Need advice for digital camera.

[dougnewmanatsea]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tuggers:
[B]Does anyone know if there are true bargains in any caribean ports or are we better off buying these cameras in the good ole US of A?[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you are a US resident I would not buy elsewhere, for warranty purposes. There is a lot of so-called "gray market" product coming into the US that dealers purchase elsewhere at low prices and then import here. This is not illegal but the camera companies don't like it, so as a result they've created a separate warranty for the US than from the rest of the world, this way such "gray market" cameras will not have warranty coverage. Now, you could go to, say, the Cayman Islands and buy a camera from a proper authorised retailer etc., but your camera will not have the US warranty - and even worse, some camera companies actually refuse to allow their authorised service facilities in the US to service cameras that do not have US warranties - even if you pay for it! This could obviously be a big problem, so I'd stick with cameras bought in the US from authorised dealers with US warranties. Never, ever take this for granted - make sure before buying that your camera has a US warranty [I]from the cameramaker's authorised distributor[/I]. If you are at all suspicious, don't buy. Some reputable retailers offer both "gray" and US products, including the camera store where I shop (but not for digital cameras - only for things like lenses which the store can service themselves) and are totally honest as to which is which... However many places aren't.

Doug Newman
Cruise Critic Message Boards Host
e-mail: shiploverny AT yahoo DOT com

[LynnObie]

Tuggers,

Yes, the G series is generally considered professional quality by many. The G models I am a little familiar with are G1 through G5, their latest... & have not seen a GS. I have not used one, but I can understand it having too much 'stuff' on it for the average point & shoot user. Based on the pictures coming out "too bright" I wonder if the default exposure setting has somehow been changed to overexpose every image by +1 or +2? If this is the problem, there is a menu setting to get it back on center=0 or even a little underexposed -1 which some prefer. Still... I fully appreciate your preference for a pocket sized 'point & shoot' camera.

As to your other question, I have yet to see a truly "good deal" on any digital camera in the Caribbean & think Host Doug gave good advice.

Good luck in your search for the right camera! [img]http://messages.cruisecritic.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Lynn Obie

[tuggers]

Lynn Obie, OK now do you see why I do not need this camera? It is indeed a G1, 3.3. I don't even know what kind of camera I own! I so wish I could find someone who would enjoy it as it is quite an expensive camera and has had almost no use! I highly suspect the faulty pictures are user error. Last year when my freind and her husband were here I asked him to try it out as he is camera wise and his pix were great! Just dumb old me. I'm thinking of putting it on ebay. Anyone have any better ideas than that. Do camera shops ever take trade-ins? Just a thought. I hate to throw away a camera I paid hundreds for.

Until the Zenith! Second X Cruise In Two Months!
[img]http://escati.linkopp.net/cgi-bin/countdown.cgi?trgb=000000&srgb=00ff00&prgb=800080&cdt=2004;4;11;16;00;00&timezone=GMT-0500[/img]

[smudge's mom]

I understand personal opinion about not needing 5 megapixels to get good photos - but with the price of digital cameras dropping, dropping, dropping - why not invest in one with more than 3? You can get very good prices on 5's now.

I have an Olympus Camedia C50 - which has 5 megapixels - 3x optical 12x digital zoom. The camera is lightweight, small, has a metal case, can suffer some indignities without harm (yes, I spilled soda and beer on it, took it into the ocean - of course I didn't dunk it - took it on the beach, dropped it)and is simple to use.

You just keep it on the "auto" setting - at highest resolution - and you will get an 8x10 that will knock your sox off. And for those more ambitious - it has pre-sets for portrait, movement, night, etc., on a dial you just turn - no menus to hassle with. Yes, there are menus you can tweak for those of you with more experience.

My only negative about this camera is it's zoom power. But then again, 3x optical is normal for this size camera. You sacrifice zoom power for shirt pocket size.

The C60 is out - 6 megapixels - so you will see prices for the C50 go down even more. However, the last pricing I saw on it was pretty good - $349 with an extra 128 mb card thrown in.

A consideration no one has talked about - how the battery is charged. Seriously think about the method of charging employed. Buy a camera where the battery can be removed to charge it. Buy an additional battery, and you will always have your camera ready. If you need to charge your battery while it's still in the camera, your camera is useless until the battery is charged.

[tuggers]

sudge's mom, good point. I was just at the camera store where the guy told me I'm nuts to give up my G1. It's such a good camera, yada, yada. He priced me Canon Powershot A400 at 429 or the Powershot A80 at 379. I had been looking at the Nikon Coolpix 3100 but I'll look at the Olympus. Thanks for the info!

Until the Zenith! Second X Cruise In Two Months!
[img]http://escati.linkopp.net/cgi-bin/countdown.cgi?trgb=000000&srgb=00ff00&prgb=800080&cdt=2004;4;11;16;00;00&timezone=GMT-0500[/img]

[dougnewmanatsea]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by smudge's mom:
[B]with the price of digital cameras dropping, dropping, dropping - why not invest in one with more than 3? You can get very good prices on 5's now.[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The flaw here is on classifying cameras by the number of pixels to begin with. As I said, it is probably the single [I]least[/I] important feature. I think there is probably some level of importance to it, to the point where I won't go so far as to say that it should be completely ignored, but the fact is the theory that more megapixels equals better photos is quite simply a myth. I don't know who started it but the camera companies have certainly actively encouraged this kind of false thinking to the point where it is really ingrained in the public mind at this point.

I think that in the very early years of digital photography (when, I must admit, I didn't even know what a digital camera [I]was[/I]) cameras had very low resolutions, and so each step up in resolution really was a big leap. It wasn't until the megapixel mark (1 million pixels) that the idea of a digital camera that could make good prints could even be conceived of; there [I]is[/I] a certain point at which you will simply not have enough pixels to perform well. However, today's cameras have all passed that mark, as far as the number of pixels go. So when it first came about, the megapixel (or at the time, pixel) myth wasn't a myth at all. But the camera companies pounced on this and decided to make pixels THE selling point.

Now, you might ask, why would the camera industry want to mislead the public (if you could call it that) about pixels? It comes down to planned obsolescence, and something called Moore's Law. Now, I'm not really that familiar with the semantics of this particular "law" but the basic premise is that over time the number of transistors that can be placed on a certain sized piece of silicon will expand exponentially over time (it has, and probably will continue to do so, which is why electronics keep getting smaller and cheaper). The effect is that over time sensor manfuacturers can put many, many more pixels on their sensor (piece of silicon) without raising the cost. This sounds like a great thing, except that despite the increased pixel count, [I]the sensor itself is not getting bigger[/I]. This is because the price of a bigger piece of silicon has [I]not[/I] gone down as much. So you wind up with more pixels per square micrometer of sensor, called an increased "pixel pitch". The problem is, there is a point at which stuffing more pixels on a small sensor simply stops having any quantifiable benefit at all to image quality, and what's more, when you get too high a pixel pitch, lots of other problems come into play that are very difficult to solve even with all the super-elaborate algorithms that the engineers at Canon, Sony, etc. have dreamed up. (Most sensors, by the way, are not built by the camera company - in consumer digital cameras, Sony makes most of them, though I believe at least some of Canon's are their own; they certainly make all their own sensors for their digital SLRs.)

Now, why not increase the size of the sensor, if that will inherently improve image quality (and it will)? Simple: because so far, nobody has really found a way to make using larger sensors cheaper. A larger sensor means a larger piece of silicon, and the larger a piece of silicon you have, the more likely it is that they will have flaws. Since an image sensor requires a flawless piece of silicon, more and more of the silicon wafers get thrown out, driving up costs. So it's much cheaper to just keep adding pixels to small sensors and convince the public that that really is an improvement. So far the public at large has bought into this hook, line, and sinker.

So the number of pixels is not that important, and having more pixels on a small sensor can at some point actually be a detriment to image quality, despite the conventional wisdom that "more pixels is better, always". As an example, someone mentioned the Canon G-series cameras above. The latest is the G5, a 5-megapixel, before that was the G3, a 4-megapixel (its predecessor the G2 used the same 4MP sensor and the first one, the G1, used a 3MP). The kicker here is that in my humble personal opinion the image quality is slightly [I]worse[/I] in the G5 in comparison with the G3... That's right, more pixels, but the images, to me, are actually not as good, and there is probably very little practical increase in actual resolution! Now, this is just the tip of the iceberg; if camera and sensor manufacturers want to add even more pixels to that size sensor, they may run into very big problems with image quality, which is probably why we aren't seeing pixel counts clim as rapidly as we had: they've not yet figured out how to get rid of those problems.

So the bottom line is, try your very best [I]not[/I] to think in terms of pixels. They're really not all that important. A really good 3MP camera will take far better pictures than a mediocre 5MP camera.

Doug Newman
Cruise Critic Message Boards Host
e-mail: shiploverny AT yahoo DOT com

[This message was edited by Host Doug on 05-18-04 at 12:02 AM.]

[LynnObie]

Tuggers,

E-bay might be a good way to sell your G1. I have not used them, but my daughter does. You can get a feel for what G1's are going for by browsing their site.

All the cameras you mention would do a good job for you. If you truly want "pocket size", the one that best fits that bill is the Canon Powershot S410. Here's a comparison of mass, or cubic inches based on size specs for each camera.

Canon G1: 35.3 cu. in.
Olympus C-50: 14.4 cu. in.
Coolpix 3100: 12.7 cu. in.
Canon S410: 8.2 cu. in.= 3.4" x 2.2" x 1.1"

An advantage of both the S410 and 3100 is that they both use the same Compact Flash cards you may already have for the G1, whereas the C-50, C-60 use XD cards which is fine unless you have extra compact flash cards already.

All these cameras can be set to full automatic and used as "point & shoot". If it wasn't for the size factor, I'd suggest you have someone get your G1 set up to be used in full automatic mode with results to please you and keep that. For a great combination of small size, ease-of-use & great picture quality, you will find the S410 hard to beat.

Amazon is a pretty good place to shop. Most of their prices include free ground shipping and no sales tax. Here's a [url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001G6U5M/ref=ord_cart_shr/104-4237936-4091116?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER"]link to the S410[/url]. If you scroll down, you can read various USER reviews. Some of the links above can give you more technical reviews.

Good luck with whatever you decide!

Lynn Obie

[Bruin Steve]

It seems like the more I read, the more confused I get...

I'm one of those "old" guys who has been using a good, old-fashioned traditional film SLR all his life (for the last several years, a Pentax SF-1)...

But, hey, I can see some good points about getting a digital as well...

Only, every time I start looking at them, I get more and more questions and less satisfying answers...

Perhaps some of you digital veterans can give me a few (and I mean a limited few) camera ideas to go look at...

Here are my questions and criteria:

I only care about Megapixels in the context that I want the capability of large prints without graininess...Not that I'd use the full capacity for everyday snapshots, but I imagine I would want at least 4 megapixels, important or not...

I am not worried about "pocket-sized"...I am used to carrying around a sizable SF-1 and, besides, I've got these thick, stubby fingers that do better with more "man-sized" equipment...

I am more concerned with quality of the picture, ease of use, value/price and the following:

1) How fast or easily does the thing burn up battery life? As someone who will go visiting a port all day and taking dozens of pictures, I don't want to be constantly fidgeting with batteries...

2) What is the storage device? Never having had a digital before, I have no idea as to the differences between smart cards, flash cards and whatever other kinds of cards there are...All I know is that I want something that's going to be the long-time standard (not a Betamax)and easy to find and obtainable at low prices...and in sizes large enough that I can carry around the day's shots on a limited number of cards...

3) How does one transfer the pictures to computer/disc? Is it easy? Do I need to buy additional hardware? Software?

4) What power zoom lens does it have? What other capabilities does it have? (I could care less about movies and sound...I mean what can it do in the way of photos?

5) That little screen on the back is important to me...bigger ones may be preferable to postage stamps...

So, friends, any ideas what I should be looking at? Nikon? Canon? Olympus? Which models sound like they'd suit me? And, I'd prefer closer to "state of the art" than to "already outmoded"...any ideas, friends? Thanks...

Summit, July 3, 2004: Alaska: 13 night cruisetour

[boten]

Storage option to consider:

If you are on a long vacation, and you don't want to carry a laptop to transfer the pictures, nor going thru the hassle of having them transferred to a CD, you must have a very big storage media or buy several of them.

An alternative can be one of the Sony Mavica line that burns the pictures directly on a CD inside the camera. The newer models have 3X(??) optical zoom and can use a CDRW. My older model (Mavica 1000) uses only CDR (about $1 a piece). It stores up to 156 MB and have an optical zoom of 10x (20x digital zoom).

NBP [7²=49]
[I]Boten, you're always good for a laugh[/I] - newtocc
[I]Boten, I want to speak with Mrs. Boten. NOW[/I] - brigittetom

[tuggers]

Doug, Wow! I just got up and read your post. Lots of info for so early in the am. I have to tell you I went to the camera shop yesterday to talk about getting rid of my G1 and they pretty much told me the same thing. And the guys were very, very upset that I would even think of selling my G1. They went so far as to call it one of the best cameras Canon ever made and said what you said that the G5 is nowhere near the camera I have. Thanks so much for giving info I could actually u nderstand.

Until the Zenith! Second X Cruise In Two Months!
[img]http://escati.linkopp.net/cgi-bin/countdown.cgi?trgb=000000&srgb=00ff00&prgb=800080&cdt=2004;4;11;16;00;00&timezone=GMT-0500[/img]

[nealberk]

Doug-

Lots of good points and for the most part I agree wholeheartedly. The big reason why manufacturers stress pixels is that it is something that they can put in concrete terms. It is like audio components in the 70's where everybody was concerned about watts (irregardless that one company's 10 watt receiver was better than another companies 200 watt receiver since the first one was "honest" power through two speakers and the second one was "raw, who cares about distortion' power through one speaker.) Every one could see that 200 was better than 10 so it became the mantra. Same applies to megapixel count today.

I agree that the sensor is of critical importance but I would also place emphasis on the electonics, the algorithms used to calculate each pixel's value, the optic system, and such trivial (?) things like body construction and battery life. Oh yes, add on to the list the cost of replacement and add on parts.

Since the camera translates each part of the image into a color bit, it is not enough to just average out the color in that bit. If so, you will get a blocky image. A smarter approach is to use the surrounding bits to affect the bit values. This way you get a smoother image. The art of calculating what is the best value has a greater influence on the quality of the picture than does the actual number of bits.

The electronics is another important issue. On many long exposures you get blips of light hitting the sensor that can cause spottiness in an image. You have the same problem on all images with this factor called noise. With good electronics, this noise is significantly reduced.

Another factor of the electronics is the amount of time required for the camera to get an image, save it, and prepare itself for the next image. In some cameras this is an excruciating amount of time. In some cases it is so bad that when you take a picture of a moving object; in the time it takes for the camera to detect you have pushed the button to the time it takes for the picture to be recorded, the object has moved off the recorded image.

One of my personal focuses is in the optics of the camera. The picture can only be as good as the light reaching the electronics. The best lenses are precision ground glass that focus the light with minimal distortion.

Forget about digital zoom, the only type of zoom that really matters is optical. When you get into digital zoom, you are going to get blockier pictures since the zoom is not based on the real image but of the digital pixelized version of the image. I love the Olympus 10x optical zoom. I wish more cameras came with such magnification. One small caveat here, when you zoom an image you really need to have a rock steady support. It is way too easy to get jitter in high magnification pictures!

One of the reasons I went for the Nikon rather than the slightly better Canon was cost. Canon makes a great camera but there is a significant premium for the name. This is even more pronounced if you start adding accessories to the camera like filters or additional lenses.

This is getting a bit long, so just a few more thoughts. If you want a bigger screen for viewing you are going to have a shorter battery life. Likewise with a brighter screen. The amount of power in a batter is almost always a factor of its size. A small battery (generally) will have half as much lifetime as a battery tice as big.

Don't want to make specific recommendations other than to state my personal favorites for digital cameras are Nikon, Olympus, and Canon. Specific models depend on what you want!

[dougnewmanatsea]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruin Steve:
[B]I'm one of those "old" guys who has been using a good, old-fashioned traditional film SLR all his life (for the last several years, a Pentax SF-1)...[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I can relate to you very well... I'm not old by any standards but I also used a variety of film SLRs. My first was a Pentax ME (hand-me-down, I found it in the basement, abaondoned since the point-and-shoot revolution in the late '80s), which is still in my closet. I like to take it out and play with it every once in a while [img]http://messages.cruisecritic.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] .

My first advice for you is, go for a digital SLR. If you are a die-hard SLR user, like I am, it's likely no consumer digital camera will ever satisfy you. Most every digital camera under $1000 fits that description so if that is out of your range, wait a while until the prices come down. I've been admiring digital SLRs since $3000 was considered a "cheap" one, and I'm still waiting. I'm sure that in a few years, digital SLRs will be dirt cheap; five years ago a decent digital SLR cost as much as a new compact car.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>[B]I only care about Megapixels in the context that I want the capability of large prints without graininess...[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah... And here is another reason that you want a digital SLR. See, digital SLRs have bigger sensors than consumer digicams. MUCH bigger. And bigger sensors mean less noise, noise being the digital term for "grain". The best digital SLRs can shoot at ISO 1600 and be almost grainless, a prospect which is genuinely exciting to me as I do a fair amount interior photography (mainly on ships) with no tripod and no flash (yes, I have a steady hand).

Noise - what you would call grain - has absolutely nothing to do with pixels. There are many factors, but you will not get less grain by adding pixels. In fact, the biggest problem of having too many pixels on too small a sensor is high noise, which is why five through eight megapixel consumer (small sensor) digital cameras usually have tons of noise, and is why I would not touch one with a ten-foot pole. They've gotten better but because of the bigger sensor you will get far less noise, and far better quality, out of a 6 MP digital SLR (6 MP is standard now for low-end D-SLRs) than an 8 MP consumer camera (8 MP is now the standard for top-end consumer camerans which do not cost much less than low-end D-SLRs).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>[B]1) How fast or easily does the thing burn up battery life?[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Depends on the camera. The best can go over five hours of constant use without needing batteries changed. And they are of course rechargeable. The most advanced camera designs use tiny, very powerful lithum ion rechargeable batteries.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>[B]What is the storage device? Never having had a digital before, I have no idea as to the differences between smart cards, flash cards and whatever other kinds of cards there are...All I know is that I want something that's going to be the long-time standard (not a Betamax)and easy to find and obtainable at low prices...[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In the digital SLR arena, everyone uses Compact Flash, which is also the most popular for other digital cameras. (In consumer cameras, Sony uses Memory Stick, Olympus, Fuji, and a few others something new called XD which is replacement for the obsolete and badly designed SmartMedia, and some others use SD or Secure Digital, but Compact Flash is the most popular and usually the cheapest.)

Compact Flash also comes in the widest variety of sizes. Most now sold range from 128 MB to 4 GB (yes, 4 GB is bigger than your hard drive was a few years ago).

To give an idea of how many photos you can store on a given size of memory card, Large Fine (the highest quality, except for RAW, which I will not discuss here as it is quite complicated and irrelevant to most amateurs) photos from the world's most popular digital SLR, the $900 (body only) [url="http://www.canoneos.com/digitalrebel/index.html"]Canon Digital Rebel[/url] take up about 3.1 MB each. This means that you can store about 41 photos on a 128 MB card, up to 1,290 photos on a 4 GB card.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>[B]How does one transfer the pictures to computer/disc? Is it easy? Do I need to buy additional hardware? Software?[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hardware wise, you can plug the camera into the computer, but you will probably want a memory card reader (these are quite cheap). As for software, you don't need any, but you will probably want Photoshop Elements ($90) for photo editing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>[B]What power zoom lens does it have?[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Digital SLRs have interchangeable lenses, so you can have almost any kind of lens you want.

You should note that the less expensive digital SLRs all have sensors that are smaller than a piece of 35mm film. This means that, in effect, a lens has less field of view than it would on a 35mm camera. With the Digital Rebel's 1.6x conversion factor, a 28-105mm zoom lens has the same field of view as a 45-168mm lens would on a 35mm film camera. This is good if you like telephoto lenses, bad if you like wide-angles. However all the major lens makers now have small selections of zoom lenses with focal lengths designed around the smaller sensor size. For instance, Nikon's standard lens for their digital SLRs is 18-70mm, which would give you the equivalent of a 27-105mm lens on a 35mm camera when you take into account the 1.5x conversion factor on Nikon digital SLRs.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>[B]That little screen on the back is important to me...bigger ones may be preferable to postage stamps...[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Most are about the same size. Note that on a digital SLR you cannot use it as a viewfinder as on most consumer digital cameras, however I find using the display as a veiwfinder extremely inconvenient anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>[B]Which models sound like they'd suit me?[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For an entry-level digital SLR, you should look a the Canon Digital Rebel, Nikon D70, Pentax *ist D, and Sigma SD10 (no Minolta D-SLRs, yet), which cost between $850 and $1200 or so, body only. If that's out of your price range, wait a while; similar cameras are bound to become cheaper soon. You can see reviews of these cameras at many of the sites linked above; I find [url="http://www.dpreview.com/"]DPReview[/url] to be the best, especially for digital SLR reviews.

Doug Newman
Cruise Critic Message Boards Host
e-mail: shiploverny AT yahoo DOT com

[dougnewmanatsea]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by boten:
[B]An alternative can be one of the Sony Mavica line that burns the pictures directly on a CD[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Personally, I find the CD storage (as opposed to a memory card) to be nothing more than a gimmick for many reasons that I won't get into here. It is vastly more practical to use memory cards than CDs which is why nobody but Sony makes such cameras.

If anyone's really interested in why I would never consider buying a Mavica CD camera, I can give an explanation... But later as I've got to go at the moment.

Doug Newman
Cruise Critic Message Boards Host
e-mail: shiploverny AT yahoo DOT com

[This message was edited by Host Doug on 05-18-04 at 08:58 PM.]

[nealberk]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Host Doug:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by boten:
_An alternative can be one of the Sony Mavica line that burns the pictures directly on a CD_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Personally, I find the CD storage (as opposed to a memory card) to be nothing more than a gimmick for many reasons that I won't get into here. It is vastly more practical to use memory cards than CDs which is why nobody but Sony makes such cameras.

If anyone's really interested in why I would never consider buying a Mavica CD camera, I can give an explanation... But later as I've got to go at the moment.

Doug Newman
Cruise Critic Message Boards Host
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would also think that the writing to CD would take a relatively long amount of time, eat up battery life, and be more prone to failure due to the moving parts. The camera is also heavier due to the CD drive and I suspect would have a slight vibration and noise. You also have the physical issues of loading the CD into the camera. There is a greater possibility of getting dirt and dust in the camera if you change your CD in the field and the mechanism for inserting the CD gives far more egress into the guts of the camera- thereby leading to a greater possibility for contamination.

Memory is cheap these days, too cheap to hassle with the problems of a CD.

[smudge's mom]

My Olympus plugs directly into my computer via USB cord and photos then can be either copied or moved onto my computer with ease.

Why you would want any sort of storage device instead of buying more media cards, is beyond me. What happens if you transfer all your photos onto a storage device and that fails? At least with several smaller media cards, you will have some photos left.

And for you beginners - Microsoft's Picture It for $20 does a pretty good job at photo editing. It's easy to use and understand. If you find you want to get more involved, they have a more advanced program. Or then, you can switch to Adobe. After you learn the basics, any knowledge will transfer over to Adobe.
______________________________

Obviously most of you know a lot more than I do about this subject, but from an "average" consumer point of view - when I compare my 5.0 to other's 3's - my enlarged photos are better and a lot of time - my 4 x 6's are better.

Non-professionals don't know one lens from another, they don't know all that techno-jargon your providing - they need to have some basic criteria for switching from 35mm to digital.

For us non-professionals - we have to start somewhere and we are using megapixels as the one aspect that we can understand - and I am guessing that for now - those problems with too many megapixels for the "whatever" doesn't concern the 5's, although that might well be an issue as we go from here.

And of course, all this is planned obsolesence. What electronic thing in your house doesn't become obsolete the moment you purchase it? It's the way the companies keep their bottom line in the black.

So guys - how about some easy answers? Like which camera has a good lens? Which camera has more than 3x optical zoom without becoming a burden to carry around? Which camera can easily be used by someone who doesn't want to spend weeks studying the manual? Which camera takes and stores photos quickest? Which camera has longest battery life? How about cost/value ratio?

[This message was edited by smudge's mom on 05-18-04 at 11:52 PM.]

[nealberk]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by smudge's mom:

So guys - how about some easy answers? Like which camera has a good lens? Which camera has more than 3x optical zoom without becoming a burden to carry around? Which camera can easily be used by someone who doesn't want to spend weeks studying the manual? Which camera takes and stores photos quickest? Which camera has longest battery life? How about cost/value ratio?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lens- Nikon, Canon, Olympus

Optical Zoom Olympus (10X) Nikon (4X)

Ease of use - Almost all cameras in the Auto setting.

Stores photos quickest- This one I do not know, sorry

Battery life - Rechargable lithium batteries and get one or two extra, stay away from disposable batteries. This really depends on the number of photos you take with flash rather than without and if you keep your display on at all times, let it go into sleep mode, or just use the manual view finder.

Cost/value ratio - A really hard one. Camera prices for the same model can vary as much as 40% or more. Nobody pays MSRP for a camera. Sometimes the best deals are on closeout models but this changes day by day.

Yup, this is not a simple black and white answer (but these are COLOR cameras [img]http://messages.cruisecritic.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] )

[dougnewmanatsea]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by smudge's mom:
[B]when I compare my 5.0 to other's 3's - my enlarged photos are better and a lot of time - my 4 x 6's are better.[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There are probably other factors in play here here. At a 4x6 print size you should definitely not be able to see a difference purely on the basis of pixels. The print quality of modern inkjet printers is simply not good enough to be able to tell that difference.

You may be using a better printer, better paper, better anything.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>[B]For us non-professionals - we have to start somewhere and we are using megapixels as the one aspect that we can understand[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I certainly understand the temptation to consider megapixels simply because it is something that is easy to understand, but unfortunately anyone who thinks that megapixels really are that important is being mislead. They simply aren't that important. If you feel comfortable starting with pixels as your critera, go right ahead, but be aware that you may not wind up with the best camera for your purpose if you approach it that way.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>[B]I am guessing that for now - those problems with too many megapixels for the "whatever" doesn't concern the 5's[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They can and they do. Not all of them mind you but some of them do have real issues because of all those pixels being squeezed onto a small sensor.

It's important to realise that some consumer digicams use smaller sensors than others. The 5 MP cameras with the smallest sensors almost universally do not have very good image quality.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>[B]And of course, all this is planned obsolesence. What electronic thing in your house doesn't become obsolete the moment you purchase it?[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course. But the difference is, there's usually real improvement. The new one is usually actually better than whatever it replaced. With digital cameras this is not always the case, sometimes you have camera companies adding pixels just for the sake of saying they have more pixels, and sometimes the image quality actually suffers as a result.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>[B]So guys - how about some easy answers?[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unfortunately there really are no easy answers. It's like going and saying, "I want to buy a car, what is a good one?"

Most digital cameras out there are not bad. There are a few lousy ones no doubt but most of the major cameramakers simply don't have any really bad products. If you're not that interested in getting the best digital camera, go out and buy something cheap.

Ease of use is subjective. Ask ten people which camera is easiest to use and you might get ten different answers. Go to a camera store and try out some cameras; see which one feels comfortable in your hand. There are some cameras that I find almost painfully uncomfortable just to hold, but I know people that love them. Almost all cameras have a point-and-shoot automatic mode that and a lot of settings are what I call "set it and forget it". Generally the most popular/optimal settings are defaults on the camera, right out of the box. If you don't want to get too involved, you don't have to. Even the $8000, feature-loaded Canon 1Ds, considered to be the best digital camera in the world, can be used as a point and shoot, though to own one for that purpose would be downright silly.

Which camera has a good lens? Most consumer digital cameras don't have great lenses, but the lenses are usually good enough. The sensors in these cameras are of such that a great lens probably wouldn't make much of a difference.

In the end someone looking for a decent, basic, all-around digital camera couldn't go wrong with something like the Canon A70 (my personal choice), Nikon 3100 or numerous other 3 or 4 megapixel cameras from the major manufacturers.

Doug Newman
Cruise Critic Message Boards Host
e-mail: shiploverny AT yahoo DOT com

[smudge's mom]

Yes, I do have a good printer and I do use the best photo paper. My prints rival photos printed at any quality retail source.

My printer is a Canon i950 - price is now around $200 - I use it with Canon Photo Paper Pro photo card stock. I've done comparisons, using my printer, my camera, and other's 3.0 cameras, and I've used all brands of paper I can get my hands on. My camera and my printer with the Canon photo paper produce the best results - IMHO.

The only prints I am truly satisfied with are the ones printed on the Canon Photo Paper Pro stock - although I've tried other Canon paper. (I would follow the manufacturer's suggestion that you match their brand printer with their brand paper - I believe it really makes a difference.) Unfortunately, it's more expensive to print using Canon Photo Paper Pro than using a retail source for prints, but since it's my hobby, I consider it part of the price of "playing."

Another suggestion is using Matte card stock and paper if you want really clear photos on letters or if you are making your own greeting cards. I've had such stunning results using matte, I cannot look at photos printed on bond.

If you are interested in a greeting card program, I've tried four - the best, so far, is Nova's Greeting Card Factory Deluxe. It's pricey, but CompUSA usually runs rebates and sales - I purchased it at more than half off the retail price.

Anyone want to talk "Greeting Cards?" - reach me at [email]smudgesmom123@aol.com[/email]

[nealberk]

Doug- Excellent series of comments and overall I agree with you. Well done.

Smudge's Mom- Interesting take on the world of printed images. You are far more serious than I am about hard copy. My goal is to have pictures for computer monitor display, not hard copy prints. I guess this is the new version of the old question "prints or slides?"

Doug's choices of cameras is very good but note that he said there is a lot more than just a simple question here!

An additional thought. I suspect that Canon printers are best suited for Canon cameras with respect to calibration and all. That might give you another parameter to consider.

Neal

[smudge's mom]

Oh no - Neal - another parameter. I can't think anymore. LOL

Actually, I "fell into" the world of digital cameras when our boys bought me the Olympus for Christmas 2002, so actually, I had no say in what I got, but I am pleased with it. We went on a cruise the month after we got the camera and got such tremendous results without knowing what the heck we were doing. We set it on "auto" and away we went.

I did research the printer - heard the Canon or the Epson were the best at photo printing and went from there. Heard the Canon was more idiot proof and chose that one.

Like I said before, we beginners need simplicity in our choices. That's why I suggested Picture It for editing photos even though most would consider Adobe superior. That's why I recommend a camera with auto settings. That's why I recommend anyone who is considering getting heavily into photo editing consider upgrading to Windows XP.

For the novice and intermediate, we really need to learn the basics before worrying too much about whether the megapixels will be too crowded on the "whatchamacallit." Your commentary about the number of mp outsizing the current technology was something I had never heard, but then again, I tried wading through the digital photography magazines and found I was over my head.

But, really, I almost understood what you guys were saying. I'm proud of that. I really want to learn more so that when and if I ever want to move on to something more complicated, I will have the knowledge to make an informed decision.

After all this discussion, though,c an there be a negative to buying a good quality camera with 5 mp? When all things are equal, doesn't 5 mp help if you do a lot of cropping (which in essence is enlarging) and photo manipulation? If I understand you correctly, you are telling me that anyone buying more than 3 mp is wasting their money?

[dougnewmanatsea]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by smudge's mom:
[B]c an there be a negative to buying a good quality camera with 5 mp?[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you get a good 5 MP camera, no, other than spending more money [img]http://messages.cruisecritic.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] .

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>[B]When all things are equal, doesn't 5 mp help if you do a lot of cropping (which in essence is enlarging) and photo manipulation?[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If all things are equal, yes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>[B]If I understand you correctly, you are telling me that anyone buying more than 3 mp is wasting their money?[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, but anyone at a beginner level probably is. For everday snapshot type of stuff, a good 3 MP camera should be enough.

As I said, pixels aren't totally unimportant; they're just very overrated.

Doug Newman
Cruise Critic Message Boards Host
e-mail: shiploverny AT yahoo DOT com

[47bluejay]

During my last cruise I carried both a 35mm SLR and a 3.2 digital. If I wanted detail I used the SLR, if I wanted snapshots I used the digital. When I returned I got the print/CD combination when the film was developed. I mixed then in the proper sequence building an album without having to scan prints.

(I also carried a 20GB Picture PAD for downloading the digital each day. It was a little expensive, but provided good storage and I didn't have to worry about building a CD while on the trip.)

[dougnewmanatsea]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Host Doug:
[B]If you get a good 5 MP camera, no, other than spending more money [img]http://messages.cruisecritic.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] .[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thinking about it, there CAN be!

Photos from the cameras with more megapixels take up more space on a memory card, so if you want to be able to store the same number of photos from a 5 MP camera instead of, say, a 3 MP camera, you will probably need more or bigger memory card(s).

Doug Newman
Cruise Critic Message Boards Host
e-mail: shiploverny AT yahoo DOT com

[urbanian]

I started reading this thread, but got lost in the LONGwinded individual messages, and began skimming. Let me throw in my 2 cents for the beginner in the crowd.

1) Find a camera that feels comfortable in your hand, not too complicated, light weight, and easy to use. You'll get better shots with an easy low-quality camera than if you fumble with an elaborate one. Convenience is everything.

2) Buy it BEFORE you leave home. Take tons of pictures!!! They're free, after all. There's no substitute for experience. My neighbor took his brand new camera to Rome and accidentally deleted all his pictures on the way home! Good news is that they were able to retrieve most of them, but don't take that chance!

3) Buy the largest capacity memory card your camera will take. You don't want to be changing cards all the time, and you don't want to be away from home and run out of memory.

4) Rechargeable batteries are a MUST! Never leave home without them!!!

5) Digital zoom is worthless. It's only a way to crop your pictures inside your camera. Do that at home on your computer.

6) Digital camera technology is still in its infancy. Don't pay premium for the best camera on the market. Next week your camera will be out-of-date. Buy something you can easily afford, and plan to replace it in a few short years with something light years ahead for half the price.

7) Just because you can frame your shot on the screen on the back of the camera doesn't mean you should. Look through the viewfinder like you always have in the past. It will make your batteries last a LOT longer.

For the camera snobs in the crowd, let me say that my Nikon FE and my Olympus rangefinder 35mm are sitting on a shelf. Meanwhile we are on our second digital, and are taking pictures by thousands. Our first digital was a 1mp Kodak that we took over 5400 pictures with before selling it and buying our current model. We are now using the 3.2mp Kodak CX6330 with a dock. It's not a proud camera, but it is busy! We took 627 pictures on our recent 14 days cruise.

Dan & Marlene

Us - NCL Norway 02/03
Her - NCL Southward 04/92
- Star Princess 05/95
- HAL Westerdam 09/96

[Captain Einstein]

Thank you all for your advices!
At this point, I'm hesitating between the Canon A80 ans S400. Do you know which one is the best and why? What is the difference(s) between them? [img]http://messages.cruisecritic.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img]
Thank you.

Captain Einstein