Need Digital Camera Advice

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

Any of a multitude of cameras. Go to www.dpreview.com or
www.imaging-resource.com and use their buying guides. When you have
narrowed it down, read the full reviews, or come back here with a short
list..

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

Pete wrote:
> I don't know if I'm in the right place, but here goes.
> I am looking for a new digital camera for recreational use (family events
> and such). I want a QUALITY camera. Here is my list:
>
> * High Quality; name brand with good warranty
> * LONG battery life. Replaceable or simply alkaline.
> * Mega Pixel
> * Viewfinder (not just the TFT screen which gives me trouble in direct
> sunlight)
> * Flash
> * Zoom
> * Minimum of confusing options
> * USB interface 2.0 and 1.1
> * Under $200
> * Capable of night/low-light photography without flash
> * Don't care about audio, mpeg.
> * State of the art
>
> Well, what shall I purchase for myself?
> Thanks.
>
>
A comfortable chair in which to wait for the technology to get the price
down to your price point.

You can probably do all but the low-light thing with a number of cameras
in the Kodak 7330 range. The low-light thing is a bit problematic since
most inexpensive cameras don't do too well with ISO greater than 200.
Really good low-light photography requires more like 1600 and that
requires some noise reduction be done in the camera.
Give it another year and I suspect all of your specifications will be
realistic.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ELE8e.2290$Gq6.960@fe02.lga...
> Pete wrote:
>> I don't know if I'm in the right place, but here goes.
>> I am looking for a new digital camera for recreational use (family events
>> and such). I want a QUALITY camera. Here is my list:
>>
>> * High Quality; name brand with good warranty
>> * LONG battery life. Replaceable or simply alkaline.
>> * Mega Pixel
>> * Viewfinder (not just the TFT screen which gives me trouble in direct
>> sunlight)
>> * Flash
>> * Zoom
>> * Minimum of confusing options
>> * USB interface 2.0 and 1.1
>> * Under $200
>> * Capable of night/low-light photography without flash
>> * Don't care about audio, mpeg.
>> * State of the art
>>
>> Well, what shall I purchase for myself?
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
> A comfortable chair in which to wait for the technology to get the price
> down to your price point.
>
> You can probably do all but the low-light thing with a number of cameras
> in the Kodak 7330 range. The low-light thing is a bit problematic since
> most inexpensive cameras don't do too well with ISO greater than 200.
> Really good low-light photography requires more like 1600 and that
> requires some noise reduction be done in the camera.
> Give it another year and I suspect all of your specifications will be
> realistic.
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Why noise reduction? I don't want audio.
-Pete

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

Pete wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:ELE8e.2290$Gq6.960@fe02.lga...
>
>>Pete wrote:
>>
>>>I don't know if I'm in the right place, but here goes.
>>>I am looking for a new digital camera for recreational use (family events
>>>and such). I want a QUALITY camera. Here is my list:
>>>
>>>* High Quality; name brand with good warranty
>>>* LONG battery life. Replaceable or simply alkaline.
>>>* Mega Pixel
>>>* Viewfinder (not just the TFT screen which gives me trouble in direct
>>>sunlight)
>>>* Flash
>>>* Zoom
>>>* Minimum of confusing options
>>>* USB interface 2.0 and 1.1
>>>* Under $200
>>>* Capable of night/low-light photography without flash
>>>* Don't care about audio, mpeg.
>>>* State of the art
>>>
>>>Well, what shall I purchase for myself?
>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>A comfortable chair in which to wait for the technology to get the price
>>down to your price point.
>>
>>You can probably do all but the low-light thing with a number of cameras
>>in the Kodak 7330 range. The low-light thing is a bit problematic since
>>most inexpensive cameras don't do too well with ISO greater than 200.
>>Really good low-light photography requires more like 1600 and that
>>requires some noise reduction be done in the camera.
>>Give it another year and I suspect all of your specifications will be
>>realistic.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>
> Why noise reduction? I don't want audio.
> -Pete
>
>
I think you need to do a LOT more research, and reading before buying a
digital camera.
"noise" in this context refers to the visible 'grain' in a color picture
made with inadequate light. It appears little speckles of colors in
darker areas of a picture, and can make a picture very unpleasant to
look at. It is a problem with most P&S cameras when used for low-light
photography.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

<chrlz@go.com> wrote in message
news:1113784406.508201.194160@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Any of a multitude of cameras. Go to www.dpreview.com or
> www.imaging-resource.com and use their buying guides. When you have
> narrowed it down, read the full reviews, or come back here with a short
> list..
>
The Canon PowerShot A510 Digital Camera seems really cool and well within
my price range -especially at street prices. Max. ISO was however only 400.
And it was so feature rich that it gave me a headache.
Otherwise great! I need to look further I think.
-Pete

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

"Pete" <Pete@nospam.com> writes:

> I don't know if I'm in the right place, but here goes.
> I am looking for a new digital camera for recreational use (family events
> and such). I want a QUALITY camera. Here is my list:
>
> * High Quality; name brand with good warranty
> * LONG battery life. Replaceable or simply alkaline.
> * Mega Pixel
> * Viewfinder (not just the TFT screen which gives me trouble in direct
> sunlight)
> * Flash
> * Zoom
> * Minimum of confusing options
> * USB interface 2.0 and 1.1
> * Under $200
> * Capable of night/low-light photography without flash
> * Don't care about audio, mpeg.
> * State of the art
>
> Well, what shall I purchase for myself?
> Thanks.

None. If you want a real optical viewfinder (assuming you don't mean the
viewfinder on the cheaper cameras that only approximates where you are
shooting), and low light/no flash photography, you are pretty much into the
DSLR category, and the minimum entry price is on the order of ~ $800-900, plus
a CF card. Unfortunately, most DSLRs have plenty of options, so they might
fail on that test (or you might actually have to learn how to use the options).

In terms of alkaline batteries, you want Nimh or Lithium Ion rechargable
batteries. Most cameras that use AA batteries can't use alkaline batteries
except for a few shots.

In terms of USB 2.0 vs USB 1.1, most cameras are not fast enough in the upload
that the difference is meaningful.

I don't know what you mean by state of the art. As in any high tech industry,
usually by the time something is on the shelves, there is something new in the
wings that advances the state of the art further, so it is a continual race to
try and stay ahead of the curve.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org

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

In article <ZXB8e.859$J11.607@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>, Pete
<Pete@nospam.com> writes
>I don't know if I'm in the right place, but here goes.
>I am looking for a new digital camera for recreational use (family events
>and such). I want a QUALITY camera. Here is my list:
>
>* High Quality; name brand with good warranty
>* LONG battery life. Replaceable or simply alkaline.
>* Mega Pixel
>* Viewfinder (not just the TFT screen which gives me trouble in direct
>sunlight)
>* Flash
>* Zoom
>* Minimum of confusing options
>* USB interface 2.0 and 1.1
>* Under $200
>* Capable of night/low-light photography without flash
>* Don't care about audio, mpeg.
>* State of the art
>
>Well, what shall I purchase for myself?

Something like:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=...
8896&rd=1

--
Alan ............

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

In article <ZXB8e.859$J11.607@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
"Pete" <Pete@nospam.com> wrote:

> I don't know if I'm in the right place, but here goes.
> I am looking for a new digital camera for recreational use (family events
> and such). I want a QUALITY camera. Here is my list:
>
> * High Quality; name brand with good warranty

Every camera is *high quality* and all have the same warranty (1 year)

> * LONG battery life. Replaceable or simply alkaline.

Alkaline's don't work in digitals and ordinary batteries will give you
about 5 shots before they need replacing.
Some use AA NiMH, some LithIon - which do you want?

> * Mega Pixel

1 megapixel, 2, 3, 4 or 5?

> * Viewfinder (not just the TFT screen which gives me trouble in direct
> sunlight)

Some have optical, some electronic.

> * Flash

Most have flash

> * Zoom

Many have zoom, some optical and digital, some just digital.

> * Minimum of confusing options

Don't really understand what you want.

> * USB interface 2.0 and 1.1

All have a USB interface.

> * Under $200

Here lies the problem - and I hope you're talking American dollars.

You'd probably be better off looking on ebay.

> * Capable of night/low-light photography without flash

Most will do that.

> * Don't care about audio, mpeg.
> * State of the art

Well...
>
Take a look at http://www.dpreview.com/

Then come back.

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

> > * LONG battery life. Replaceable or simply alkaline.
>
> Alkaline's don't work in digitals and ordinary batteries will give you
> about 5 shots before they need replacing.
> Some use AA NiMH, some LithIon - which do you want?
>
Where can I get AA LithIon batteries?

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

Stewy wrote:
> In article <ZXB8e.859$J11.607@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Pete" <Pete@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I don't know if I'm in the right place, but here goes.
>>I am looking for a new digital camera for recreational use (family events
>>and such). I want a QUALITY camera. Here is my list:
>>
>>* High Quality; name brand with good warranty
>
>
> Every camera is *high quality* and all have the same warranty (1 year)
>
>
>>* LONG battery life. Replaceable or simply alkaline.
>
>
> Alkaline's don't work in digitals and ordinary batteries will give you
> about 5 shots before they need replacing.
> Some use AA NiMH, some LithIon - which do you want?
>
>

Correction. According to recent reports, some new cameras operate quite
well on alkalines. See discussion in this newsgroup relative to NIMH
battery chargers.

>>* Mega Pixel
>
>
> 1 megapixel, 2, 3, 4 or 5?
>
>
>>* Viewfinder (not just the TFT screen which gives me trouble in direct
>>sunlight)
>
>
> Some have optical, some electronic.
>
>
>>* Flash
>
>
> Most have flash
>
>
>>* Zoom
>
>
> Many have zoom, some optical and digital, some just digital.
>
>
>>* Minimum of confusing options
>
>
> Don't really understand what you want.
>
>
>>* USB interface 2.0 and 1.1
>
>
> All have a USB interface.
>
>
>>* Under $200
>
>
> Here lies the problem - and I hope you're talking American dollars.
>
> You'd probably be better off looking on ebay.
>
>
>>* Capable of night/low-light photography without flash
>
>
> Most will do that.
>
>
>>* Don't care about audio, mpeg.
>>* State of the art
>
>
> Well...
>
> Take a look at http://www.dpreview.com/
>
> Then come back.

I agree, he needs to do a bit of research before getting down to the
buying phase.

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:00:14 GMT, Pete wrote:

>>> * LONG battery life. Replaceable or simply alkaline.
>>
>> Alkaline's don't work in digitals and ordinary batteries will give you
>> about 5 shots before they need replacing.
>> Some use AA NiMH, some LithIon - which do you want?
>>
> Where can I get AA LithIon batteries?

Almost any store that has a decent selection of batteries.
Rite-Aid, Eckard, CVS, KMart, etc. But these are not rechargeables.
They last a good deal longer than alkalines, and just as with
alkalines, when they run down you get rid of them. Two other
points.

First, you won't find a camera meeting all the requirements you
set, whether under or over $200. You'll have to do a lot of
comparison and decide which features are most important to you.

Second, if it's a relatively new camera, alkalines most certainly
will work well in digital cameras. I just finished testing my new
Fuji and with one set of alkaline AAs, taking a mix of pictures,
half using flash and half without, it took over 200 pictures. At
that point the batteries were to weak to take more pictures using
the flast. But with the flash disabled, it took an addition 400
pictures and could have taken more. How much more I can't say but
the batteries are still in the camera, so I might try some more.
NiMH AAs would have lasted longer, but the use of them is no longer
the almost mandatory requirement that they once were, as digital
cameras have seen much improvement in the last year or so, and not
just Fuji cameras, many other brands as well.

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

Pete wrote:
>>>* LONG battery life. Replaceable or simply alkaline.
>>
>>Alkaline's don't work in digitals and ordinary batteries will give you
>>about 5 shots before they need replacing.
>>Some use AA NiMH, some LithIon - which do you want?
>>
>
> Where can I get AA LithIon batteries?
>
>
Note the comma. I don't think he meant AA lithium ion, but AA NiMH, or
lithium ion.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

"Pete" <Pete@nospam.com> wrote in
news:ZXB8e.859$J11.607@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com:

> I don't know if I'm in the right place, but here goes.
> I am looking for a new digital camera for recreational use (family
> events and such). I want a QUALITY camera. Here is my list:
>
> * High Quality; name brand with good warranty
> * LONG battery life. Replaceable or simply alkaline.
> * Mega Pixel
> * Viewfinder (not just the TFT screen which gives me trouble in
> direct sunlight)
> * Flash
> * Zoom
> * Minimum of confusing options
> * USB interface 2.0 and 1.1
> * Under $200
> * Capable of night/low-light photography without flash
> * Don't care about audio, mpeg.
> * State of the art
>
> Well, what shall I purchase for myself?
> Thanks.
>
>

Pete - you've gotten some good advice, here, and some not-as-good
advice. I'm gonna try to add to the 'good advice' column. I agree that
you need to do a bit more research and come back here with a shortlist
of cameras you're interested in. The options are just too numerous right
now.

There are some websites that review many, many digital cameras. Also,
they have helpful advice for newbies like us! On some of the sites, you
can click on a variety of requirements, and they'll give you a list of
cameras that fall into those categories. I'm looking up the addresses,
now. Punch in your requirements (could be as simple as entering the
'<$200.00' category, and hitting Go), and see what pops up. Then, look
at what's available and read the specs and reviews of the cameras that
interest you. All cameras in this price range will have positive and
negative attributes (e.g. most of them will have troubles with 'noise'
at low light, and probably some redeye with flash, etc.). You have to
figure out which negatives you can learn to live with. When you got it
narrowed down a bit (maybe to 3-8 cameras or whatever - maybe some only
come in silver, and you hate silver; maybe some are too big or heavy,
etc.), come back and ask the opinions of the good people, here. Oh,
also, these sites not only have reviews of most of these cameras, but
sometimes they directly compare some of the cameras. If you're lucky,
they might directly compare a number of the ones you're looking at! Look
around for the direct comparisons.

Hopefully, these sites will help:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/cameraList.php

http://www.imaging-resource.com/
(click on 'Find the Best Camera For You', on the left navigation menu)

http://www.megapixel.net/html/cover.php
(I couldn't find the Compare area quickly, but they do have reviews)

http://www.steves-digicams.com/
(click on 'BUYER'S GUIDE', and do your search)

Ok, more reading than you wanted to do, I'm sure. But, hopefully this
will help you make an informed decision on what to do with your hard-
earned money. Fortunately, or unfortunately, there are many, many
options available to you. Your task is to figure out what you really
want and need, and can live with for the price you're going to pay.

Good luck! Hope to hear from you soon!


--
Eric Babula
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

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

In article <csq761hic3og3kc4qt2fu30qvhnvln1td6@4ax.com>,
ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:00:14 GMT, Pete wrote:
>
> >>> * LONG battery life. Replaceable or simply alkaline.
> >>
> >> Alkaline's don't work in digitals and ordinary batteries will give you
> >> about 5 shots before they need replacing.
> >> Some use AA NiMH, some LithIon - which do you want?
> >>
> > Where can I get AA LithIon batteries?
>
> Almost any store that has a decent selection of batteries.
> Rite-Aid, Eckard, CVS, KMart, etc. But these are not rechargeables.
> They last a good deal longer than alkalines, and just as with
> alkalines, when they run down you get rid of them. Two other
> points.
>
> First, you won't find a camera meeting all the requirements you
> set, whether under or over $200. You'll have to do a lot of
> comparison and decide which features are most important to you.
>
> Second, if it's a relatively new camera, alkalines most certainly
> will work well in digital cameras. I just finished testing my new
> Fuji and with one set of alkaline AAs, taking a mix of pictures,
> half using flash and half without, it took over 200 pictures. At
> that point the batteries were to weak to take more pictures using
> the flast. But with the flash disabled, it took an addition 400
> pictures and could have taken more. How much more I can't say but
> the batteries are still in the camera, so I might try some more.
> NiMH AAs would have lasted longer, but the use of them is no longer
> the almost mandatory requirement that they once were, as digital
> cameras have seen much improvement in the last year or so, and not
> just Fuji cameras, many other brands as well.

I'm using NiMH AAs in my Fuji S7000 and they do last a heck of a long
time - far better than the InfoLithium in Sony's cameras - I've never
thought of using alkalines - have to get myself a set as a backup -
thanks for the advice.

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

> Something like:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=...
> 1 8896&rd=1
>


nice! ......... great answer for a tough Q Alan


I might buy one ... serious