station
requires a power connection.

I've been very happy with it; I've taken heaps of photos with it.

Ciao,

Peter K.

Richard Owlett wrote:
> I've noticed that some here are into digital photography.
> I'm beginning to look for a camera.
> I suspect I would be "lowest common denominator" of
> "Brownie" and "Instamatic".
> 
> Comments ( as he ducks ) &/or recommendations please.
> [ rowlett@atlascomm.net is valid address - if heavily filtered ]

I'm interested in inexpensive way to to take casual snapshots. The usage 
would be infrequent - haven't had a camera for ~45 years and haven't 
missed it.

The local camera shop was showing me cameras from $200 to $500. They 
said there were cameras in the $100 range, but they were not happy with 
their overall quality.

Whole thing triggered by brother wanting to see what my new house looked 
like.

"Richard Owlett" schrieb 
> I've noticed that some here are into digital
>   photography.
> I'm beginning to look for a camera.
> I suspect I would be "lowest common denominator" of
> "Brownie" and "Instamatic".
> 
> Comments ( as he ducks ) &/or recommendations please.
>

I have had a 1.3 megapixel Canon PowerShot A50 and was 
very happy with it (this would be Clay Turner's "Point
& Shoot"). I recently bought a Pentax Optio 750Z 
("Prosumer") and am still overwhelmed by all the 
buttons.

I'd recommend one that retracts the optics when closed, 
you can always take it along -> only then you will do 
so. Look for one with at least 3x optical zoom, IMHO
4 Megapixels are enough if you look at the pictures
on computer only or do small (10x13 cm) prints.

I extract the CF  (or now SD card) to copy the pics to
the PC instead of going via RS232 (sloooow) or USB.

Digital cameras are fun to work with, easy to operate.
As with analog cameras: take a lot, really a lot of 
pictures. Unlike analog cameras, it doesn't cost 
anything (except harddisk space).

I'd go for one of the known players in the field: 
Canon, Casio, Pentax, Sony (here I don't like the 
memory sticks). Don't buy a cheap unknown one.

Just my $0.02
Martin


 

"Richard Owlett" <rowlett@atlascomm.net> wrote in message
news:10qbqfudmj58022@corp.supernews.com...
> Richard Owlett wrote:
> > I've noticed that some here are into digital photography.
> > I'm beginning to look for a camera.
> > I suspect I would be "lowest common denominator" of
> > "Brownie" and "Instamatic".
> >
> > Comments ( as he ducks ) &/or recommendations please.
> > [ rowlett@atlascomm.net is valid address - if heavily filtered ]
>
> I'm interested in inexpensive way to to take casual snapshots. The usage
> would be infrequent - haven't had a camera for ~45 years and haven't
> missed it.
>
> The local camera shop was showing me cameras from $200 to $500. They
> said there were cameras in the $100 range, but they were not happy with
> their overall quality.
>
> Whole thing triggered by brother wanting to see what my new house looked
> like.

I have a Canon Powershot A20 (2 MP) that I bought several years back for
'casual snapshots'. I've made 8x10 prints with it and got acceptable results
(but I primarily upload them to my Yahoo photos for sharing with
family/friends, occasionally make 4x6 prints and very very occasionally make
8x10 prints).
It is bulkier than some of the other Canon digital cameras...but I like it
this way since I find the real small ones too difficult to use with my big
hands/fingers. The negative is that I cannot fit this into my shirt pocket
(but it does ok in my jacket/pant pocket...not real comfortable but still
ok).
I've recommended the new version of this camera Canon Powershot A75 to
several friends and family and they have all been quite happy with the
results (I think it's a 3 MP camera and it's quite a bit smaller than my
A20).
I think it costs < $250 (you'll probably need to spend another 50 bucks on 2
sets of AA rechargeable batteries and a good charger - try
www.thomasdistributing.com).

I have my regular film camera (Canon EOS Elan) for more serious
photography...I've been eyeing some of the Canon Digital SLRs for a while
now but can't justify the initial cost (atleast not to my wife).

Cheers
Bhaskar

"Richard Owlett" <rowlett@atlascomm.net> wrote in message
news:10qbqfudmj58022@corp.supernews.com...
> Richard Owlett wrote:
> > I've noticed that some here are into digital photography.
> > I'm beginning to look for a camera.
> > I suspect I would be "lowest common denominator" of
> > "Brownie" and "Instamatic".
> >
> > Comments ( as he ducks ) &/or recommendations please.
> > [ rowlett@atlascomm.net is valid address - if heavily filtered ]
>
> I'm interested in inexpensive way to to take casual snapshots. The usage
> would be infrequent - haven't had a camera for ~45 years and haven't
> missed it.
>
> The local camera shop was showing me cameras from $200 to $500. They
> said there were cameras in the $100 range, but they were not happy with
> their overall quality.
>
> Whole thing triggered by brother wanting to see what my new house looked
> like.

My suggestion would be to find one in your price range that has at least 3
megapixels and an optical (not digital) zoom.  Other than that, pick one based
on the form factor you like best.  Some people prefer the very small sizes (e.g.
size <= deck of cards) so they can stick them in their pocket and take them
anywhere.  Others prefer larger models because the buttons and controls are
often easier to use and the LCD screens are usually larger as well.  I recommend
getting a larger LCD screen if possible, as it makes both composing and
reviewing your images easier.

There are two other major important things to consider:

1) shutter delay
2) LCD display contrast

For best results (especially snapshots), the shutter delay should be as 
small as possible. It's really annoying if you press the button and the 
person you want to photograph has left the picture when the camera is 
ready...

Most LCDs are to dim. If you're taking pictures outside in the sunlight 
on most cameras you can hardly see what you're aiming at.

My 2 cents.
-- 
Stephan M. Bernsee
http://www.dspdimension.com

1) Definitely agree in theory, although for taking pictures of your house (which
the OP mentioned) it should be OK.  :-)

2) Yes. I often end up using the old-fashioned optical viewfinder in cases where
it is too bright to see the LCD clearly.  For that reason, I would add having an
optical viewfinder to the list of useful features.

"Stephan M. Bernsee" <spam@dspdimension.com> wrote in message
news:311c7cF35dv79U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> There are two other major important things to consider:
>
> 1) shutter delay
> 2) LCD display contrast
>
> For best results (especially snapshots), the shutter delay should be as
> small as possible. It's really annoying if you press the button and the
> person you want to photograph has left the picture when the camera is
> ready...
>
> Most LCDs are to dim. If you're taking pictures outside in the sunlight
> on most cameras you can hardly see what you're aiming at.
>
> My 2 cents.
> -- 
> Stephan M. Bernsee
> http://www.dspdimension.com
>