Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Help for a 1st time buyer?

Tags:
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 2:44:31 PM

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

I'm planning on buying my first digital camera. $200 seems to be the
price range, plus the cost of a larger memory card. I see quite a few
cameras and don't know where to begin. A salesman at a Best Buy store
told me that Kodaks come with plastic lenses vs the optical lenses in
Nikons, Canons other "upscale" brands. True? Does it matter? Are
certain brands more reliable than others? Some cameras are thinner and
resemble a thick credit card. I saw a Casio EX-Z40 like that for $250
(a bit over my budget but reasonable). Also a Fuji F440. That seems
very convenient. Any thoughts on HP? Any advice would be appreciated.

TIA

MIFrost

More about : 1st time buyer

Anonymous
March 1, 2005 3:16:45 PM

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

sfrost2@nycap.rr.com wrote:
>
> I'm planning on buying my first digital camera. $200 seems to be the
> price range, plus the cost of a larger memory card. I see quite a few
> cameras and don't know where to begin. A salesman at a Best Buy store
> told me that Kodaks come with plastic lenses vs the optical lenses in
> Nikons, Canons other "upscale" brands. True? Does it matter? Are
> certain brands more reliable than others? Some cameras are thinner and
> resemble a thick credit card. I saw a Casio EX-Z40 like that for $250
> (a bit over my budget but reasonable). Also a Fuji F440. That seems
> very convenient. Any thoughts on HP? Any advice would be appreciated.
>

It's true that the selection is overwhelming. But there are
differences, and different cameras are best for different people. You
can get some advice here, some of it good. Or, you can do some research
and choose a camera based on what you've learned, and know that you got
the best, or one of the best, cameras for you and your needs and your
uses.

http://www.dpreview.com is a good place to start, I'm sure others can
recommend other similar resources.

Lisa
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 4:56:31 PM

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

Lisa Horton wrote:
>
> It's true that the selection is overwhelming. But there are
> differences, and different cameras are best for different people.
You
> can get some advice here, some of it good. Or, you can do some
research
> and choose a camera based on what you've learned, and know that you
got
> the best, or one of the best, cameras for you and your needs and your
> uses.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com is a good place to start, I'm sure others can
> recommend other similar resources.
>
> Lisa

Thank you. This site is a big help.

MIFrost
Related resources
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 5:13:12 PM

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

sfrost2@nycap.rr.com wrote:
>
> Lisa Horton wrote:
> >
> > It's true that the selection is overwhelming. But there are
> > differences, and different cameras are best for different people.
> You
> > can get some advice here, some of it good. Or, you can do some
> research
> > and choose a camera based on what you've learned, and know that you
> got
> > the best, or one of the best, cameras for you and your needs and your
> > uses.
> >
> > http://www.dpreview.com is a good place to start, I'm sure others can
> > recommend other similar resources.
> >
> > Lisa
>
> Thank you. This site is a big help.
>

Something else I should have mentioned: don't overlook the user forums
on DPreview. Once you narrow your search down to a few models, you can
check what the users of those models say, how they like their cameras.
It's a good way to find out about problems that you might not otherwise
hear about.

Lisa
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 6:47:40 PM

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

The first question you have to ask yourself is what are you going to use
this camera for? Then you can make a decision as to which camera will work
best for you, regardless of price. While not all salespeople are dishonest,
many do not know their products. I was in an Office Depot once and the
salesperson there didn't have a clue about the cameras on the shelf. When I
argued with him, the manager came over and told him, "No way can the camera
do that. What did you tell this guy?"

I tell people to buy digital cameras from companies that have been making
cameras for a long time, not computers. Personally, I like Nikon, Olympus,
Sony, and Canon, but those are my subjective choices. I sprung for a Nikon
DSLR and I'm very happy with it. Before that I had a Sony point and shoot
digital and was very happy with that. Unfortunately it was a Mavica (with
the disk drive) and it just wore out. Too many moving parts. The companies
I like have very big reputations to uphold, and can't afford to put cameras
out there with lousy images or poor quality. On the other hand, when you
get to the very high end of the spectrum, Kodak makes one of the best DSLR
cameras out there. But it ain't cheap.

Look up some ratings on the Net, and then go to Amazon, or similar places,
to see what owners have to say about them. Amazon does not cut negative
ratings.


<sfrost2@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1109706271.448671.23330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I'm planning on buying my first digital camera. $200 seems to be the
> price range, plus the cost of a larger memory card. I see quite a few
> cameras and don't know where to begin. A salesman at a Best Buy store
> told me that Kodaks come with plastic lenses vs the optical lenses in
> Nikons, Canons other "upscale" brands. True? Does it matter? Are
> certain brands more reliable than others? Some cameras are thinner and
> resemble a thick credit card. I saw a Casio EX-Z40 like that for $250
> (a bit over my budget but reasonable). Also a Fuji F440. That seems
> very convenient. Any thoughts on HP? Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> TIA
>
> MIFrost
>
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 10:19:28 PM

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

<sfrost2@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1109706271.448671.23330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I'm planning on buying my first digital camera. $200 seems to be the
> price range, plus the cost of a larger memory card. I see quite a few
> cameras and don't know where to begin. A salesman at a Best Buy store
> told me that Kodaks come with plastic lenses vs the optical lenses in
> Nikons, Canons other "upscale" brands. True? Does it matter? Are
> certain brands more reliable than others? Some cameras are thinner
and
> resemble a thick credit card. I saw a Casio EX-Z40 like that for $250
> (a bit over my budget but reasonable). Also a Fuji F440. That seems
> very convenient. Any thoughts on HP? Any advice would be appreciated.

$200 is very hard, $220, a little easier.

For $220, I'd get the Nikon Coolpix 3700 ($220 after rebate).
http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?descripti...

or the Canon A85 ($220).
http://www.adorama.com/Refby.tpl?refby=rflAID019562&SKU...

There are certain features that you don't want to give up. Vitally
important is an AF illumination lamp, something that is now on most
mid-range to higher end compact digital cameras, but that is missing
from many lower end models. The models I list above both have it.

The thinner cameras are okay, but they won't give as good results.

Of the two I list, the Nikon uses a proprietary Li-Ion rechargeable
battery, while with the Canon you'll have to buy NiMH AA batteries and
a charger. The Canon can accept add-on lens converters, the Nikon
cannot. The Canon uses Compact Flash which is slightly less costly than
SD.

I would advise the Nikon CoolPix 3700 from newegg.com. Maybe Etronics
is also okay,
"http://www.etronics.com/product.asp?icatid=4024&stk_cod..."
and they are cheaper ($255-$100) and have a pretty good rating at
resellerratings.com.

Steve
"http://digitalcamerashortlist.com"
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 10:50:03 PM

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

Best camera I have seen for under $200 is the Canon A75. It is a
comfortable size, not too big, not too small. It has 3x optical which isn't
bad and it is 3.2 mega pixels. All for $159 at Office Max if they still
have the sale going on. Otherwise it is $199. Last year it was $300. I
think you will see more sales on it as 3.2 mp is considered old stuff these
days but that's because everyone is mega pixel crazy. Actually 2 mp is fine
for most snap shots, 5x7s and even an occasional 8x10. I have a friend who
is a professional photographer and he takes an old 2mp Kodak camera with him
on family vacations. Comes back with some pretty good stuff.

Doug

<sfrost2@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1109706271.448671.23330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I'm planning on buying my first digital camera. $200 seems to be the
> price range, plus the cost of a larger memory card. I see quite a few
> cameras and don't know where to begin. A salesman at a Best Buy store
> told me that Kodaks come with plastic lenses vs the optical lenses in
> Nikons, Canons other "upscale" brands. True? Does it matter? Are
> certain brands more reliable than others? Some cameras are thinner and
> resemble a thick credit card. I saw a Casio EX-Z40 like that for $250
> (a bit over my budget but reasonable). Also a Fuji F440. That seems
> very convenient. Any thoughts on HP? Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> TIA
>
> MIFrost
>
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 1:20:58 AM

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

Another good site is www.photographyreview.com there is a few there that
can't see past the Canons but it is good other wise with reviews from actual
owners of the cameras.


"Lisa Horton" <Lisa0205@lisahorton.net> wrote in message
news:4224E8F8.9E1F2464@lisahorton.net...
>
>
> sfrost2@nycap.rr.com wrote:
>>
>> Lisa Horton wrote:
>> >
>> > It's true that the selection is overwhelming. But there are
>> > differences, and different cameras are best for different people.
>> You
>> > can get some advice here, some of it good. Or, you can do some
>> research
>> > and choose a camera based on what you've learned, and know that you
>> got
>> > the best, or one of the best, cameras for you and your needs and your
>> > uses.
>> >
>> > http://www.dpreview.com is a good place to start, I'm sure others can
>> > recommend other similar resources.
>> >
>> > Lisa
>>
>> Thank you. This site is a big help.
>>
>
> Something else I should have mentioned: don't overlook the user forums
> on DPreview. Once you narrow your search down to a few models, you can
> check what the users of those models say, how they like their cameras.
> It's a good way to find out about problems that you might not otherwise
> hear about.
>
> Lisa
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 3:10:15 AM

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

sfrost2@nycap.rr.com wrote:
> I'm planning on buying my first digital camera.
What kind of analog camera have you got now?

Greetings!
Volker
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 11:01:01 AM

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

One issue I've encountered has to do with battery types. Some, like the
Nikons and HPs, use a proprietary rechargable battery which is smaller
and more light-weight than AA rechargables. Is one preferred to the
other? I assume "light" is better than heavy but is there another
factor I'm overlooking here?

MIFrost
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 11:04:03 AM

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

scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Of the two I list, the Nikon uses a proprietary Li-Ion rechargeable
> battery, while with the Canon you'll have to buy NiMH AA batteries
and
> a charger.

Is this important? Will there be buyer's remorse down the road with the
Nikon battery issue?


The Canon uses Compact Flash which is slightly less costly than
> SD.

Is one "better" than the other, aside from cost?

Thank you.

MIFrost
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 1:54:56 PM

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

Greetings MIFrost,

You are going to love shooting digital it is great fun.

No, it is not true that Kodak cameras come with plastic lenses. For example
a current model in the price range you have noted features a KODAK RETINAR
Aspheric All-Glass Lens as do its relatives in other similar cameras. As
you move up the line the lenses change to lenses and features, i.e.
Professional-quality SCHNEIDER-KREUZNACH VARIOGON Lens. The sales person
was not well informed. The lenses used in Kodak cameras are of high quality.

I would visit local dealers like the one you visited already, and get a
hands on review of the cameras. See which ones feel good to you. Also, read
up on what kinds of features these cameras have and understand what they do.
Consider what you might want to do with your camera in the future. Also,
consider how technical you want to get in this area. Some like easy to use
cameras while others want to flexibility of setting the camera themselves.
Think about what you really want from your camera.

As to the quality of Kodak cameras, they are great. Kodak won the JD Powers
award for Customer Satisfaction with Digital Cameras from $200 to $600.
ranges. They are a good value.

I am glad to help you if you have any questions in the future.

Ron Baird
Eastman Kodak Company




<sfrost2@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1109706271.448671.23330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> I'm planning on buying my first digital camera. $200 seems to be the
> price range, plus the cost of a larger memory card. I see quite a few
> cameras and don't know where to begin. A salesman at a Best Buy store
> told me that Kodaks come with plastic lenses vs the optical lenses in
> Nikons, Canons other "upscale" brands. True? Does it matter? Are
> certain brands more reliable than others? Some cameras are thinner and
> resemble a thick credit card. I saw a Casio EX-Z40 like that for $250
> (a bit over my budget but reasonable). Also a Fuji F440. That seems
> very convenient. Any thoughts on HP? Any advice would be appreciated.
>
> TIA
>
> MIFrost
>
March 2, 2005 4:13:25 PM

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

sfrost2@nycap.rr.com wrote:
> I'm planning on buying my first digital camera. $200 seems to be the
> price range, plus the cost of a larger memory card. I see quite a few
> cameras and don't know where to begin. A salesman at a Best Buy store
> told me that Kodaks come with plastic lenses vs the optical lenses in
> Nikons, Canons other "upscale" brands.

Don't believe everything a salesman tells you.

True? Does it matter?

My eyeglasses lenses are made of plastic. They are atcually better in many ways than glass lenses
for eyeglasses.

Are
> certain brands more reliable than others? Some cameras are thinner and
> resemble a thick credit card. I saw a Casio EX-Z40 like that for $250
> (a bit over my budget but reasonable). Also a Fuji F440. That seems
> very convenient. Any thoughts on HP? Any advice would be appreciated.

Decide what features are important to you, then look for one on dpreview that best meets your needs
and budget. Check the past postings on this and other digital photography newsgroups, on google
groups: http://groups-beta.google.com/, for opinions on specific cameras.


>
> TIA
>
> MIFrost
>
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 5:24:19 PM

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

sfrost2@nycap.rr.com wrote:
> One issue I've encountered has to do with battery types. Some, like the
> Nikons and HPs, use a proprietary rechargable battery which is smaller
> and more light-weight than AA rechargables. Is one preferred to the
> other? I assume "light" is better than heavy but is there another
> factor I'm overlooking here?
>
> MIFrost
>
Sure, availability, and cost.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 7:33:14 PM

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

<sfrost2@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1109776200.277416.225030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Of the two I list, the Nikon uses a proprietary Li-Ion rechargeable
> > battery, while with the Canon you'll have to buy NiMH AA batteries
> and
> > a charger.
>
> Is this important? Will there be buyer's remorse down the road with the
> Nikon battery issue?

I prefer the Li-Ion batteries, because of their much lower self-discharge
rate (if you leave the camera unused for a couple of weeks, the Li-Ion would
still be fine, while the NiMH would likely be discharged).

> The Canon uses Compact Flash which is slightly less costly than
> > SD.
>
> Is one "better" than the other, aside from cost?

No. In a high resolution digital SLR, CF is preferable because it comes in
much larger capacities, but SD is fine for compact cameras.

I would recommend the Nikon CP3700 for the best camera under $200 (assuming
that the Etronics price is real).
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 11:59:37 AM

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

sfrost2@nycap.rr.com wrote:
> scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>Of the two I list, the Nikon uses a proprietary Li-Ion rechargeable
>>battery, while with the Canon you'll have to buy NiMH AA batteries
>
> and
>
>>a charger.
>
>
> Is this important? Will there be buyer's remorse down the road with the
> Nikon battery issue?
I won't give up my coolpix because of this but I would have liked
AA cells better.

>
>
> The Canon uses Compact Flash which is slightly less costly than
>
>>SD.
>
>
> Is one "better" than the other, aside from cost?
Not really. But since CF slots on PDAs and so on are more
versatile the chances are higher that you've got a CF adapter
anyway (for the bluetooth or wlan card) and won'd need another
card reader.
Other that that, I don't know what the current price difference is,
but SD cards used to be one third more expensive than CF cards.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 11:59:38 AM

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

Volker Hetzer wrote:
> sfrost2@nycap.rr.com wrote:
>
>> scharf.steven@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Of the two I list, the Nikon uses a proprietary Li-Ion rechargeable
>>> battery, while with the Canon you'll have to buy NiMH AA batteries
>>
>>
>> and
>>
>>> a charger.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is this important? Will there be buyer's remorse down the road with the
>> Nikon battery issue?
>
> I won't give up my coolpix because of this but I would have liked
> AA cells better.
>
>>
>>
>> The Canon uses Compact Flash which is slightly less costly than
>>
>>> SD.
>>
>>
>>
>> Is one "better" than the other, aside from cost?
>
> Not really. But since CF slots on PDAs and so on are more
> versatile the chances are higher that you've got a CF adapter
> anyway (for the bluetooth or wlan card) and won'd need another
> card reader.
> Other that that, I don't know what the current price difference is,
> but SD cards used to be one third more expensive than CF cards.
>
> Lots of Greetings!
> Volker
Not any more. They are just about the same price now.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 3:00:46 AM

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

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:24:19 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

> sfrost2@nycap.rr.com wrote:
>> One issue I've encountered has to do with battery types. Some, like the
>> Nikons and HPs, use a proprietary rechargable battery which is smaller
>> and more light-weight than AA rechargables. Is one preferred to the
>> other? I assume "light" is better than heavy but is there another factor
>> I'm overlooking here?
>>
>> MIFrost
>>
> Sure, availability, and cost.

and total capacity (measured in mAh); a set of 4 2300mAh AA NiMH cells
costing about 4GBP can theoretically deliver 1.2*4*2.3=11.04Wh. By
comparison, an Olympus LI-10B-compatible Li-Ion battery costing about
10GBP can only deliver 3.7*1.09=4.033Wh - about a third of the power,
which means carrying more (expensive!) spares, or recharging more
frequently.

Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950 <http://www.assursys.com/&gt;
!