Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Digital Cameras

This is topic Digital Cameras in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000206

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 03-30-2001, 06:52 PM:

What is the current lowest price for a digital camera and where can it be bought?

------------------
Andrew McCrea

"I'm Not Bad, I'm Just Drawn That Way!" - Jessica Rabbit

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 03-30-2001, 07:53 PM:

Lowest price or cheapest isn't usualy the best mesure of a camera or any toy for that matter.

I use a Kodak DC280 Zoom to great effect. They are down in the $399 range now. Kodak has a newer 3 megapixel camera that I lust after (DC480 Zoom) and Sony has a very nice, very small 3 megapixel camera that I like (DSC-P1).

But I have heard you can get a digital camera for free just by signing up for a magazine subscription. But would I use it? I think not!

Check out www.cnet.com for comparisons and prices.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 03-30-2001, 07:55 PM:

A word of caution: You get what you pay for.

I spent a pretty penny for mine (Olympus D-300L), but I've dropped it off of a theater roof in 1998 and it is still in use today. Of course, my heart isn't the same.

(Who the hell wanted that grand opening picture of the parking lot anyway?)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-31-2001, 01:12 AM:

Get the Casio that Brad Miller, Tom Barnes and Jeff Skallan all have. It only costs $1000 US, but I'm sure your parents will be willing to buy it for you.

If you get too cheap, you might as well just draw the picture you want to take with your mouse on the computer!

I hear it takes 25 days for US checks to clear in Canada. True?

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-31-2001, 06:49 AM:

Here is a link to information about the Kodak digital cameras:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/cameras/DCSGateway.jhtml

Here are some other links about using digital photography:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/digitalBridge/

Here is a link to Kodak's interactive Digital Learning Center to learn about digital technology:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/dlc/

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Andrew McCrea (Member # 674) on 03-31-2001, 08:57 AM:

Thanx...

But i'd rather get a scanner, now!

------------------
Andrew McCrea

"I'm Not Bad, I'm Just Drawn That Way!" - Jessica Rabbit

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 03-31-2001, 04:48 PM:

I have a older Kodak DC150

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 03-31-2001, 05:20 PM:

So I go on the website that John has linked and discover that not only will Kodak give $100 off on a new DC4800 but that they will give me $200 trade in value on my old DC2800.

So I ordered up a new DC4800.

Boy am I glad I bought Kodak.

Of course I didn't really need to spend another $300 just to take web smaps. So far I will have spent $1,000 on this Digital Photo hobby.

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 03-31-2001, 06:49 PM:

I have a Sony MAVICA with the 3.5in floppy disks. While it's great for road trips and long terms away from home... it ABSOLUTELY sucks in low light situations. I bought the thing to save money on my theatre photos that I take EVERYWHERE I go, but what I didn't stop to think about is how well it would take a picture of the inside of an auditorium.

In most cases... even with florescent cleaning lights on, it still sucks. But it's GREAT for outside pics during the day.

-Scott

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-31-2001, 06:53 PM:

Andrew, you really do get what you pay for. Don't even consider anything less than 3.3 megapixels. The Casio QV-3000EX I have takes the most "film like" digital pics of anything I've seen to date. Pricing has come down on it and it can now be had for about $900. If I was reviewing it as a regular item here on the site, I would give it a solid A rating. I'll bet Joe would rate it similarly. Most digital cameras out there would be rated in the "this blows" category. They just have a video look to them. Joe's Epson digital camera takes pretty good pictures too and up until the Casio came along I thought it was the best out there.

Posted by Ken Layton (Member # 133) on 04-01-2001, 01:16 PM:

Heartland America (a mail order company) has a miniature pen-sized camera for $79 (item number S4-99841) or a regular sized digital camera also for $79 (item number S4-9770). Call 1-800-229-2901 or www.heartlandamerica.com

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-01-2001, 04:14 PM:

My first question is, "What do you want to do with this camera?"
If you are just going to take pics of friends and family and post them to the internet then you don't need a whole lot of camera. If you are going to print pictures out and just share them with friends, you need a better camera but you still don't need a super-duper camera. If you are planning to use the camera for "professional" work or if you want high quality pictures for a "serious hobby" then you need to get the better cameras.

The camera that I have has two resolution modes:
640 X 480 (For internet pics, etc.)
1152 X 864 (For better quality)

It has a couple different levels of JPEG compression for a total of four different "quality" settings.
This is about all I'll need for the forseeable future. IF I find that I need a better camera I can always buy a better one but for $200 I think I'm doing OK.

What I suggest you MUST get is a camera that has removable storage media. (ie: "Digital Film")
The cameras that have to be connected up to the computer via some kind of "serial cable" are just the PITS! If you get the "digital film" you can remove the memory card and plug it into a reader that is connected to the computer. This gives you two benefits:

You can keep shooting with the camera while you are downloading your first batch of shots.
You have virtually unlimited capacity to store pictures.
Caveat: This assumes you buy more "digital film". (It's not too expensive though... about $50 per.)

There is one brand of camera that I know of that can be had for about $100 but it only has one resolution mode (640 X 480 I think.) If you just want a camera to "play" with and maybe post pics to the 'net, then this is the one that I suggest for you. (Unless you want to spend more $$ to get a better camera.)

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-06-2001, 12:07 PM:

Here's a digital camera to meet Joe's need for the ultimate in digital image quality:
Kodak 16 Megapixel Digital Camera

The camera back uses a 4080 x 4080 pixel sensor, with 12-bit color capture, and 16-bit RGB processed file output.
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-06-2001, 12:13 PM:

Ooooooooh. I want one! Dare I even ask, how much?

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 04-06-2001, 12:55 PM:

Well, first you got to buy one of these:

Then you have to buy a bunch of lenses.

Then you can buy the Kodak Digital Back. I'm guessing the total cost to somewhere North of $10,000.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-06-2001, 01:06 PM:

AFAIK, somewhere close to $20K.

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 04-06-2001, 01:41 PM:

As much as I hate Sony, I have to admit that their digital cameras are pretty good. My wife has a Sony DSC-70 which as 3.3 mega pixel caputre, 8x zoom, can do video capture in the form of a MPEG file. We bought it for about $600, but list price is about $700-750. We recently had a picture professionally printed, and it looked like it came off a 35mm negative. It does very well in both outdoor and indoor lighting. Annother advantage is that it is rather compact and durable. Lenses can be changed out, unlike many other cameras out there. IMHO even though it is a Sony, it recieves an A in my book.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-06-2001, 03:16 PM:

Hi, Jason.

You bet! I have done some frame captures from Hi-8, converted them to BMP's, and they came out next to perfect, even in analog. The picture of me to the left was taken that way.

It's even better that John's picture above.

(Well, almost. I am not as ugly as him....
Sorry, John. I just had to say that)

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-06-2001, 04:55 PM:

So, Paul... you're saying that the camera you have only makes you LOOK ugly?

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-06-2001, 08:30 PM:

Randy, I went through three lenses before video camera was able to take the video of me without melting the lense.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-06-2001, 11:30 PM:

So that picture was taken with one of the melted lenses?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-07-2001, 01:12 AM:

Paul, I can tell just by the colors that your pic is a video grab. A single chip Hi8 if I am not mistaken.

My picture is taken from a frame grab from an OMNIMAX motion picture, obviously.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-07-2001, 01:24 AM:

Hi, Joe.

The Handi-Cam was a Sony Hi-8 CCD-TR81, in a very poor light setting. I was quite pleased on how it turned out. Considering it is non-professional equipment, it does a nice job.

It is a fairly old device now, and I would presume today's state-of-the-art home level unit does much better.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-07-2001, 03:04 AM:

So is THAT howcum you're pointing your finger at the camera? I gotta' go out and get me a pair of 3-D glasses to see the whole effect, right?

Oh, by the way... I don't need a camera to make me look bad. My picture is true-to-life... I'm NATURALLY ugly!

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-07-2001, 03:18 AM:

Joe, that actual picture of yours must have been crystal clear. I compared pictures, and it looks like the best quality of them all.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-07-2001, 08:13 PM:

I want to be able to have a different picture for each post I make, depending on my mood. That would piss Brad off and detroy the UBB program, but it would be worth it!

My uncle just got a Kodak DC4800 and I am not impressed as I would like to be. It was cheap ($479 before a $100 rebate, 64 Meg card, 2 batteries and a pretty yellow box), but I was dismayed at how noisy the pictures come out. Even on next to no compression, you will get video noise artifacts (red and green specks all over in the dark spots). I can't stand that. The color is pretty good after you fix it up with PhotoShop. I guess you do get what you pay for, though.

John Pytlak -- tell the guys that I want NO NOISE in the next digital camera! Thanks.

I have used my Epson PhotoPC 750Z in super hi res mode (about 2 megapixels) to take pictures that have been published in magazines, and they looked pretty good!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-08-2001, 02:07 AM:

Oh, and John.... about those Kodak 64MB flash cards that come with the DC4800: They crash my computer when I try to unmount them. This is a known issue at Kodak. I'm sure that you have personally designed a new and improved Kodak 64MB flash card, correct?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-08-2001, 03:29 AM:

I am using Lexar Media's USB enabled CF cards. They come with a dongle that goes into the USB port. Plug it in and load the driver and you're off. Just insert the card and it appears as if it were a floppy disk on your desktop. Toss it in the trash and wait for the light to stop flashing and you can remove the card. The only thing I have had problems with is that they have a tendancy to remount themselves if you leave them in the dongle after you dismount them. My solution is to remove them as soon as I dismount them.

Unless those flash cards that you are using aren't compliant with the standards of what a Compact Flash card should be there's no reason that they should crash the computer. I would have to say that it's in the driver or some kind of extension conflict. (If you don't have Conflict Catcher you ought to get it!)

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-08-2001, 04:15 PM:

No Randy, it is a problem with just the 64MB version of Kodak's Flash card. Every other size from Kodak works fine.

I use Lexar Media flash cards and mount them with a SanDisk CompactFlash to USB adapter thingy. The cards act just like any other mounted disc. You can copy files to them, install and run programs from them, defrag them, and plant a hidden virus on them. Fun!

I don't like Conflict Catcher because the last time I tried it it wanted to restart the computer a billion times just to find the problem. I ain't gots time for that yo! Anyway I am always able to correct any problem on the Mac quickly and easily.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-08-2001, 04:33 PM:

I don't use the debugging feature very often... mainly because I never HAVE to!
I use it for keeping all my extension sets in order. Every time I install a new device or program it gets a new set. That way IF I have problems I can deactivate the SETS of extensions one by one and find the problem. The only time I had extensions conflicts that I couldn't find this way was when iTunes came out. There was this funky thing where it wouldn't work if there was a certain CSM in your "Control Stick" folder. Took me about 30 minutes to figure it out.

If I knew more people who had CF readers I'd start using them as floppies! Did you see that new thingy that looks like a key chain? It plugs right into the USB port and acts like a disk drive. No moving parts! Talk about all the "James Bond" possibilites with THAT thing!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-08-2001, 06:29 PM:

Compact Flash cards are a little too expensive to use as floppies. If you think Iomega overcharges for Zip Disks (and they really, really do), well that's nothin' compared to the prices for Compact Flash media.

Sony sucks. They could have had the new floppy with the MiniDisc. They are really cheap, they hold much more than a Zip Disk, they are faster and far more durable, and they are just cooler all around. Not to mention smaller. They have the DataMD format, but it is not compatible with MiniDisc for some stupid reason. Are you required to be a moron to make decisions at Sony?

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 04-08-2001, 10:49 PM:

Yeah, they are expensive but I didn't mean that I would GIVE somebody the thing. I'd let them download it and get it back or at least get one in return.

I wondered what the hell happened to the MiniDisk. I always thought those things were good but I never saw more than a few of them on the market.

You're right... Sony and Technicolor ought to get together someday.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-08-2001, 11:19 PM:

I had no idea that Minidisk ever existed as a data format.

The recording format still does exist and is (or at least was) apparently very big in Japan. For a while, some US radio stations were using them as a replacement for cart machines, but CD-R blanks got cheap really fast, as did hard-disk playback systems. I'm not sure what the major market for MD is right now, but it certainly never caught on as a home format in the US.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-09-2001, 12:33 AM:

MiniDisc is still around and fairly strong. I like it because of its size and durability. If you record a lot of sound effects and stuff like that MD is the way to go because of its size. You can also shake the thing all to hell while recording and you will still get a good clean track without skips. I don't think they make portable CD recorders yet. The technology is really cool, but the marketing sucked.

Unfortunately for DataMD the shutter is on the other side of the disc, so you can't use audio blanks. That is just stupid. You also have to buy DataMDs for the MiniDisc camcorder that is on the market now, but it will play audio MDs.

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 04-10-2001, 07:03 PM:

Well, I recieved my Kodak DC4800.

I wasn't happy with it, so I sent it back.

It came with a 12 meg flash card while my DC280 came with a 32 meg flash card.

The viewfinder was fuzzy.

The flash wouldn't fill my big auditorium while the flash of my DC280 does fill a big room.

I took 7 photos and of the 4 that came out, 2 were out of focus.

Only one photo taken out of the front window was sharp, in focus and good looking. The photos taken in my lobby were very poor.

So, I live and learn. Boy am I glad for return policys. What I want is a camera as good as my Kodak DC280 with the form factor of the Canon Elf, with a flash that fills the room and a 3 or 4 meg chip. I'll keep dreaming.