Buying first digital camera...HELP!

jwstewar · Nov 2, 2004

I have a Sony Mavica FD-85. It uses Floppy Disks to store the pictures. It always took great pictures, but was fairly low-res (1024X768). Great thing about this was the floppies. You could always buy more and were easy to download. Other thing was it took a battery pack. Seemed pricey at first ($90) but between the one that came with it and the extra one I bought, I was always ready to go /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif. Downfall was low-res & constantly swapping disks and the initial price ($800 in '97) /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif. This camera would also do about 60 seconds of video on a single disk.

Now I have an HP something. 3.2 Megapixel w/ 16 MB internal memory. I've also purchased a 64 & 128 MB cards for it. Takes OK pictures - but not as good as the old Sony. Yes res is higher so you can blow them up, but the pictures are always dark or the color is just way out of wack /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif. Other downfall is the batteries. It uses 2AA batteries. It runs those suckers down really fast. Can do better if I don't use the screen, but that is what I usually like to use /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif. Speaking of the screen, on the Sony it was real fluid motion, but on the HP the screen is real choppy can make it hard if you are trying to "video". /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif I would really like to replace the HP, but A.) can't justify to myself B.) Don't feel like eatin' the crow when I go back to my wife and say that I screwed up. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif At least it was cheaper than the Sony, it was only $199. BTW, I contacted HP's support, their response - don't use the screen and use rechargeable batteries. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

I've been very happy witht he HP Photosmart 7760 printer though. Now if we want a picture to display we will take it and have it printed, but for general use the printer has been great. I believe we got it for $125 after a $75 mail-in-rebate for buying a camera as well. At least the ink isn't constantly drying up in it like it was in our previous Canons, Lexmark, and Epsons since we usually use the trusty HP6P LaserJet. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Sorry for being so long winded. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

bmac · Nov 2, 2004

In the Digital SLR world I think the only brands to consider are Canon and Nikon. 

We use a Fuji S1 Pro daily at my office. It is built from a Nikon body with Fuji electronics. It uses Nikon lenses, flash, etc. Have been very pleased with it. Heavy use (picture count in the thousands) with no down time for repairs in over 2 years (come to think of it, it may be 3 years - I've lost track).

Bob Shurka wrote: I think the downside of ALL of the digital cameras is the printing of the pictures. ......ink-jet printers, even with the correct photo ink and the correct brand photo paper is that they fade if they are exposed to too much light.


Bob, I'm no photo expert, but don't you think the same problems with sunlight apply to photographic emulsions as well? I haven't tried the archival inks and papers, but the reviews I've read suggest that if these pictures are properly stored (in an acid-free environment, away from direct sunlight) that they will last as long as photographic prints. Of course, these results are based upon extrapolation of data as these papers and inks have not been around long enough to truely know if the prints will last 50-100 years.

I think the other issue one needs to consider when switching to digital is the cost per print. I can't remember what the figures are for ink-jet vs dye-sub, but a few years ago there was a significant difference. Of course, if one is preserving family memories to pass along from one generation to the next, then it makes no sense to pinch pennies too tightly. However, if one simply wants to share prints with friends (Hey- look at my new tractor!), then costs should be considered. Now, I know the cost of ink-jet consumables are nothing to sneeze at and maybe the cost-per-print of dye-sub has gone down since I last checked, but I think there are some very nice, near photographic quality prints coming from very reasonably priced ink-jet printers. And, with archival quality inks and papers combined with proper storage, one should expect satisfactory results.

Finally, back to the original posters question, I agree with what others have stated with regard to the use of the camera. As I mentioned above, at my office, I use a relatively expensive digital SLR because that's what is required to get the results I need at work. At home, however, my needs are not as demanding so I have more modest cameras. I gave my wife a Canon G1 (I think that's the correct model) for Christmas about 3 years ago. At the time, it was a very good point and shoot with manual options if she every needed them. I would say that she has never used the manual features - always on automatic exposure settings (and the results reflect this). About a year ago, I bought a Canon S-500 Digital Elph (again, I'm not positive about the model designation). It was one of the smallest digital cameras at the time but still makes very nice pictures. We use it almost exclusively now because of its small size. Very easy to just stick it in your pocket on your wat out the door. Both cameras suffer in the qualily of their built-in flashes. This may be true for all digital cameras. Also, the 3x zoom is very limiting. So, if one is going to be doing alot of indoor photography where lighting may be a problem or have a need to photograph little Mikey in a school play from the rear of the auditorium, many (possibly most) of the point and shoot diigitals are going to yield unsatisfactory results (at least they do for us - could be we are photographically-challenged). Lastly (this comes after finally when you think of one ore thing to say), if one is only going to view their pictures on a computer monitor and/or limit the size of prints to 4X6, there is no need for a gigamega pixel camera. 3 megapixels is more than adequate for these types of uses. If printing in large format (8X10 or larger) then the more megapixels the better.

Sorry for the long post. Sometimes I don't know when to stop typing.

txdon · Nov 2, 2004

Coachgrd, I have a C-755 ultra zoom Olympus. and have been taking the pictures for the last three weeks on the bridge project. Of course they have been down sized. The auto functions works well. It does so many things. I am glad I bought it.

The camera uses 4 (I use rechargeable) AA batteries. And I can use it all weekend and take about 100 pictures on a set of batteries. I just today got the conversion lens adapter ($30) and can now attach my tele photo and wide angle lenses.

The only negatives (because there is no such thing as a perfect tractor or camera) are that the batteries do not charge inside the camera (so I just got a Radio Shack 4-AA battery charger for $15) and you cannot switch (with the shortcut menu button) from optical zoom to digital zoom in auto mode without first going to a different mode and then switching back to auto mode. But with the 4.0 mega pixel I am just taking all optical zoom and just cropping them later on the computer and they look great.

There are so many things this camera can do (almost too many) the manual will simply amaze you (makes good bathroom reading).

Bob_Skurka · Nov 2, 2004

Bob, I'm no photo expert, but don't you think the same problems with sunlight apply to photographic emulsions as well? I haven't tried the archival inks and papers, but the reviews I've read suggest that if these pictures are properly stored (in an acid-free environment, away from direct sunlight) that they will last as long as photographic prints. Of course, these results are based upon extrapolation of data as these papers and inks have not been around long enough to truely know if the prints will last 50-100 years.


I've seen those numbers but I also know what is on my wall and what has faded and what has not. I have about 50 pictures of my daughter in my office. Some are Polaroids, some are traditional film, some are digital. The Polaroids seem to degrade and the lights get lighter and the darks darker. The traditional film seems very stable.

The digital pictures run the gamut of seriously faded in just one year to marginal to excellent. The differences are very apparent between the ink jet pictures and the dye sublimation digital pictures. The best of the ink jet pictures are marginal after only 2 or 3 years on the wall. The dye sublimation pictures are are par with the traditional film prints and show no degredation.

Now I'm not an expert, but I know that I take pictures so I can look at them. Putting them in an archival book and keeping them in a dark closet seems to defeat the purpose.

Mine are just pictures of my kid and they are just hanging on the wall in a random array. Dye sub pictures next to film pictures, next to Polaroids with a smattering of ink jet shots mixed in. My office gets the afternoon sun, but it is filtered sun because I had a tree planted outside my office to cut down on the sun. NONE of the photos are exposed to direct sunlight and all of them are one either the north or the south walls, with none on the east or west walls. The ink jet pictures are BY FAR the worst and they generally are VERY NOTICABLY DEGRADED in as little as 6 months. I have one shot of one of the dogs, it is about 2 years old (the dog is only 2.5 years old) and it is about 70% faded out. It was printed with a HP PHOTOSMART 755(?) printer.

Every one of the pictures printed with an Epson Photo Stylus or the HP Photosmart ink jet type printers that we had in the house were so faded within MONTHS that we had to remove them and replace them. But my house is much brighter than my office so I suppose fading would be a bigger issue there. I used the recommended Epson and HP photo inks (the expensive ones) and I used the recommended Epson and HP high quality papers. I also tried the Office Depot papers and the Kodak papers. None of the inks or papers, in my mind are worth the price given what I have on my wall and how faded they are.

bmac · Nov 2, 2004

Bob,
I will agree that the proof lies in how the pictures hold up under the viewing conditions of the individual. All of the manufacturer's claims in the world don't mean a thing if the photographs don't last in your environment.

Our displayed photos are typically the kids school pictures or other "professionally" made pictures. Our digital snapshots of kids and family are placed in scrapbooks that my wife makes - pages contain photos, decorative items and text entries - intended to be passed on to the kids when they leave home so they each have a photo record of their "early years". Obviously, under these conditions, even ink-jet prints will hold up longer than those on display and subject to bright lights.

Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not against dye-sub printers. Wish I had one. The point I was trying to make (and obviously did so poorly) was that for some folks, ink-jet prints may work out OK. They do for us (at least, so far they have). But, I also archive all of our photos on DVD so, in the case of fading or other problems - I have the original files available.

SPIKER · Nov 3, 2004

I have used several cameras with good results on phto quality, we have an HP 5.3 MP one which came with a dock from sams club for a bit under 300 bought this summer. it is kind of slow with choppy screen viewing and only has 2 dubble a batteries, but the software/hardware & downloading is all excellent. the high res photos turn out pretty good and we print on the HP 2175V copier/printer combo unit we got last fall. again just about 275 I thinkn we paid then. it works flawlessly for printing even after LONG times between, same for the HP printer at work, I'm sold on the HP's for printing, the camera is good but we also have a much older casio camers which takes photos that look just as good with a 1.3 MP res. it has many of the features that the much newier HP has too such as movie and removeable digital media cards ect. also 32x optical zoom and I think 2x digital on top of the optical but at those distances the hand shake is too bad to take a photo so a tri-pod is required. it also has time laps photo which I wanted for ths shop so set in place and automatically take photos every so often (programable for # of shots and time between shots so a full days work could be programmed at intervals for a build up progress. (these photos can be seen at the company web site here http://www.haynncorp.com which I did all the photo shotting and uploading as well as html. I'm NOT a computer geek just used the casio software to do much of that... the casio also can be taken and plugged into any computer with out having to install a bunch of extra software only a small 3.5 floppy driver. not sure on the HP on that one, but I DO know that AHP goes driver crazy, for the 2 HP units we must have 30 drivers running, (though the multi-function printer makes up probably 10 it;s self.!?) I've had "cannon printers", "digital brand (very fast but bad ink drying problems)" and HP as well as Epsons, Lexmarks and some others. the HP's are by far the best INKJETS for low use home use. the digital was great for offic use where print speed was needed but the flacky ink dried too easy in the heads and was a PITA to clean. even though that was a '95 printer it's speed is still as fast as most of the top of the line printers sold today at something like 20~25 PPM in Black. it would shake the desk even lol. like I said I liked it but cartrages got hard to find and expensive so it was retired to the floor...

sorry for long post. just wanted to post my 2 cents worth, oh BTW We will be printing some of theHP photos at wallyworld using that kodak photo smart thing to see how they look shortly but probably not in time for you to hear back.

Markm

EddieWalker · Nov 3, 2004

I hope you've been taking notes with all the good advice and recomendations. I have a few thoughts to through into the mix also.

Since your asking the question, I'm assuming your not a camera buff or photo hobbiest, so start with a quality, but affordable unit. The SLR's are by far the better cameras, but much more expensive!

Stay with a name brand. There is a difference, but between the main brands, it comes down to personal preference.

Make sure you get at least 3X optical zoom and ignore the digital rating. It's meaningless since once you go to digital your pictures begin to blur.

I would only buy one that uses AA batteries. I have a charger from walmart that keeps a set charged and a fresh set in my camera. No matter what brand you get, it will eat up batteries faster than you'd expect. I also like AA because you can get them at any gas station in the country.

I only have 2.0 mp of resolution and have to reduce it to email or post on this website. You can go up to 6 mp or more, but it's just overkill unless you get into printing out pictures on paper.

The higher quality picutres you want to print, the more mp you want. I use my 35mm film camera for my good photography. Cheaper and better quality for now. In a few more years, digital will take over.

The real issue with printing you pictures has already been brought up in with the printer that you have. That is another discussion and one you can dump a ton of cash on. Not to mention ink and special paper. My 2.0 camera with photo paper prints nice pictures on my $150 hp printer, but not in the same league as I've seen in setups for four times what I paid. It's all about the cash you want to spend and if you need it.

When I bought mine, I found the best price on Amazon. That was a year ago when I replaced my Fuji with another Fuji after destroying it on my tractor. hahaha

Last point. If you plan to use it allot, then be sure to get a good case to protect it. hahaha

coachgrd · Nov 3, 2004

Once again you guys never cease to amaze me with your willingness to lend a hand. Thanks to all of you.

I realize my initial post was pretty vague about what I intended to use it for, how much I was willing to spend, etc. The camera will be for good old fashioned family fun, kids jumping in leaves, swimming, vacations, etc. I had a $400 limit from my accountant (see "wife".) In looking over the choices in Consumer Reports and Clnet.com, I figured that would get us a very nice camera. I read the reviews from ordinary folks like you and me. I wanted something I could grow with, one in the 4-5 MP range. I wanted a 10X zoom in that I would also hope to be using it to photograph the kids sports one day.

Anyway, I leaned towards a Consumer Reports "best buy", the Olympus C765 Ultra Zoom and found a super deal online. Through mysimon.com (I love that site) I found a place online where I could ge the camera, additional 128MB memory, camera/lens cleaning kit, and a case for $350. In doing the research, it looked like a no brainer so I jumped at it and by God, you guys might see a pic of my kiddies sitting on Daddy's JD very soon!

Thanks again for all your help!

Tdog · Nov 3, 2004

coachgrd, I don't think you will be disappointed in the c-765. You got a great deal - - I paid more a few months ago [on-line] & did not order extra memory. I'm especially happy about the loooong battery life. It recharges pretty quick, too. If your printer accepts photosmart cards, you can take out your memory chip & insert it in your printer to easily download to the computer, or just print if you wish. I usually use a usb cable, just because I'm more comfortable with it.
The camera has loads of features, if you want to play with them. Or, on Auto, it's an excellent point & shoot camera.

Have fun.

cowboydoc · Nov 3, 2004

I've got the new sony that was mentioned. It takes great still pics but terrible motion pics. Alot of the pictures I want to take are of my girls rodeoing and action pictures for the sale horses on the internet. What does a person have to jump up to to get good action pics??