OT....Digital Camera..Cannon PowerShot A300 3.2 Megapixel

[Jimbo]

Anyone have this camera or have any thoughts good or bad about it?

 

TIA

Jimbo

 

10/3/04 Legend of the Seas

Panama Canal 14-Nights

 

 

2/13/05 Carnival "Miracle"

 

 

8/28/05 Serenade of the Seas

Alaska Bound

 

 

 

 

[FinelyCruising]

During the Belmont they advertized the EOS Rebel digital twice. That looks awesome! I have digital and film and I like the film so much better. Have a Canon EOS, 35mm among others, and I am looking into this digital. Have no idea how muxch it costs, but I did purchase some Mega Million lottery tickets tonight. Said give me ten for the $100 million.

[mconthehighseas]

We have a different digital camera, and we love it. We load the pictures onto our computer when we get home, pick the ones we like, delete the ones we don't. Put them all on a disc, and get paper copies when we need them.

 

I don't recommend getting more than 3.2-3.5 Megapixels if you plan to send pictures via e-mail. You can't tell see the difference that more pixels would make, unless you blow the pictures up to portrait size, and the people you mail to get angry if you fill their inboxes with one letter.

 

Jimbo - you may already know that info, but I figured that people who don't might read this page too. I think this is the camera that some of our friends have, and they really like it (make sure it comes with a rechargeable battery.)

 

Counting down to the Rhapsody OTS - 12/05/04

Sunward II 9/90, Adventure OTS 9/03

[Host Walt]

The Canon A300 has just been replaced by the A310. The only change is that the A310 can download directly into a Canon photo printer without going through a computer.

 

But, because the A300 is out of production, you should be able to get one for a good price. (it should be priced at $169.99 or lower.)

 

It has no optical zoom at all (optical zooms use a lot of power but can give you better closeups for larger prints (8x10 or larger) but is a very good camera for travel use.

 

I also have a Canon EOS 35mm (an ElanII) that I love, but the photo quality from my A310 matches the Elan.

 

The only three problems I have with the digital are:

1. The recharge time of the A310 has cost me shots.

2. The camera is so small on vertical (sideways) shots, I frequently get a great closeup of my thumb or hat brim.

3. The LCD screen is needed for digital zoom and in bright sun it can be hard to see.

 

On our recent trip to the D-Day beaches, I used the digital exclusively and am thrilled with the results...and even more thrilled with the economics.

 

I love my ElanII but I'm afraid I'm now converted to the digital.

 

Walt Tuthill

Cruise Board Moderator

 

Contact at Shiptender@aol.com

[Marcys]

Hey Walt!

 

Have you guys thought of putting a Digital Photography thread to the main menu? There seem to be more and more questions on this subject. I always read those threads because I just got my first digital camera and while I know how to take pictures, I don't know what to do with them after that! That would give novices like me a place to just scroll thourgh and read about digital photography.

 

Thanks!

Marcy

[Host Walt]

This is what Floataway Lounge is designed for. Why not start a topic over there like this and raise these questions?

 

Walt Tuthill

Cruise Board Moderator

 

Contact at Shiptender@aol.com

 

 

[jbond]

Hi Jimbo,

For what it is worth, I wouldn't buy a Canon A300. I don't know what your photographic ambitions are, but the A300 is very limited. For me the biggest drawback is the fixed focal length 33mm equiv lens. It is quite a wide angle, on a 35 mm 28 mm is considered very wide angle and 35 is a normal WA lens. Usually 35mm cameras with a fixed focal length are around 50mm. At around $150, there are a lot more cameras to choose from that are much more vesatile. Unless you intend to just take landscapes, look for a different camera.

 

 

[scubasib]

Check out www.dpreview.com for info on digital cameras/pros and cons, user reviews and pro reviews.

 

IMHO, the Canon 410 is a good choice for a small point and shoot.

[bUU]

My wife did a lot of research and decided that the A70 was just about the best thing out there for the casual tourist shutterbug. 3.2-Megapixel, and the focal length is 5.4-16.2mm (35mm film equivalent: 35-105mm). It is a good bit more expensive, but has all the features one may tend to grow into spending any time taking photos and working with photos taken by the camera.

 

RCI - Serendade of the Seas (S. Carib.)

 

[Ocean Boy]

I very much disagree with not getting a camera with more than 3.2-3.5 MP based on the fact that you may being sending pictures by e-mail. Most software programs come with a compression feature that allows you to take a fairly large jpeg file and compress it to an easily mailed size.

 

I think 4-5 MP is the way to go. Why limit yourself? You never know when you are going to capture that special picture that will look real nice blown up and framed on your wall. I have a Canon G2 and couldn't be happier with it.

[MSUSpartan]

I just bought the Sony TS1 - it's the size of a credit card, with 5.0 mp. I love it! Still figuring out all the settings, but it takes great pictures.

 

Majesty of the Seas - 1998

Exployer of the Seas - 2001

NCL Sun - 2003

JEWEL OF THE SEAS - 2/26/2005

 

Michigan State Spartans -

GO GREEN

 

DETROIT PISTONS - WORLD CHAMPS!

[DChabira]

JIMBO

 

At work we have three digital cameras that I use on a regular basis. We have a Fuji FinePix S5000 (Retail $379), an Olympus C-5060 (retail $649), and we just purchased a Canon Digital Rebel (Retail $999). Of these three cameras I like the Olympus the best.

 

Before we sailed on the 5/2 AOS cruise that you were on, we purchased a Nikon Coolpix 4300 to take on our vacation. This camera retails for $299, but currently has a $50 rebate. It is 4.0 mega pixels vs. the Olympus which is 5.1 mega pixels. The quality is just as good and it has almost as many features as the Olympus. It can be set to Automatic and be used as a point and shoot camera or manual where it has a lot of flexibility. It is very compact, we really love it and would highly recommend the Nikon Coolpix 4300.

 

David

[Host Walt]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jbond:

Hi Jimbo,

For what it is worth, I wouldn't buy a Canon A300. I don't know what your photographic ambitions are, but the A300 is very limited. For me the biggest drawback is the fixed focal length 33mm equiv lens. It is quite a wide angle, on a 35 mm 28 mm is considered very wide angle and 35 is a normal WA lens. Usually 35mm cameras with a fixed focal length are around 50mm. At around $150, there are a lot more cameras to choose from that are much more vesatile. Unless you intend to just take landscapes, look for a different camera.

 

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The lens on an A300 zooms (digitally) to the analog equivalent of 210mm.

 

The only disadvantage is that you cannot see the zoom in the viewfinder; just on the LCD screen that can be hard to see in bright daylight.

 

Further, with digital, you can do the equivalent of a zoom on your computer.

 

A digital camera with an optical zoom (which the A300 does not have) has as its only advantage the ability to see the zoom in the viewfinder. In extreme situations (a max zoom to be used on a very large (11x14 or larger) print, you can get a slightly better resolution with an optical zoom than with a digital zoom.

 

The disadvantage of an optical zoom is that the mechanical operation of the zoom eats up the batteries very quickly.

 

Walt Tuthill

Cruise Board Moderator

 

Contact at Shiptender@aol.com

 

[This message was edited by Host Walt on 06-17-04 at 02:38 PM.]

[Host Walt]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ocean Boy:

I very much disagree with not getting a camera with more than 3.2-3.5 MP based on the fact that you may being sending pictures by e-mail. Most software programs come with a compression feature that allows you to take a fairly large jpeg file and compress it to an easily mailed size.

 

I think 4-5 MP is the way to go. Why limit yourself? You never know when you are going to capture that special picture that will look real nice blown up and framed on your wall. I have a Canon G2 and couldn't be happier with it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So long as you know that you can fill up a 256mb card very quickly with 4.0+ MP photos...meaning that, while travelling, you will need to transfer your pix to a laptop with a large hard drive or carry several extra flash cards, I agree with your point. Digital photography offers a lot of new options. Why not use them?

 

Walt Tuthill

Cruise Board Moderator

 

Contact at Shiptender@aol.com

 

 

[Host Walt]

By the way, Canon has released a model A310 that replaced the A300. The only difference is that the A310 can download pictures directly into specific Canon printer models where the A300 requires a computer intermediary. The ticket price is the same for both, but the A300 should be reduced or packaged with goodies (extra memory cards, cases, etc.)

 

The Canon A70, mentioned above, has also been replaced by the A75, with exactly the same change. Thus A70 deals should be available as well.

 

Walt Tuthill

Cruise Board Moderator

 

Contact at Shiptender@aol.com

 

 

[jbond]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A digital camera with an optical zoom (which the A300 does not have) has as its only advantage the ability to see the zoom in the viewfinder. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Walt, but that's not quite correct. The advantage of the optical zoom over a digital zoom is that it keeps the image size the same, i.e. if you shoot at 2048 x 1536 (3.2 MP) and zoom the full optical range, your image is still 2048 x 1536. With a digital zoom, the camera crops the image and saves the megapixels in the cropped image. So, if you zoom from 33 mm equiv to 66 mm, a 2x zoom, the camera will only record a 1.6 MP image.

As for the optical zoom eating up batteries, the power required to zoom is much less than that required to illuminate the LED. I rarely use digital zoom, I much prefer to edit/crop my images on the computer.

My personal feeling is that if you were buying a fixed focal length camera, you would be better off with a longer basic lens, for wide angle shots you can always use a stitch/panorama programme.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I think 4-5 MP is the way to go. Why limit yourself? You never know when you are going to capture that special picture that will look real nice blown up and framed on your wall. I have a Canon G2 and couldn't be happier with it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't agree with you more. I have a Nikon 5700, 5MP and I always shoot at max MP. I know deep down inside me there is that one great picture waiting to be taken. Memory cards are cheap and compared to the cost of film and developing they are a big cost saving for me.

 

 

[Jimbo]

Keep talking guys, I think I'm learning. I don't have a clue about these types of camera's.

 

What I have should be good enough right as long as I get a Scan Disk large enough to hold the amount of pictures I take.

 

Next cruise is a 14 day cruise, about how many pictures can I take with a 256mb Card ?

 

Jimbo

 

10/3/04 Legend of the Seas

Panama Canal 14-Nights

 

 

2/13/05 Carnival "Miracle"

 

 

8/28/05 Serenade of the Seas

Alaska Bound

 

 

 

 

[bUU]

Of course, there's a heck of a difference in price between 3.2 MP and 5 MP!

 

RCI - Serendade of the Seas (S. Carib.)

 

[jbond]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Next cruise is a 14 day cruise, about how many pictures can I take with a 256mb Card ?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on your settings. Two things define the number of images that you can store. One is MP's and the other is quality. You will probably have three quality settings, good, better, best, depending on the make of camera. This decides the amount of compression that the image will get when stored. For the experts, I'm assuming that we are shooting in JPEG(usual/common mode) and not TIFF or RAW. My experience is that the middle setting, better/normal is very acceptable and does not have a great impact on image resolution.

At 5 MP and normal, I get approx 210 images on a 256 MB card. If I went to a higher compression I would double the number of images. At the best quality, I would get half the number.

With a 3.2 MP camera set at normal quality you would get about 330 images. Complicated, I know, but once you have the camera it is really easy to check. Just don't be misled by the image quality on your computer. As mconthehighseas noted, you can't see the difference on your computer. Print out the image to make sure that you are satisfied.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Of course, there's a heck of a difference in price between 3.2 MP and 5 MP!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's very true, but it's getting to be less and less.

MP count is important, but it's not the ultimate reason for choosing a particular camera. IMNSHO.

You have to decide what you are going to do with your photos. Will you go to Costco or Walgreens and have them printed out at 4X6? If so, a 2 MP camera will satisfy all your needs. If you want to go to 8 1/2 X 11, then a 3.2 will give you all that you need. In a 4X6 print the human eye cannot resolve detail above a 2MP count. Similarly in an 8 1/2 x 11, the eye cannot resolve detail above a 3.2 MP count, so anything above is "invisible".

Decide on your photographic needs and then buy a camera that fits them, don't get wrapped around the technology axle and end up with something that you don't need. Also, remember that the glass(lens) is just as important, if not more so, in image quality that pixel count. Canon, Minolta, Sony and Nikon use great glass, just check where your lens is made.

scubasib recommended www.dpreview.com I think that is a great website. You can review almost every camera available and it also explains all the technical terms in a very user friendly format.

 

 

[bUU]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jbond:

Depends on your settings. Two things define the number of images that you can store. One is MP's and the other is quality. You will probably have three quality settings, good, better, best, depending on the make of camera. This decides the amount of compression that the image will get when stored. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uh, really? I didn't get the impression that there was actual compression going on, but rather that with the lesser settings, the camera took photos with a lower resolution. Perhaps there is no difference, but there can be: Compression can dependent on the content of the photograph. Since the quality setting is described (at least for my Canon) in terms of absolute resolution, it would mean that it would have to programmatically vary the compression to be sure to end up with the correct resolution in the end. I had thought that instead of applying compression that the camera simply had a means of taking photos at the lower resolution, without resorting to programmatic means such as compression. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you want to go to 8 1/2 X 11, then a 3.2 will give you all that you need. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is a key metric, and the reason why I was a bit disappointed with my 2.6 and made sure my wife got her 3.2. That's a magic number, 8 1/2 X 11, since casual tourists like my wife and I rarely would consider printing photos larger than that. The main use for greater MP, IMHO, is for folks who plan to crop down to 8 1/2 X 11 (or reduce the image size to get it down to 8 1/2 X 11). I'm okay at photo composition, but I do a better job when I've got a big, over-resolution shot and can crop it down to the right composition.

 

RCI - Serendade of the Seas (S. Carib.)

 

[jbond]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Uh, really? I didn't get the impression that there was actual compression going on, but rather that with the lesser settings, the camera took photos with a lower resolution. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We may have a misunderstanding of what the digital camera does.

There are two settings on your camera, one sets MP size and the other sets "quality". Because of the many different terms used by the different makers, I'll use the one used by Nikon, the camera that I have.

You can set image size, full, UXGA, SXGA, etc, that determine the MP size of your image. In my case, full is 2560 x 1920, 5 Mp's, UXGA is 1600 x 1200, 1.9 MP's.

You can then set image quality to RAW, TIFF, Fine, Normal and Basic.

I have never used RAW or TIFF. I have never found a reason to use them and they do eat up memory. As I hopefully get to be a better photographer I may get to use RAW as it is a very flexible system. Fine, Normal, Basic are JPEG formats that use compression to save the image to the memory card. Fine is a 4:1, Normal is an 8:1 and Basic is a 16:1. Every time you save a JPEG image, you lose quality, however, my experience is that I get a higher quality photo from a high MP , normal quality image than from any other combination. Trust me, I have experimented with all the combo's and printed them out.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> That's a magic number, 8 1/2 X 11, since casual tourists like my wife and I rarely would consider printing photos larger than that. The main use for greater MP, IMHO, is for folks who plan to crop down to 8 1/2 X 11 (or reduce the image size to get it down to 8 1/2 X 11). I'm okay at photo composition, but I do a better job when I've got a big, over-resolution shot and can crop it down to the right composition <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

 

[streetlife]

Not much of a camera wizard but we have a Canon Power Shot G3 with a 512mg card. Battery life is outstanding and we can shot some 440 photo's. My only advice would be to buy a 512mg card for whatever camera you purchase if applicable. The only rub on the G3 is that the lens cap comes off easily, so you have to place a rubber band around the lens cap to keep it on. It's been a great camera.

Robert

[FinelyCruising]

One thing about the settings...

 

If it is the better TIFF that you prefer, see if your camera will lock in that setting. My Olympus does not and I need to reset for any pic that I want to take at TIFF. I understand the design of that in the camera, but don't like I can't do anything about it.

 

Now who said they had that Canon Rebel digital??? How is that camera, I'd love to know!

[bUU]

Canon doesn't employ those Nikon labels, but I checked and indeed you're correct: You choose resolution and compression separately.

 

It seems to me that compressing photos you're going to print is not a good idea, though. I think I'll recommend to my wife that she choose her resolution but stick with the compression disabled. We can always compress when we get home.

 

RCI - Serendade of the Seas (S. Carib.)

 

[Ocean Boy]

Actually, if you completely disable compression which is the Canon "TIFF" format you will really eat up memory. I have actually never used that format on my camera. I use the least compression in the jpeg format and I was initially using the "fine" quality setting. Since purchasing a couple of 512MB cards I have started using the "super fine" setting. It could just be in my head but I think even the 4x6 photos I took on our cruise this year on "super fine" look better than the ones I took last year on "fine".

 

Also, except for pics taken outside, I have gotten away from using the camera's automatic setting. I have some amazing indoor shots that were taking by doing my own exposure settings and not using the flash at all. With flash your subjects are well illuminated but a lot of background seems to get washed out. Without the flash I got some great subject pics without loosing the detail of the Royal Prominade in the background.