This is topic Before I Buy a Digital Camera... 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=000555
Posted by Tal Marks (Member # 175) on 11-28-2001, 02:33 AM:
...I just want to know what you guys recommend. I searched the film-tech forum archives and I think the advice is a little dated. Way back when, I bought the "high-end" pre megapixel Mavica FD-91 (you know the floppy eating camera with the huge lens). I need something compact to fit in my laptop case (g4 powerbook since you asked). Initial use is going to be for mainly carrying around the city, friends/family, computer art, and maybe some print.
I went to CNET and got the same old specs that just sell the product. If anyone can recommend another site for reviews, or have their own experience to share, I expect it in essay form, double-spaced, and on my desk by 8 AM.thanks guys
tal.
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 11-28-2001, 03:17 AM:
I have an Olympus, but the lense is horrible. Too much distortion - if you shoot a picture on an angle.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-28-2001, 03:26 AM:
Casio QV-3000EX is what I have and I love it. This was last year's model, so they may have something newer. I like the colors on the Casio cameras over all others I've seen. The pics look more "film-like" than typical digital cameras. By the way, you didn't say the price range you were looking at.
Posted by Tal Marks (Member # 175) on 11-28-2001, 03:33 AM:
Oh yeah, money. I think I'm willing to spend in the range of 400 - 600. I think I can get at least a low end 3.3 MP (sony).
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 11-28-2001, 03:44 AM:
My Olympus costed 625.00, and it only came with a 8 meg flash card. I got a 32 meg for it for more room. (maybe it was a 64 meg) It now can handle 454 SQ pictures. It also does short MOV files. The picture quality is like Brad's, if it is a "straight on shot". Angle shots, well, the buildings do not have square cornors. They are on an angle, like a badly keystoned picture in the theaters with a steep projection angle, where the telephone poles are sitting on a bowed angle.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-28-2001, 04:28 AM:
I paid $900 for the Casio. I would assume that a year later, now you can get the equivalent camera for $600. The QV-3000EX is a 3.3 megapixel, but again it's not the pixels that really impresses me, it's the colors.I found this link via Pixelcraze for the new high-end Casio. Casio website
And while you're at it, be sure and visit www.pixelcraze.com for some fantastic examples of what the QV-3000EX is capable of. Click on "digital photography" for some pics taken outside and click "real estate photos" for examples of how well the camera performs inside. There is also a huge archive of older pictures under "digital archive". (As if that wasn't enough, there is also some of Joe Redifer's non-film related video works available there for download. "The War" is one of my personal favorites. 
)
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-28-2001, 09:28 AM:
I'd go with the Nikon Collpix. It has very superior optics which if any camera doesn't have its definately a looser. They work great for macro work too.
Mark @ GTS
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-28-2001, 12:54 PM:
Please consider the Kodak Digital Cameras:
Kodak Digital Cameras
Kodak Professional Digital CamerasThe Kodak website has high-resolution examples of photos taken with Kodak digital cameras. For example, here's some photos taken with the DX3900:
Kodak DX3900 Photos
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
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 Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-28-2001, 01:36 PM:
I happen to know the guy who's writing the Mac device drivers for the Kodak cameras. Not only do I like a lot of the cameras that Kodak is putting out, I know the guy who's writing the software is a top-notch programmer.(Besides, my buddy gets a cut everytime somebody buys a Kodak 
)
My second choice would be one of those Cannon "Digital Elph" cameras. They are small, good looking and they get good reviews in the magazines.
I'm thinking about getting a better camera sometime after Christmas. It's going to be one of those two. Depends on what the prices are, I guess.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 11-28-2001, 03:27 PM:
I've got an Olympus D600L that works ok. But lately the auto focus has been kind of bogus. Does anyone know if there's one out there that you can manually focus------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-28-2001, 04:36 PM:
I have a Nikon CoolPix 800. It's a 2.1 megapixal. It has good lenses and a wide selection of attachments. It's a bit old now (bought it a year ago for about $400.) I got a 8 meg memory card with it, which I felt was too little, so I bought a 32 meg card.It came with a serial connector to upload images from the camera to your computer. It takes a really long time, so I got a parallel port card reader (I use WinNT, so can't use USB.)
I mention the larger card and reader, because you might want these, so you might consider their cost in addition to the basic camera.]
The CoolPix has a strange operation error; You press a button to scroll through operating modes; flash, no flash, shutter release timer. Turns out, it's not possible to program the camera to not flash AND use the shutter release timer. In low light conditions, people will set the camera down and use the timer to take the picture, because if they held it, it would blur the picture. You can't do this with the CoolPix. It's a good camera, but (to me) that's a major fault. I would have returned the camera, but didn't notice it until after the return period ran out.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-28-2001, 06:16 PM:
I have to agree with Brad about the Casio. It's awesome. This years version is a little over $500 if you shop around plus it comes with the 350Meg Microdrive. You just cannot beat the microdrive for storage, plain and simple. It's compatible with most USB CompactFlash readers as well, so just pop the microdrive out of your camera and slam it into the USB Compact Flash reader and there are all of your pictures! No need to hook the actual camera up to a super slow serial or parallel port.My camera is an Epson PhotoPC750z. It takes good pictures, though not phenomenal. My uncle got a Kodak camera last year (don't remember the model #) it it seemed better than my Epson as far as the GREENs were concerned. But it was a bit grainier and the angle of the lens was not as wide. I like wide angle lenses. I think it was one of those $200 models, but I could be mistaken. The resolution of the pics it took was 2160x1440, more than my Epson can produce.
Below are examples of my Epson and my uncles Kodak. Both took the same picture from the same exact spot.
CLICK HERE FOR COMPARISON PICTURES
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-28-2001, 09:52 PM:
I use a Kodak DC4800 3.1 megapixel camera. A lot of places sell it for around $500. It captures pretty good quality color (output looks great when printed from Macromedia Freehand) and the 3.1 MP pictures are very sharp in detail. The only big drawback at all with this camera is that it has really short battery life. Many digital cameras that take 3.1 megapixel or even higher res images are notorious for having short battery life. So when you buy a digital camera, also consider buying an extra battery or two and perhaps even a spare battery charger.
Posted by Todd Leach (Member # 883) on 11-28-2001, 10:41 PM:
I just bought a Canon G2 and love it, battery life is great, lens is good, and it has a wide range of camera control from full auto to manual control of every function you can imagine. It is in more of the $900 range, but it is 4 megapixels. A great site for digital camera reviews is www.dpreview.com
Posted by Aldo Baez (Member # 790) on 11-29-2001, 12:24 AM:
Any of the FUji hundred series is really really good. I bought a FUji 1300 (1.3 megapixel) for about 80 bux. Then quickly bought a 2600 zoom (2 megapixel) for about $200. The 2600 is a dream and takes great great pictures. I suggest any of those but a good site to look is photographyreview.com
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-29-2001, 01:17 AM:
Why oh why do cameras use proprietary batteries? I hate that crap. My Epson uses 4 NiMH AA size batteries. Those are easy to get (you can find them in the checkout line at most K-Marts, Targets and Wal*Marts), cheap, and quick to charge. They have great longevity as well. You can always just charge a ton of them and take the batteries with you (the chargers are cheap as well and can charge up to 8 or 12 batteries simultaneously). NiMH batteries don't drain just sitting there like Ni-Cds do. I can understand how most companies want to rape you for more money , but give the consumers a break! Any camera that uses proprietary batteries is as useless as a turd.As you can see, I'm pretty gentle with my opinions. I try to please everyone.
Posted by Tal Marks (Member # 175) on 11-29-2001, 04:57 PM:
Hi folks. To bring this thread to a most disappointing end, I bought a SONY DSC-P3. I used my expired SONY Employee status to get it at a considerable discount. The camera isn't that bad for the size. I do appreciate all the most wonderful things everyone has said about their non-sony products and I even did research some of the brands you recommended. In the end, it was the lure of a discount that suckered me into getting it.
So if anyone wants a thousand bucks off a new WEGA... Damn, gotta run!L8R