Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digital camera for dummies?

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 8:18:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

My parents are considering getting a digital camera but they didn't
know which one to get. I guess the fact for about $100 I could
regularly get over 800 shots on a single 512 card (I've gone over
1,000 before on high quality 3.2Mp setting, the actual number depends
on the complexity of the scene) which is a bargain when you compare to
about $5 per roll of 24 shots and developing. That would cost nearly
twice what a single 512MB card costs over the course of 800 pictures
plus the 512 can be reused for more shots for thousand times over.
Film and picture takes up spaces while hundreds digital picture only
takes up a single CD-R or burnable DVD. Plus bad picture won't cost
anything with digital camera and you still pay for film and processing
even if you got all bad picture. ;) 

I wasn't much help because I can't think at their level and get an
easy to use camera that isn't as complicated (or as shifty) as a car
with 10 positions manual transmission.

What they do want are:
simple point-and-shoot interface
LCD for previewing
Zoom (I'd suggest optical zoom, digital zoom has no play in decision)
Around 3 Mpix for decent 3x5 or 4x6 printouts
memory card slot (I don't want any that requires SM or MMC as they are
pretty much dead end)
Hookup to connect to a PC.
Does not matter how slow the camera is to save shots.
Also does not matter if it can use optional lenses or not. The camera
does need to have shutter or cap to protect the lens when not in use.
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net

More about : digital camera dummies

Anonymous
October 13, 2004 2:19:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

SD is the newer technology that is slowly replacing CF where the brute size
isn't necessary. MMC is almost dead.
Witht those specs almost any camera will do that.


"Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
news:fdeom0ht75n0pbe2432970hb9o7k3dk5vq@4ax.com...
> My parents are considering getting a digital camera but they didn't
> know which one to get. I guess the fact for about $100 I could
> regularly get over 800 shots on a single 512 card (I've gone over
> 1,000 before on high quality 3.2Mp setting, the actual number depends
> on the complexity of the scene) which is a bargain when you compare to
> about $5 per roll of 24 shots and developing. That would cost nearly
> twice what a single 512MB card costs over the course of 800 pictures
> plus the 512 can be reused for more shots for thousand times over.
> Film and picture takes up spaces while hundreds digital picture only
> takes up a single CD-R or burnable DVD. Plus bad picture won't cost
> anything with digital camera and you still pay for film and processing
> even if you got all bad picture. ;) 
>
> I wasn't much help because I can't think at their level and get an
> easy to use camera that isn't as complicated (or as shifty) as a car
> with 10 positions manual transmission.
>
> What they do want are:
> simple point-and-shoot interface
> LCD for previewing
> Zoom (I'd suggest optical zoom, digital zoom has no play in decision)
> Around 3 Mpix for decent 3x5 or 4x6 printouts
> memory card slot (I don't want any that requires SM or MMC as they are
> pretty much dead end)
> Hookup to connect to a PC.
> Does not matter how slow the camera is to save shots.
> Also does not matter if it can use optional lenses or not. The camera
> does need to have shutter or cap to protect the lens when not in use.
> --
> To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 5:09:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:19:36 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
wrote:

>SD is the newer technology that is slowly replacing CF where the brute size
>isn't necessary. MMC is almost dead.

I'm not sure if CF will ever fade out. It has bigger bandwidth than
any other cards and they are available in a few GB (8GB I believe is
the biggest so far) while SD (plus XD and Sony MS pro) are only up to
1GB.
--
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
Related resources
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 6:00:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
news:fdeom0ht75n0pbe2432970hb9o7k3dk5vq@4ax.com...
> My parents are considering getting a digital camera but they didn't
> know which one to get. I guess the fact for about $100 I could
> regularly get over 800 shots on a single 512 card (I've gone over
> 1,000 before on high quality 3.2Mp setting, the actual number depends
> on the complexity of the scene) which is a bargain when you compare to
> about $5 per roll of 24 shots and developing. That would cost nearly
> twice what a single 512MB card costs over the course of 800 pictures
> plus the 512 can be reused for more shots for thousand times over.
> Film and picture takes up spaces while hundreds digital picture only
> takes up a single CD-R or burnable DVD. Plus bad picture won't cost
> anything with digital camera and you still pay for film and processing
> even if you got all bad picture. ;) 
>
> I wasn't much help because I can't think at their level and get an
> easy to use camera that isn't as complicated (or as shifty) as a car
> with 10 positions manual transmission.
>
> What they do want are:
> simple point-and-shoot interface
> LCD for previewing
> Zoom (I'd suggest optical zoom, digital zoom has no play in decision)
> Around 3 Mpix for decent 3x5 or 4x6 printouts
> memory card slot (I don't want any that requires SM or MMC as they are
> pretty much dead end)
> Hookup to connect to a PC.
> Does not matter how slow the camera is to save shots.
> Also does not matter if it can use optional lenses or not. The camera
> does need to have shutter or cap to protect the lens when not in use.
> --
> To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net

I got my wife an Olympus D-510 a couple of years ago, and she made the
transition from a film camera quite easily. It has the look and feel of the
Olympus 35 mm camera she had been using.
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 11:20:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

CF will not fade out for a long time because of the massive size of it can
accomodate a queen size mattress for when the models get randy.

SD prices have come down and are now cheaper than CF most of the places. As
the sizes come down the Cf won't even fit into the gadgets. I have a memory
key that takes SD cards. I wouldn't want one that would fit a CF inside. I
would have to carry a skateboard to pull to my jobs.


"Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
news:n6oqm0pkelil882803b0ubqsekf83din97@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:19:36 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
> wrote:
>
> >SD is the newer technology that is slowly replacing CF where the brute
size
> >isn't necessary. MMC is almost dead.
>
> I'm not sure if CF will ever fade out. It has bigger bandwidth than
> any other cards and they are available in a few GB (8GB I believe is
> the biggest so far) while SD (plus XD and Sony MS pro) are only up to
> 1GB.
> --
> To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
Anonymous
October 19, 2004 3:20:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Canon A75.





On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:18:30 -0400, Impmon <impmon@digi.mon> wrote:

>My parents are considering getting a digital camera but they didn't
>know which one to get. I guess the fact for about $100 I could
>regularly get over 800 shots on a single 512 card (I've gone over
>1,000 before on high quality 3.2Mp setting, the actual number depends
>on the complexity of the scene) which is a bargain when you compare to
>about $5 per roll of 24 shots and developing. That would cost nearly
>twice what a single 512MB card costs over the course of 800 pictures
>plus the 512 can be reused for more shots for thousand times over.
>Film and picture takes up spaces while hundreds digital picture only
>takes up a single CD-R or burnable DVD. Plus bad picture won't cost
>anything with digital camera and you still pay for film and processing
>even if you got all bad picture. ;) 
>
>I wasn't much help because I can't think at their level and get an
>easy to use camera that isn't as complicated (or as shifty) as a car
>with 10 positions manual transmission.
>
>What they do want are:
>simple point-and-shoot interface
>LCD for previewing
>Zoom (I'd suggest optical zoom, digital zoom has no play in decision)
>Around 3 Mpix for decent 3x5 or 4x6 printouts
>memory card slot (I don't want any that requires SM or MMC as they are
>pretty much dead end)
>Hookup to connect to a PC.
>Does not matter how slow the camera is to save shots.
>Also does not matter if it can use optional lenses or not. The camera
>does need to have shutter or cap to protect the lens when not in use.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 9:20:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

> My parents are considering getting a digital camera but they didn't
***SNIP****
What they do want are:
> simple point-and-shoot interface
> LCD for previewing
> Zoom (I'd suggest optical zoom, digital zoom has no play in decision)
> Around 3 Mpix for decent 3x5 or 4x6 printouts
> memory card slot (I don't want any that requires SM or MMC as they are
> pretty much dead end)
> Hookup to connect to a PC.
> Does not matter how slow the camera is to save shots.
> Also does not matter if it can use optional lenses or not. The camera
> does need to have shutter or cap to protect the lens when not in use.

Take a look at the Mustek DV5500, it's terrific fun and dirt cheap. Meets
every item on your wishlist and more.
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 1:51:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:09:14 -0400, in article
<n6oqm0pkelil882803b0ubqsekf83din97@4ax.com>, Impmon <impmon@digi.mon> wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:19:36 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
>wrote:
>
>>SD is the newer technology that is slowly replacing CF where the brute size
>>isn't necessary. MMC is almost dead.
>
>I'm not sure if CF will ever fade out. It has bigger bandwidth than
>any other cards and they are available in a few GB (8GB I believe is
>the biggest so far) while SD (plus XD and Sony MS pro) are only up to
>1GB.

It seems risky to me to buy the biggest cards however. These are essentially
mini hard drives, and just like hard drives, they are bound to eventual
mechanical failure. If you lose a huge card, you have a high monetary loss,
plus the data on the card, which could be substantial, and hurt more than the
monetary loss. Better, I think, to buy mid-sized cards (say in the 64 MB
range) and treat them like rolls of film. These things are not "forever", and
they are quite portable.

Susan
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 1:51:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Never put all your eggs in one basket. If you value your pics take a session
then change to another film and take some more. You could lose one in Mexico
and lose those pics and have no record of going. We won't discuss the shoe
cam techniques here.


"Susan Perkins" <deleted> wrote in message
news:417c4dd0$0$6492$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:09:14 -0400, in article
> <n6oqm0pkelil882803b0ubqsekf83din97@4ax.com>, Impmon <impmon@digi.mon>
wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:19:36 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>SD is the newer technology that is slowly replacing CF where the brute
size
> >>isn't necessary. MMC is almost dead.
> >
> >I'm not sure if CF will ever fade out. It has bigger bandwidth than
> >any other cards and they are available in a few GB (8GB I believe is
> >the biggest so far) while SD (plus XD and Sony MS pro) are only up to
> >1GB.
>
> It seems risky to me to buy the biggest cards however. These are
essentially
> mini hard drives, and just like hard drives, they are bound to eventual
> mechanical failure. If you lose a huge card, you have a high monetary
loss,
> plus the data on the card, which could be substantial, and hurt more than
the
> monetary loss. Better, I think, to buy mid-sized cards (say in the 64 MB
> range) and treat them like rolls of film. These things are not "forever",
and
> they are quite portable.
>
> Susan
!