Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New to digital cameras, any tips?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 2:39:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm a young 23 year old that would like to start taking pictures of my
life.

I don't need top of the line, but at the same time I don't want
something that will be obsolete in six months.

What MP range is good for *decent quality* pictures? And is that the
only thing I should be looking for in a camera?

Can any of those 'camera phones' do the job? (I've heard Sony have a
good digital camera built into it's s710a.)

More about : digital cameras tips

Anonymous
January 7, 2005 3:54:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Any digital camera (not phone) is also ok (quality wise) for publishing
onto a CD?
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 5:04:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> majiin99@cs.com wrote:
> > I'm a young 23 year old that would like to start taking pictures of
my
> > life.
> >
> > I don't need top of the line, but at the same time I don't want
> > something that will be obsolete in six months.
> >
> > What MP range is good for *decent quality* pictures? And is that
the
> > only thing I should be looking for in a camera?
> >
> > Can any of those 'camera phones' do the job? (I've heard Sony have
a
> > good digital camera built into it's s710a.)
> >
>
> Minimum MP is 2. Better is 3-4, if you intend to print 4x6 to 5x7,
or
> you will do any cropping. If you intend to use the camera a lot, it
> should be small and light. Get one that is good enough to have some
> manual functions, and a good lens.
> Forget the picture phone unless the phone functions are superb,
because
> the pictures aren't.


This is right. I agree -- I have a 5 MP but before that had a 3. While
the 5 is much better, the 3 met my needs -- which were viewing online,
and printing. My other advice is to stick with a quality brand of
camera. I'm a big fan of Sony. Check out Sears actually -- who knew,
but they have a kick-a** camera selection. My SO got his Sony dig
camera there and said he got a really good deal.

Good luck! My dig cam has totally been a load of fun. I use it all the
time.
Related resources
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 6:00:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

majiin99@cs.com wrote:
> I'm a young 23 year old that would like to start taking pictures of my
> life.
>
> I don't need top of the line, but at the same time I don't want
> something that will be obsolete in six months.
>
> What MP range is good for *decent quality* pictures? And is that the
> only thing I should be looking for in a camera?
>
> Can any of those 'camera phones' do the job? (I've heard Sony have a
> good digital camera built into it's s710a.)
>

Minimum MP is 2. Better is 3-4, if you intend to print 4x6 to 5x7, or
you will do any cropping. If you intend to use the camera a lot, it
should be small and light. Get one that is good enough to have some
manual functions, and a good lens.
Forget the picture phone unless the phone functions are superb, because
the pictures aren't.
January 7, 2005 6:55:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

majiin99@cs.com wrote:

> I'm a young 23 year old that would like to start taking pictures of my
> life.
>
> What MP range is good for *decent quality* pictures? And is that the
> only thing I should be looking for in a camera?


I agree 3MP is enough to print 8x10's of decent quality. What I would
look for is something with a fixed lens that doesn't retract because
that takes a long time to turn on & be ready to shoot. I don't know if
there is anything compact available in that style. I can tell you I
really hated waiting for my oly to wake up & push it's lens out!

Another thing is looking at how wide an angle the lens can do. Digitals
do telephoto easily but wide angle is useful for capturing in tight
spaces indoors or trying to get a wide scene without doing a panorama of
several shots. Telephoto is cool & sounds impressive in the ads but is
really more for specialty stuff like shooting wildlife from far away,
not as useful for everyday events.
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 11:14:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<majiin99@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1105126788.308339.165730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I'm a young 23 year old that would like to start taking pictures of my
> life.
>
> I don't need top of the line, but at the same time I don't want
> something that will be obsolete in six months.
>
> What MP range is good for *decent quality* pictures? And is that the
> only thing I should be looking for in a camera?
>
> Can any of those 'camera phones' do the job? (I've heard Sony have a
> good digital camera built into it's s710a.)
>

Start with a 3.2 or 4.0 MP Canon, Nikon or Kodak point and shoot with 3x
optical zoom. Those three will be good for up to 8 by 10 prints. Camera
phones cannot do the job at all and are to be avoided.
January 7, 2005 11:37:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<majiin99@cs.com> wrote in message news:1105126788.308339.165730@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I'm a young 23 year old that would like to start taking pictures of my
> life.
>
> I don't need top of the line, but at the same time I don't want
> something that will be obsolete in six months.
>
> What MP range is good for *decent quality* pictures? And is that the
> only thing I should be looking for in a camera?
>
> Can any of those 'camera phones' do the job? (I've heard Sony have a
> good digital camera built into it's s710a.)

As the others have said a camera with 3-5 mega pixels will be more than enough
and most of the major camera makers offer nice point & shoot cameras that will
help you capture life's precious moments. Definitely avoid camera phones! Not
only do they lack image quality but they have poor performance and your phone
will be obsolete faster than any dedicated camera will ever be. I have seen good
pictures coming from Canon, Kodak, Sony and Olympus, all with a decent price
range.

Before you do commit to buying any specific camera model be sure to check out
the online reviews or ask here for opinions before getting something that may not
serve your needs.

Ken
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 11:38:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

puts on the robe and wizard hat... HARRRRRRRRRR:

> I'm a young 23 year old that would like to start taking pictures of my
> life.
>
> I don't need top of the line, but at the same time I don't want
> something that will be obsolete in six months.
>
> What MP range is good for *decent quality* pictures? And is that the
> only thing I should be looking for in a camera?
>
> Can any of those 'camera phones' do the job? (I've heard Sony have a
> good digital camera built into it's s710a.)
>

sounds like you want a Canon Ixus - small enough to be easily portable
and yet decent enough to be able to print out at a sensible size.

and phone cameras are all rubbish.

I ahve a 1.2Mp camera on my phone. It does the job I need it to do but
quite frankly, I'm guessing the sensor is about the size of a match
head.. not good for quality prints.


--
Dave

Get me away from here I’m dying
Play me a song to set me free
January 7, 2005 11:51:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David Beamish" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:Xns95D7D1E95463Ameprivacynet120@130.133.1.4...

> I ahve a 1.2Mp camera on my phone. It does the job I need it to do but
> quite frankly, I'm guessing the sensor is about the size of a match
> head.. not good for quality prints.

Actually, they are a little bigger than a match head but not by much. Maybe 5mm x 5mm or
a tad more, never actually measured one but we assemble cell phone camera modules for
Motorola and that's my guesstimate. The lens itself is about the size of a pin head :) 
Anonymous
January 7, 2005 11:53:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

majiin99@cs.com wrote:
> I'm a young 23 year old that would like to start taking pictures of my
> life.
>
> I don't need top of the line, but at the same time I don't want
> something that will be obsolete in six months.
>
> What MP range is good for *decent quality* pictures? And is that the
> only thing I should be looking for in a camera?
>
> Can any of those 'camera phones' do the job? (I've heard Sony have a
> good digital camera built into it's s710a.)

I would not expect a camera-phone to produce "good" pictures by the
standards most people set for cameras. However they are great for sending
that picture to a friend (assuming you both are on able to do that). I like
the "I'm trying to find your home, but I am lost. Here is a picture of
where I am." and such situations.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
January 8, 2005 12:00:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<majiin99@cs.com> wrote in message news:1105131279.248752.97380@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Any digital camera (not phone) is also ok (quality wise) for publishing
> onto a CD?

The pictures that modern digital camera take are recorded in standard JPEG image files.
Some also offer TIFF files as a picture format but for the most part people have their
cameras same them as JPEGs. There is no problem burning JPEGs or any other picture
file (quality wise) onto a CD once you get it out of your camera and into your computer.
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 12:05:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

majiin99@cs.com wrote:
> I'm a young 23 year old that would like to start taking pictures of my
> life.
>
> I don't need top of the line, but at the same time I don't want
> something that will be obsolete in six months.
>
> What MP range is good for *decent quality* pictures? And is that the
> only thing I should be looking for in a camera?
>
> Can any of those 'camera phones' do the job? (I've heard Sony have a
> good digital camera built into it's s710a.)

If you're onto "decent" pic quality, then forget phone-cameras. Rather get
yourself some digital one. If i were you. i'd stick to max.3 or 3.2 Mpixel,
since it's quite enough for a beginner and for advanced user. Rather see
other options, like optical zoom (forget about digital zoom - it's
useless!!!), then if you want some manual settings, quality of lens etc. I
have Canon's S1 with 10x optical zoom and image stabilizer and i'm very
happy with it. It has either auto shooting or manual settings. But there are
other models out...so you choose.
January 8, 2005 12:07:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

majiin99@cs.com wrote in news:1105126788.308339.165730
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> I'm a young 23 year old that would like to start taking pictures of my
> life.
>
> I don't need top of the line, but at the same time I don't want
> something that will be obsolete in six months.
>
> What MP range is good for *decent quality* pictures? And is that the
> only thing I should be looking for in a camera?
>
> Can any of those 'camera phones' do the job? (I've heard Sony have a
> good digital camera built into it's s710a.)
>

I am in generall agreement with the other posters. Here is a general rule
that can help you shop:

More glass is better. Translated: all things being equal, the larger the
lens the better.

So when you see a camera phone has a lens the size of a pencil eraser, you
know it's junk. But if you see a camera with a lens big enough to put you
hand through, it's probably pretty good: Glass is expensive.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 12:07:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:
> majiin99@cs.com wrote in news:1105126788.308339.165730
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I'm a young 23 year old that would like to start taking pictures of
>> my life.
>>
>> I don't need top of the line, but at the same time I don't want
>> something that will be obsolete in six months.
>>
>> What MP range is good for *decent quality* pictures? And is that the
>> only thing I should be looking for in a camera?
>>
>> Can any of those 'camera phones' do the job? (I've heard Sony have a
>> good digital camera built into it's s710a.)
>>
>
> I am in generall agreement with the other posters. Here is a general
> rule that can help you shop:
>
> More glass is better. Translated: all things being equal, the larger
> the lens the better.
>
> So when you see a camera phone has a lens the size of a pencil
> eraser, you know it's junk. But if you see a camera with a lens big
> enough to put you hand through, it's probably pretty good: Glass is
> expensive.
>

I am in major agreement with other posters. Here is another, major rule
that can help you decide how hard to shop:

The picture is the thing. More precisely, does the picture fit your
needs and expectations.

If what you want to see at the end of the (not necessarily complex) song
and dance is an 800x600 Web display, a 4x6 pass-around print, an
occasional pretty good 8x10, 3-plus megapickles may be good enough for
you. Maybe even less, if the 8x10 isn't a firm requirement.

Here are some photos made with a pencil eraser (Minolta Xt):
http://www.fototime.com/inv/BC32073BD1DA91E
http://www.fototime.com/inv/D1400EF27A5935D
Most of them have been printed at 8x10 or close to it, and look just
fine from 8x10 viewing distance.

Here is a movie made by the same camera:
http://www.fototime.com/ADEA7BDBA90A1D8/conv.wmv


None of that stuff is CP8700 quality, nor D20 quality, nor even CP5000,
but each is just exactly what the doctor ordered in its circumstances.
Which leads us to another rule, this one major-general:

You'll never know what you need without some serious experience. You'll
never get enough experience to know what you need to know, without a
camera in your hands and a bunch of button-pushes under your belt. My
advice: get a good, inexpensive camera that you like to hold in your
hands, and start banging away. As you build up a backlog of likes and
dislikes, you'll be better able to discriminate amongst the features,
and more important, be able to say which are important *to you*.

Unless you are very, very lucky (or have a dominating Cognitive
Dissonance component in your personalty [plenty of *those* around
here]), your first camera purchase will not be your last. If it is an
entry into an absorptive immersion into digital photography, a good
investment; if your needs are simpler, not as much of a loss.

I have one of each of the cameras mentioned above, plus a CP5700 and a
number of sub 2MP efforts, but the one that is always under my hand,
here or there, is the little old Minolta, snapshooter and documenter
supreme. There is a newer version that may be more pickle-laden and
sophisticated.



--
Frank ess
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 2:36:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken puts on the robe and wizard hat... HARRRRRRRRRR:


>
> Actually, they are a little bigger than a match head but not by much.
> Maybe 5mm x 5mm or a tad more, never actually measured one but we
> assemble cell phone camera modules for Motorola and that's my
> guesstimate. The lens itself is about the size of a pin head :) 
>
>
>

just think.. you could have made my phone :) 



--
Dave

Get me away from here I’m dying
Play me a song to set me free
January 8, 2005 2:42:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David Beamish" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:Xns95D7F02299E59meprivacynet120@130.133.1.4...
> Ken puts on the robe and wizard hat... HARRRRRRRRRR:
>
>
> >
> > Actually, they are a little bigger than a match head but not by much.
> > Maybe 5mm x 5mm or a tad more, never actually measured one but we
> > assemble cell phone camera modules for Motorola and that's my
> > guesstimate. The lens itself is about the size of a pin head :) 
>
> just think.. you could have made my phone :) 

You won't hold that against me, will you?

;^ }
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 6:15:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

bob wrote:
> majiin99@cs.com wrote in news:1105126788.308339.165730
> @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>I'm a young 23 year old that would like to start taking pictures of my
>>life.
>>
>>I don't need top of the line, but at the same time I don't want
>>something that will be obsolete in six months.
>>
>>What MP range is good for *decent quality* pictures? And is that the
>>only thing I should be looking for in a camera?
>>
>>Can any of those 'camera phones' do the job? (I've heard Sony have a
>>good digital camera built into it's s710a.)
>>
>
>
> I am in generall agreement with the other posters. Here is a general rule
> that can help you shop:
>
> More glass is better. Translated: all things being equal, the larger the
> lens the better.
>
> So when you see a camera phone has a lens the size of a pencil eraser, you
> know it's junk. But if you see a camera with a lens big enough to put you
> hand through, it's probably pretty good: Glass is expensive.
>
> Bob
>
Yes, and HEAVY. Probably, for most users, a good, but not too large,
glass lens system, and a good medium sized sensor will do a good job for
you. Perhaps, someday, phones will have adequate camera features, and
fast enough data transfer ability to send those pictures without
incurring too much cost, but that time has not come yet.

Another aspect of camera phones is that you may find that some employers
will not allow you to bring them onto their premises....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
January 8, 2005 11:20:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in news:bKOdnck98JV9xULcRVn-
iw@giganews.com:

> None of that stuff is CP8700 quality, nor D20 quality, nor even CP5000,
> but each is just exactly what the doctor ordered in its circumstances.
> Which leads us to another rule, this one major-general:
>

Good points. Another good rule is that the camera that will take the best
photo at any given moment is the one you have. I could take much better
photos with a little camera that I had in my shirt pocket than I could ever
take with a D1 that I left at home :-/

When I bought my CP5000 I was actually shopping for something smaller, but
ended up opting for the larger camera to get the more advanced features and
better image quality.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
Anonymous
January 8, 2005 5:12:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<< What MP range is good for *decent quality* pictures? And is that the
> only thing I should be looking for in a camera? >>

Hi,

You might want to read Walt Mossberg's column on digital cameras at:

http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/solution-20041222.html

Best,

Conrad

Conrad Weiler
Camp Sherman, Oregon
January 9, 2005 6:48:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Yes, and HEAVY. Probably, for most users, a good, but not too large,
> glass lens system, and a good medium sized sensor will do a good job for
> you. Perhaps, someday, phones will have adequate camera features, and
> fast enough data transfer ability to send those pictures without
> incurring too much cost, but that time has not come yet.

So, any tips on what cameras have a good glass lens system and a
good medium sized sensor? We had been thinking about an Olympus C-770.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 7:35:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 15:48:47 +0800, DC <user@nospam.net> wrote:

>So, any tips on what cameras have a good glass lens system and a
>good medium sized sensor? We had been thinking about an Olympus C-770.

Good choice. I have a 750 and it's very good. The only thing I don't like about
it is the lack of focus assist. In low light sometimes it just gives up and the
manual focus is useless too. Also, it likes to focus before allowing you to
zoom, which makes it slow.

AFAIK, the 770 has better video capabilities, which is good, but it uses a
proprietary battery, which isn't. Mine uses 4xAA, this is an advantage if you're
stuck with no power as they can be bought almost anywhere.

It has a good macro function:
http://www.cginternet.net/bug

--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net
!