Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Digital Camera Question

This is topic Digital Camera Question 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=002058

Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 05-10-2003, 01:45 AM:

Hi all

This is technically not a 'film' question but seeing as digital is the way of the future [Smile]

I reckon somebody out there may know the answer.

The problem is this. I am looking to buy a modestly priced digital camera to take some photos when overseas. The camera I have my eye on is a Kodak CX-4210.

The question is - how do I email or store photos when overseas? Eg Let's say I take a stack of photos whilst in Paris. How do I unload my camera so I can take some more?

If I was at home I could download the photos to my pc via a usb cable, and then go and take some more photos but what to do when far away from your pc?

Ideally one would email the photos to oneself however an internet cafe is unlikely to have the appropriate software to upload the photos to the computer.

What to do? I understand that you can buy expanded memory but that would still limit the number of photos you could take?

How does one use a digital camera in practice when overseas?

Thanks Peter

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-10-2003, 02:33 AM:

Take a laptop. [Smile]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-10-2003, 02:47 AM:

Very simple. Many photo stores can read your memory card/chip and back it up on a CD in 15 minutes for a a few dollars. Mostly you do not even have to bring a USB cable, many photo stores have card readers in their computer systems.
I did that several times when I was with my camera in America and Italy.
But a really big memory is worth the investment too. I have a 256MB smart media card. It was around 120 euro (=dollar), but it takes easily 200-300 pics at 1600 resolution with minimum compression or 200 at 2048 resolution. Or around 500 at 1024. When I travel, I remember where I see a photo store with digital capacity and then when the card is nearing the end of its storage capacity, I go make the backup. For emergencies, I still have the original small card which came with the camera.

After the successful backup you delete the photos and start shooting like a maniac again.

I have a Pentax Optio 330 GS (3.2MP) which cost 350 euro half a year ago, but the price is dropping as new models come out.
It is very easy to use. The automatic functions are very effective, but you can still set all parameters manually. The image quality is very good. Take a look at Pentax products before you make your decision. There is a reason why even other manufacturers often use Pentax lenses.

[ 05-10-2003, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Michael Schaffer ]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-10-2003, 01:56 PM:

It is very tricky to find a "moderately priced" digital camera with good features, image quality, etc. Our sign company just purchased another digital camera for a salesperson we are about to hire. We didn't want to spend a fortune on the camera, but it had to be good enough to do survey work, etc. I did a lot of price and feature comparisons among lots of digital cameras and read a ton of reviews. Canon has some decent models and the Fuji FinePix F601 Zoom was tempting to buy.

The camera we purchased is a newly released Kodak DX6340 Easy Share model for around $320 (the model just hit stores this past week). It has a Schneider 4X optical zoom lens and 3.1 megapixel CCD. The camera has 16MB of internal memory and can use Secure Digital/MMC flash memory cards.

The camera has a good array of both manual and automatic controls for taking still images. On top of that, you can record sound and even video in Quicktime format (320 X 240 pixels). A 128MB SD card could capture about 10 minutes worth of video, provided you don't drain the batteries in the process.

This camera is flexible in the kind of batteries it can use. It comes with a non-rechargeble CRV-3 battery. We bought a NiMH battery charger and some AA size NiMH batteries to use. This model uses batteries slightly more efficiently than the Kodak DC4800 camera we've been using. Still, turn on the LCD display only when you need it.

Battery use has been my major gripe with digital cameras. In the need to be cutesy and small, most digital cameras have SHIT battery life. [Mad]

We had a Sony Mavica model with a 14X optical lens and LONG battery life. But the camera was designed more like a camcorder rather than a cutesy, tiny-ass gadget. It still pisses me off that one of my coworkers lost the thing.

Kodak needs to improve the situation regarding batteries use / recharging, etc. with their cameras. The main knock I have against the DX6340 camera is how Kodak tries hard to make it necessary to buy the $80 EasyShare Dock 6000. The camera doesn't come with a DC cable to recharge it, or even a battery that can be recharged. [Roll Eyes]

That's the big pitch for the EasyShare dock. You'll spend $80 more productively by purchasing a NiMH AA charger and batteries, a large capacity SD flash memory card and a USB multi-format flash memory card reader.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-10-2003, 02:51 PM:

Can you connect the camera directly to an USB input? Another important thing to check would be how compatible the Easy Share stand is for travel!
I have a quick battery charger which comes with 4 different plugs and works with 110-240VAC and 50 or 60 Hz. If you travel in Europe, remember that most countries do have 230VAC, but still there are several different plug types.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 05-10-2003, 03:14 PM:

A 1GB Microdrive would suite your needs. [Smile]

As for batteries, I've found using CRV-3 batteries in the Kodak DX series cameras to be the least hassle option. At about 400 pictures per battery (about $10) it's a heck of a lot better than Kodak's (and others') previous cameras.

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-10-2003, 03:58 PM:

San Disk makes a compact flash 1Gig module and they now have a 2 and 4 gig avaiable as well

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-10-2003, 05:27 PM:

The Kodak DX6340 does come with a direct camera to USB port cable for offloading pictures. It is aggravating that it did not come with a DC 3V power adapter. Obviously they want you to buy the Dock6000 and other accessories for a good bit extra.

The CRV3 batteries last for a decent amount of time (about 4 times longer than standard AA batteries). But at $10 or more per battery it can get expensive. I'd rather have a bunch of recharged NiMH AA batteries.

It is great that digital cameras are taking ever sharper pictures. I think 10 megapixel cameras will be common and affordable within the next couple years. But what I would like to see in a digital camera is more powerful zoom lenses and MUCH LONGER battery life. Sony was using camcorder style batteries in some of their old Mavica line. One of the batteries we had could last 4 hours, even with the LCD display running!

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-10-2003, 08:34 PM:

[ 01-15-2004, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Paul Linfesty ]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-10-2003, 08:42 PM:

Paul,
Your purchase was not towards obsolescence at all. Aside from getting REAL film experience you will also get the real film look. The film look is still way way ahead of the digital camera look....even the multi million pixel jobs. Just avoid Sy the photo guy for your processing needs!
Mark

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 05-10-2003, 09:59 PM:

I have used Hassleblads during almost all of my professional photography career spanning almost forty years but my first love has always been the 35mm format camera. I have been very fortunate to own and use all of the professional Nikon cameras starting with the rangefinder Nikon SP in the late fifties and sold it and bought Nikon's first SLR, the famous "F" model. After that came the F2 and the F3 and the F4. Shortly after Nikon came out with the current top of the line model, the F5, they released another professional camera that has a lot of features found in the F5 and also some others that are not included in the more expensive model. The camera is the F100 and I own two and prefer it to the F5 because it very easy to use and not bulky as the top of the line model. I also work with a Nikon N90 whenI have to shoot chrome (slide) films and prefer to use that camera because I find it well suited to that type of film because of the very precise exposure meter found in that model. During the past year and a half, almost all of my professional work has been created with my Fuji Finepix Professional S1 digital camera. All of the pictures Joe Radifer was kind enough to post for me recently on my "KUALOA PHOTO SHOOT" topic was created with the S1 camera. Mark is correct when he said that film is better but professional digital imaging is getting there and eventually film will be completly replaced by digital.

-Claude

Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 05-11-2003, 03:48 AM:

Thanks everyone

I went out today and bought the Kodak CX-4210 after studying its specifications.

The important thing to note is that I'm not interested in professional photography but rather just want a camera that will take 35mm or similar quality photos.

I took the camera for a test run today and am happy to report that I am very impressed with the results. Uploading to a computer using the USB cable is easy - you just connect, turn the computer on and the software automatically recognises that you want to upload the pictures.

I found the quality of pictures to be very good and the 2mg resolution pics quite adequate for my purposes.The software that comes with the computer is quite easy to use.

I plan to add a 128 meg mulytimedia card (MMC) to the camera before going on holidays and this will mean that plenty of photos will be able to be taken before needing to upload.

There was a similarly priced camera (a Polaroid) but this used Smartmedia. I figured that MMC, being a Kodak product, is likely to be more widely accepted at Netcafes etc than Smart media. It's a bit like choosing Visa over American Express. [Smile]

My inlaws were also impressed with the camera. I can recommend it as a good beginners camera. At $US140 or thereabouts it's good value.

Here are some examples of the finished product (at 2 meg resolution)

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~p.berrett/1.JPG
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~p.berrett/2.JPG

These files are reasonably large and may take a while to load. They are of two paintings I purchased in Bali.

cheers Peter

Posted by John Spooner (Member # 1565) on 05-11-2003, 09:44 AM:

Dear Peter. I have had a Kodak DX4900 camera (4mp resolution) for a few months now, it is quite a good unit. My photo on the left was taken with it.
I also purchased the travel kit which includes a soft carry case, camera pouch, nimh battery and rapid charger. I don`t have an easyshare dock as the usb cable is included with the camera..
As a matter of interest, Officeworks are currently having a sale of the Easyshare 2 dock for a good price.
Regards. John S, Adelaide.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-11-2003, 09:47 AM:

A very good program to look at and organise digital pictures is ACDSee. There are also some basic editing tools included.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-12-2003, 01:45 AM:

Windows XP might also be worth having for digital camera users, as it can use USB-connected memory card readers without any additional drivers and software: the functionality is built in.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-12-2003, 06:04 AM:

That should also apply to the camera itself, which is seen by the computer as an external drive. But XP asked me for a driver when I first plugged the camera in. However, since I had the CD ready, I didn`t try not installing the driver to see if it worked with the in-built function anyway.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-12-2003, 01:45 PM:

Kodak on-line digital picture services:

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=2/3/9/151&pq-locale=en_US

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/pictureCenter/index_flash.jhtml

Even if you don't have a computer with you, some photo stores now offer services to upload pictures from your camera or MMC / SD memory cards. Many also offer Kodak Kiosks that can burn a CD of your image files.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 05-12-2003, 05:29 PM:

For storing your photos so that you can re-use your memory cards, you may want to investigate the various portable "digital library" devices. They are basically hard drives with the necessary software/hardware to facilitate dumping your photos onto the hard drive from the memory card.

DPReview is an excellent site that covers digital photography, and I was able to find an article on one of these devices:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0304/03042901iomagicdrive.asp

There are more like it, but this was the first one I found.

I recommend picking up a 256MB or 512MB card if you can, and maybe two so that you can keep shooting if you need to. I have a Canon G2 (4 Megapixel) and a 256MB card lets me shoot 120-140 photos.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-12-2003, 06:37 PM:

Here's a pretty good deal if you're into SD/MMC cards. E-Cost is selling a SanDisc USB Crusier for $69.99. You get a 256MB SD card included with the device. Most 256MB SD cards cost more than that on their own.

Devices like the USB Cruiser are, thankfully, forcing computer manufacturers to stick the USB and Firewire ports on the FRONT of the machine (along with including more of them).

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-13-2003, 08:00 AM:

Out of curiousity: what's the size of a full-resolution, uncompressed color image from a typical consumer-grade digital camera (say, 2-4 megapixels)?

For the moment, I'm going to stay with film photography, as I like film better and recently bought a new (used) camera, lenses, etc. Also, I like to shoot slides and B&W negative, which seem to be weak points of the current generation of affordable digital cameras. I'm also concerned about the storage and archival issues with digital; Kodachrome slides will last for decades when stored in a box; digital seems to require more care with respect to copying media and converting to new formats as old ones become obsolete.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 05-13-2003, 08:28 AM:

A 3MP camera will give pictures with up to 2048x1536 resolution. The pictures are usually stored in the JPEG format, and therefore compressed to a certain degree. But you can select from different levels of compression. An image of that size with a low compression rate can be between 1 and 2MB depending on the complexity of the information in the picture. A picture with that resolution would be 9MB when fully uncompressed.
I don`t think you should be worried about your data. Standards do change, but they don`t change so quickly that you won`t have a chance to rerecord your data in whatever storage media we will have in 5-10 years. True, some archives are faced with such problems, but they have amounts of data not comparable to what even the storage happiest private person will amount in a few 100.000 years!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-13-2003, 03:17 PM:

The 3.1 megapixel digital cameras we use typically capture up to 2160 X 1440 pixels in an image. That's fairly decent resolution but nowhere near close to a 35mm camera using a good lens.

Most cameras store JPEG images with varying levels of quality. Some out there take crappy looking JPEGs with severe compression and noticeable artifacing. Some digital cameras will shoot images in RAW TIFF format. Our Kodak DC4800 will do that, but the new Kodak DX6340 we purchased last week will not. TIFF image capture yields the best looking results. However, you should use a tripod when in that mode.

Film cameras still have a lot of things on their side, particularly with unusual shooting conditions like time exposure photography and very fast image photography. For most average consumer purposes, digital cameras are really trouncing on film.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-13-2003, 03:51 PM:

I own a Kodak EasyShare DX3700 digital camera. Very good camera that takes nice pictures. Very convenient, especially when I need pictures to e-mail or use in PowerPoint presentations quickly. But for really important photos and the best print quality, I still shoot film! [Smile]

Even a 4K scan (about 12-megapixels) of a 35mm motion-picture negative doesn't capture all the detail in the film image. And film is hard to beat for latitude and tone scale.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-14-2003, 02:28 AM:

I agree. I have a 2-megapixel digicam for work which is fine for taking pictures for our website and the odd publicity leaflet. When I'm researching in other archives, it's also useful simply to take pictures of documents for reading on a PC screen later. But none of these pictures would stand enlarging beyond 15x10cm really, and so where quality is important, film wins hands down.

On the subject of which, my 10 year-old Minolta manual focus SLR recently died. The problem is something electronic (annoyingly, the shutter release is electronically operated, i.e. not separate from the exposure meter system, so when the electronics go the camera is useless), and the cost of fixing it is not much less than the camera body is worth.

And now, to change the topic to 'analogue camera question'...

I am therefore thinking about an upgrade, and starting to look around. I'm after a 35mm SLR in the UK£250-350 bracket. It would be used mainly for the usual holiday and amateur snapshot stuff, plus (in the short term at least), taking some photos to illustrate a book I'm in the process of writing (including illustrations of original documents and enlargements of film frames taken over a light box). Therefore a lens with a good macro facility is absolutely vital. Automatic focusing and exposure would be nice, but the ability to manually control everything is more important.

Some photography-minded friends have advised me to look carefully at Nikons, believing that the quality of the bundled lenses is a lot better than with other SLRs in a similar price bracket. I'm starting to think in terms of the F55, which seems to be available from online retailers for around £320 bundled with a 28-80mm and 70-200mm lens. Does anyone have any experiences of using one of these, or any other thoughts? Many thanks.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-14-2003, 07:08 AM:

Leo--I just went through this process when someone stole a bag that contained my Minolta and lenses, and I ended up switching to Nikon. Here's what I learned:

If you already have a big investment in Minolta lenses, etc., you might want to stick with that brand; their products are very good and relatively inexpensive on the used market (in the US, at least); if the thief hadn't taken all of my Minolta stuff, I wouldn't have switched

Nikon seems to have the widest selection of lenses and accessories available and there is a thriving market in used equipment (unlike, say, Minolta or Canon manual-focus lenses, which are essentially dead products and can be hard to find).

Unfortunately, the low-end cameras that Nikon currently sells have plenty of features, but use rather light and flimsy plastic bodies which clearly aren't designed to last for more than a few years. From what I could tell, the "good" Nikon bodies in current production are: F5, F100, FM3A, and (possibly) F80/N80. The recently discontinued F90/N90 is also worthwhile. Unfortunately, all of these are fairly expensive, but they seem much more likely to hold up over time than the lower-end models. The F100 seems to be the best "value" in that it has most of the F5's features at about half the price.

The good news is that there are lots of good models available on the used market in good condition. If you want a manual camera, the F3, FM2, and FE2 are all good options. I'm not as familiar with the autofocus models (which didn't interest me), but there are some good options there, too.

This isn't to say that low-end cameras can't take good pictures; I just personally can't stand plastic stuff that is only built to last for a short time.

I ended up with a practically mint F3 (the standard 1980s newspaper photographer's camera) and an assortment of lenses, etc., and I couldn't be happier. The Minolta lenses were pretty good, but the Nikkors that I've used are noticeably sharper.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-14-2003, 08:48 AM:

Many thanks for this. The second-hand market is probably worth a look. I'm not in a tearing hurry and so can keep my eyes open for a while...

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-14-2003, 11:16 AM:

The most annoying thing on some consumer-grade digital cameras is the operation of the motorized zoom lens. Some cameras zoom in and out way too fast, making it hard to frame the shot just right. You always overshoot what you really want and have to keep futzing with it.