I want a digital camera, one that takes high quality pictures, has good zoom capabilities, and isn�t horribly expensive.
I�ve been looking at the following:
Kodak EasyShare DX6490 - $499 4.0 megapixel 30x max zoom 10x optical zoom 3x digital zoom
...and the
Hewlett-Packard PhotoSmart 945 - $499 5.1 megapixel 56x max zoom 8x optical zoom 7x digital zoom
Obviously, there is a bit more there for the Hewlett-Packard, but Cnet didn�t give it a very good review.
I want to do the standard digital camera things: take pictures and email them, print selected shots for photos, take travel / party / gathering photos and that sort of thing.
I�m not looking for professional quality, but I want a good camera and I don�t want to replace it in a couple of years.
Thoughts? Ideas?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
One of the things to remember about digital cameras is that resolution is exactly like percision in a mathematics application: beyond a certain point, nobody cares. Yes, they can build 14-megapixel cameras now, if you want to pay 30 bajillion dollars for one, but would it take "better" pictures? Unless your needs involve blowing up a tiny piece of background to fill a poster on your wall, probably not. Cameras don't go out of date unless their memory format dies (like, please please please, Memory Stick and Smart Media soon will). For any usual purposes, three megapixels should do just fine, and it'll be that way for the forseeable future.
That said, Canon Powershot A70. Not as much optical zoom as what you're looking at, but great image quality under almost all lighting circumstances, CF memory, and complete manual control if you want it. www.imaging-resource.com for more.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Having worked in retail for a good portion of last year, I can tell you that it does not really matter about the amount of megapixels in your camera, but the zoom ratio of the camera itself. A two-megapixel camera can snap a decent 11x17 photo, and unless you can find a decent use for it, anything above 2 megapixels becomes nothing but a poster on your wall.
As for the zoom, you could go for something that is, say 7x digital zoom, but optical zoom is more important. Whereas Optical zoom is via lens, digital zoom is simply via software, which makes some pictures look rather pixellated.
As for the memory type, I notice that there are a lot more SD adaptors in use, especially around laptops. If you're planning on getting a Toshiba laptop, get a SD card based camera.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Everything I've read says that you're lucky to get a crisp 8x10 out of a two megapixel camera. You're right about digital zoom, though. Crap. If I want to crop photos, I'll do it myself!
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I've heard that too. If you want to produce 7 x 5 photos (which is as close to any sort of "normal" size as you are going to get), I've been told that a resolution of 11xx x 8xx will produce slight pixelation, whereas a resolution of above 2000 x 1600 won't. And I don't think that a 2 megapixel digital camera can do that.
Omega is right in that a 3 megapixel camera will probably produce photos at a high enough resolution for you to print out normal sized photos. However, going for a 4 megapixel camera will give you the extra option of being able to crop your photos and still print out normal photos. If you go with a 3 megapixel, and crop the image too much, you could get pixellation.
And regarding the memory format, I don't think it's that important. Buying a card reader is a bit of a waste of money, when you can simply plug the camera to the computer via USB. Doing it direct will only save you a bit of battery power.
One final thing: You'll probably want to buy an extra memory card anyway, unless your camera comes with 64 mb, and even then... A big memory card will allow you to have the camera on maximum options. I've got a 128mb memory card, and on 2200 x 1600 (ish), at super fine quality, I get around 54 photos. Which is more than enough, since I take a load in one night, then the next day I upload them and format the card. If I run low on memory, I have a quick scan through and delete any obviously crap ones, or (if I have to) I drop down a resolution. If you're planning on going out hiking, or being away from a computer for long periods of time, then more memory might be useful, but if not, it's not a necessity.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Also look at what kinds of batteries your camera would require. Digital cameras are notoriously rough on batteries, particularly while using the flash, and also with the LCD on (though this is becoming less of an issue, I understand). I've spent a lot of money buying batteries where I thought I'd be saving a few bucks. A couple of sets of rechargeable AAs might make a worthwhile investment.
Also look at how quickly your camera can take pictures. 'Latency' I think they call it. It may not seem like it, but it can get really irritating really fast if you have to wait ten seconds between snaps.
Also what Liam says about pixelation is true. They taught us at graphic designer school that most people's eyes generally don't see much detail beyond 300 dots per inch. Under close scrutiny of course they can, but the 300dpi rule is generally a pretty conservative bet. I've found that even 150dpi is pretty decent. 3-4 Megapixels is a nice comfy amount of detail for most anything you'd want to print (unless you are big into posters/photo-murals). Also learn to resize your images down if you don't intend to print them. You'll save on memory.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
I have a Kodak EasyShare DX4330 with a 64 meg card in it. On highest quality, I can get about 50 pictures out of it. I also have the dock which comes with software to automatically download to CPU and with rechargeable batteries. (The dock recharges them). It has a 3x optical and 3.3x digital zoom. I can get a good 11" x 14" print from it. I have had absolutely NO problems with it and my total cost about 8 months ago was $450 for Camera, Memory Card, and Dock.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
And these are all good things to know.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
I forgot! It's a 3.1 megapixel
Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Well, I have a Sony Cybershot digital camera and it works fine for the family gathering photos I had to take. And it is a 2.8 megapixel cam. I wouldn't get a 5.0 megapixel or even a 4.0 megapixel unless you plan to blow up a photo or heavily edit it with Photoshop.
As for memory, buy at least two. I have the 128mb Sandisk memory stick that has this A/B switch much like a two sided CDRW... I get 512mb with using both sides. One side is for my Sony Clie PDA and the other is for the Cybershot. But I have a 64mb memory stick just for the cam since I do use the 128mb memory stick on the PDA more.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I'm perfectly happy with my PowerShot A40, only 2 MPs but it does us fine. And Wil Wheaton uses one. 8)
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
My objection to memory stick is that you're locked into Sony hardware. No other manufacturers use that format. The only reason it still exists at all is because, hey, it's Sony. But then, for me compatability between devices is important. Everything I have uses SD, my handheld, my miniature digital camera, and my pocket reader, giving me great flexibility in carrying, viewing, and editing files and pictures. But that may not be so important to you.
I recommend this site for digital cameras, I would also recommend getting a a fast battery charger, most that come with cameras are 13 hour chargers which is a pain in the ass.
Digital Photgraphy reviews It is a site which seems unbiased and tests camera on a lot of different criteria.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Of course, as Jay says, battery charge time isn't overly important. He's not a professional or anything. He'd probably be fine with 4 rechargabe Double-As. That way he can use one set while charging the other.
A docking station can be convenient, but it's really down to how much you want to spend. Remember, all you're doing is plugging in a USB lead and selecting "download". If you've got USB 2 (and especially if they're at the front), then it's already fairly speedy and convenient.
And (although I'm not sure on this), aren't all 3 megapixel cameras really 3.1? Isn't there rounding and crazy stuff involved?
One thing I would say: Lot's of people say that their camera can produce great photos at whatever size, even though it's taking photos at a small resultion. There are also people who say that they can't tell the difference between a VHS tape and a DVD. If in doubt, check. Ask for example prints.
I'm prety sure (although not 100%) that all "megapixel" means is "maximum resolution of photo". Resolution can be converted to DPI if you have an image editing program. And using the 300 dpi rule, you can have a rough idea of what minimum resolution you'll need. Or you can just wait a bit, and I'll ask someone who works in this field. Do remember though that even though you might not want to spend much (or any) time at all editting photos, cropping them before printing is really easy to do, and can do a lot for a photo, so you will need to overestimate a bit on resolution.
Michael McManWhore: Having two memory cards might be a bit overkill if you only have one item of equipment, don'tcha think? All that you'll do is lose one.
"I have the 128mb Sandisk memory stick that has this A/B switch much like a two sided CDRW... I get 512mb with using both sides."
Er, is it me, or is the maths there crazy mad wrong? Or do two sided things have four sides in the US? (And people have the audacity to decry the American education system.)
Wizartist: What's the maximum resolution your 3.1 megapixel camera gets?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"blah blah megapixel" refers to the the number of sensor elements on the camera's CCD/CMOS, or imaging chip. The more of those neat little guys there are, the larger a photo can be before pixelation rears its ugly head, but, of course, every active pixel requires memory, and as you'll often be tempted to use all of them even for average-sized images, you really shouldn't save on either feature too much. And, as Liam says, the term also stands for the absolute maximum resolution that the chip is capable of capturing a picture at sans mathematical cheats like interpolating or filtering.
Anyway, if you are an everyday photographer then you can get by just fine with 2- or 3MP (although that's barely entry level these days), but if you have wild dreams about making, say, panorama's of nature's finest without compromising quality even one iota, a camera in the 4- to 6MP range is probably your best bet.
And yes, 3 megapixel is actually 3.1somethingsomething due to the rounding from 2048x1536 (aka QXGA, the 3MP standard).
[ January 05, 2004, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
So a 3 megapixel camera has a maximum resolution of 2048 x 1536, right? The maximum size of a 4 megapixel camera (or at least, MY 4 megapixel camera) is 2272 x 1704. Er, anyone want to do some maths and figure out what the DPI would be on them at, say, 7 x 5?
Posted by Charles Capps (Member # 9) on :
Assuming an ideal DPI of 300, a 7x5 would need to be around 2100 x 1500, around the realm of three megapixels give or take.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Here is all the info I could find on the Kodak DX4330 that I have. Hope this helps.
aperture f2.8-5.1 lens 38 mm-114 mm zoom 10X 3X optical 3.3X Advanced digital
focus distance 3.7 m (2 ft.) to infinity macro/close-up mode .07-.7 m (2.8-28 in.) lens protection lens cap tethered to body exposure control multi-pattern TTL/AE with program modes (standard, macro, landscape, sport, night, movie) shutter speed 1/2-1/1700 sec. flash mode automatic, fill, red-eye, off flash range 0.6-3.4 m (2.0-11 ft.) ISO equivalent automatic (120-200) magnify 2X and 4X in review white balance automatic sharpness automatic multi-zone AF automatic matrix metering automatic
High Performance Features
display 45.6 mm (1.8 in.) indoor/outdoor display scene/other modes standard, landscape, night, sports, macro movie capture video and audio capture and playback on camera exposure compensation +/-2 in 0.5 step increments long time exposure up to 4 seconds storage internal storage: 16 MB internal memory external storage: SD/MMC removable card slot
Sophisticated Simplicity
image file format JPEG/EXIF v2.2 capture mode automatic - always ready auto-orientation on-camera picture rotation delete dedicated delete button viewfinder real-image optical viewfinder share Share button software KODAK EASYSHARE Software interface USB, KODAK EASYSHARE Camera Dock compatible; audio/video connectors video out NTSC, PAL (user-selectable)
Other Specifications
DC in DC-in jack on side of camera for 3V adapter tripod mount 1/4 in. standard self-timer 10 seconds power options optional camera dock with Ni-MH rechargeable battery pack (in-camera charging); 2AA lithium or Ni-MH batteries or 1 CRV3 lithium battery, 3 volt adapter weight without batteries: 210 g (7.4 oz.) dimensions WxHxD: 110.5x66x39 mm (4.4x2.6x1.9 in.) warranty one year
Package contents
KODAK EASYSHARE DX4330 Zoom Digital Camera Lens cap with strap CRV3 lithium battery or equivalent Video out cable USB cable Wrist strap KODAK EASYSHARE Software CD Documentation Custom camera insert for optional KODAK EASYSHARE Camera Dock
System Requirements
Windows
WINDOWS 98, 2000, Millennium Edition, or XP OS 233 MHz processor or greater 64 MB RAM (128 MB RAM for WINDOWS XP) 200 MB hard drive disk space available CD-ROM drive Available USB port Color monitor, 800x600 pixels (16-bit or 24-bit recommended) Macintosh
PowerPC based MACINTOSH Computer MACINTOSH OS X (0S 8.6/9.x - Share button functions not supported - OS X is recommended for full functionality) 128 MB RAM for OS X (64 MB RAM for OS 8.6/9.x) 200 MB hard disk space available CD-ROM drive Built-in USB port Color monitor, 800x600 pixels (thousands or millions of colors recommended)
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
So a 3 megapixel camera would be fine for 7x5s if you're not going to touch anything.
I'd suggest going up to a 4 megapixel, just to give yourself some breathing room. Besides, cropping is really easy, and can dramatically improve some pictures.
And the price difference between a 3 and 4 megapixel camera isn't really that much anymore.
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist: Amazing Picture Quality
Proof!
Posted by Fleet-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
Well Liam, I use both memory sticks in either/or the Sony Clie handheld and the Sony Cybershot digicam.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Yeah, but, well, Jay won't. So he doesn't need two.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I was thinking about a 256MB digital memory card.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by WizArtist: Amazing Picture Quality --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proof!
Sorry I didn't edit the cut-n-paste! Sheesh! What did you miss tea time?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I missed lots of things. I am terrible.
A 256mb card will give you over 100 pictures at maximum resolution on a 4 megapixel card (which is 2272 x 1704). I'm not sure what the price difference between that and a 128mb card is, but are you sure you need that many?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
We have a motto: If your going to do it, do it right.
It's not too bad, about a $30 difference.
Besides, we're taking a 2 week trip to Italy and while I don't think I'll take and keep that many pictures, I'd hate to run out of room on the card.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
I remember skimping and getting a 16 MB spare card for my digicam when I bought it. Bad decision. Not even sure where that little card is anymore. Useless. I got a 64MB card a week later. Always better to have too much than too little. Unfortunately, I've yet to learn that this isn't supposed to apply to milkshakes and cookies.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
And a 128mb card.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Not that one...
kidding.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Looks like you have gone the right route. Kodak is getting out of the 35mm film business, I wonder how long before Agfa, Fugi and other companies follow suit.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
There will ALWAYS be a market for film photography. Plenty of artist and commercial applications still work better with film, to say nothing of all the countries that simply don't have the computer access necessary to make it feasible. Film ain't going nowhere, though admittedly it'll become a small niche market.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)