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?
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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 Cameras don't go out of date unless their memory format dies (like, please please please, Memory Stick and Smart Media soon will).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.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
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.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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!
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- I am the Anti-Abaddon. I build models at a scale of 2500/1
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"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).
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
