Digital cameras?

[Anonymous]

Even though I work with graphics design and digital printing, the new digital cameras have me confused.

My wife and I went shopping for one of these marvels of modern technology but left the store without buying one.

Do any of you have experience along these lines?

OLD DAD[:)]

[Marty Cozad]

Old Dad,
I just talked to you on the other thread. My wife read alot about cameras and priced around. This Sony Cyber-shot 3.2 mega pixel. Is so easy to use that I can do it. Marc H. sent lots of e-mails to me tring to help me get better shots with my old 35 mm camera. When we got this camea Marc told me on a couple of them "they are nice shots" Now thats hard to get out of Marc. Hes good.[;)] Anyway I know two other G modelers who have this camera and love it. I have never used the extra stick she bought for it. She did buy the cord that hooks it to the computer so i can give you shots on the computer. Plus I set it at the right size and its ready to load on MyLargescale.com server so i can post photos anywhere that will let me.
http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/NTCGRR/newhighlinesteam%20002.jpg
I do run some steam for you steam fans[;)]
Check it out. We bought it with a rebate offer. don't remember the cost but not bad. Hope this helps

[Anonymous]

Good Morning, Old Dad... I am using an Olympus 3020 "figital" camera and find it's a learning experience..... These camera's (any digital) are exceptional. The pictures produced from even the simplest and the ability to rework the images if needed is a wonderful thing. I am a firm believer in the Kiss Principal, simple is good. About 3megapixels and $150.00 should be a good starting camera. Opinions will vary and so will milage, have fun and Happy Holidays!

[Anonymous]

Marty, I agree with Marc H. your "link photo" is a "nice shot".

Would I be waisting my money if I bought a 5-6 megapixel camera?
These are quite pricey (4-5 hundred) but seem to produce VERY sharp images.

OLD DAD

[Marty Cozad]

5-6? Thats up to you. I have had over 250 photos on my one chip (or what ever you call it) Plus I take shot videos of run bys. no sound tho. Videos do eat up the pixels for sure. but how many times will you do that? The only thing I would change on mine is a view screen that you can adjust to look down into it when shoting track level shots.

[Anonymous]

Hello Old Dad, I would save my cash. 3-3.5 is a lot of pixels, If I'm not mistaken however, the more mega pix's the larger the final image can be printed. Believe it or not five hundred would not be a bad price for 5 megs.... I called my camera a "Figital " for good reason, because of the computer aspect of these things their capabilities are awsome and at times greatly confusing...... It's still "What's Upfront that Counts", the primary glass lense will greatly determine the final product. Sony, Olympus, Nikon and Canon are still names to be trusted. Instead of mega pixels I would consider weather resistance, lense changing and wether or not there is a Hot Shoe for an auxillary flash . A remote control for the camera is very useful.....With your backround in graphic arts you may find the extra megapixels worth the money but you will be amazed with what you have with "just " 3-4 megs worth...... Take a surf on the web and see the reviews on some of these camera's, Digital Photography will bring you lots of good results and reviews. Good Luck and Enjoy! Oh yes, be sure that the memory cards are commonly available and that the batteries are also easy to get when you need them, these little beasts eat them like peanuts !

[Anonymous]

I know for a fact that my father uses two sets of rechargable batteries and that they work very well. You have one set in the camera, and the other charging. That way, once your batteries are about to die, you switch them. This cuts down on costs of buying batteries constantly and is also more efficient and environmentally friendly.

[Anonymous]

Thanks guys, you've given me quite a laundry list of features to consider.

It takes a bit longer for us OLD DOGS to learn new tricks but we do eventually learn them.

Thanks.......OLD DAD

[bwarnes]

A few months ago Kodak knocked the competition on its ear by introducing a 5 megapixal camera foe $399. That camera is now down to $299 (or less) and has forced the others to follow suit. I have a 3.2 megapixal Kodak and am very pleased with the quality of the images and ease of use. Take a look at the DX4530 for yourself. Three megapixal is probably the minimum size for a quality print, but a 5 megapixal image allows you to crop significantly and still have enough pixels left for a quality image.

[Anonymous]

OLD DAD,

I recommend a 5 mega pixel (5 million pixels per viewable area) or up. The lens is important (optical zoom over digital zoom). I'm an Illustrator/Designer- actually get paid for having fun[:p] I use the Sony DSC F707 and then dump the images into PhotoShop v.7 to tweak the size, color, crop, contrast, etc. Images turn out pretty good! I'm looking to get one for home but not the F707 because it's a little bulky... but definitely a 5 mega pixel or higher. Also, Manual White Balance might be important too.

Do a search in Google on "Digital Camera Reviews". I found a couple that are quite helpful.

Hope this helps[:D]

[Anonymous]

I bought one! A Sony Cyber-shot with 5.0 mega pixels.
Thank You for all your advise it really helped.....OLD DAD

[Anonymous]

OLD DAD,
Congratulations on the new camera. I used a Canon PowerShot G-1 on the photos of the layout and gnomes on my website. It features 3.3 megapixels. 5.0 megapixels will of course give you better results. Good luck and hope to see a Dutch Valley Narrow Gauge website soon. It's alot easier than you can imagine.
Happy New Year,
Peter

[Anonymous]

Well, I've finally come out of the dark ages of 35mm SLR's, which I've used for 30 years, to the Digital world. Although I didn't ask for one for xmas, my wife bought me a Pentax Optio 33L, which has 3.2 megapixels and an 3X optical zoom lens.[:)]

I'm glad she did, as I can now post photo's over the internet at the various online sites that I'm on, like everyone else can[;)]

[RhB_HJ]

Dave,[;)]

Did you say SLR was the dark ages? [:)][:)][:)]

Until I buy a Canon Digital Rebel or something in that class, my Yashica FR will see plenty more use, except when I use my wife's HP 318 Digi for snapshots (preferably outside).
As a long time SLR user you'll find a Digi very handy, but I'm sure sooner or later you'll miss the super-quality you get from a SLR.

As I told the sales person at the camerashop: as soon as the picture quality is up to SLR standards and the price is down to SLR + 20% I'll buy one. [8D][8D]
One of the "must have" features in my book is instant white balance, no scrolling through menues to get at that! And of course interchangable lenses.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by pfd586

OLD DAD,
Congratulations on the new camera. I used a Canon PowerShot G-1 on the photos of the layout and gnomes on my website. It features 3.3 megapixels. 5.0 megapixels will of course give you better results. Good luck and hope to see a Dutch Valley Narrow Gauge website soon. It's alot easier than you can imagine.
Happy New Year,
Peter

Aren't websites expensive, it took my extra cash for a long while just to buy my new camera.

Also, what is a home page, is this different from a website?

OLD DAD[:)]

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by OLD DAD

Aren't websites expensive, it took my extra cash for a long while just to buy my new camera.

Also, what is a home page, is this different from a website?

OLD DAD[:)]

A website may have a great number of pages, a home page is usually just that, a start page with a few links to photo pages.

One of the other differences is how fancy the design gets. You being in the graphics business will appreciate those differences at first glance! There is the "clean" stuff and there is "clutter galore", which can apply to either type of internet presence.
Some of the design principals are similar, a website with "white space" and fewer fonts is easier to read than the "cram it in and add one more dancing letters feature" variety.

Of course that is simply the opinion of an old fuddy-duddy who likes clean design.[;)][:)]

[Anonymous]

HJ,

Don't get me wrong, I won't be without my SLR and will continue to use it. I certainly didn't ask for a digital camera, but was always envious of those who could post photos on the internet from these cameras. I'm happy that I have one now.

[Rene Schweitzer]

Old Dad,

Marc H. once gave me a web site that reviews and compares digital cameras. I had hoped to buy one last fall, but alas, a bunch of dental work and a major car repair have pushed that back for a while. Anyway, here's the site:

http://www.dcresource.com/

[Anonymous]

what do i need to look for if i want to record movies w/ a digital camera?
the frames per second?

[RhB_HJ]

QUOTE: Originally posted by phonedrn8

what do i need to look for if i want to record movies w/ a digital camera?
the frames per second?

There are digital video cams that will do single picture mode, the draw back is that as a rule the resolution is not great.

Digital cameras OTOH have a limited video capacity due to the enormous amount of storage required for video.

The ideal would be as good a DigiVideoCam as you can afford and as good a DigiCam as you can afford. There will still be compromises, but with the prices dropping all the time the "ideal" is getting closer.

BTW I have tons of VHS-C video from the late 80s/early90s and I have used my video editing software to capture frames, import them into Paint Shop to doctor them up. Looks about the same a snapshot, no class but enough to show what's under discussion.

[Anonymous]

ahh ok yesh you can edit the vido w / soft ware . yeah i didnt thank about that

thanks

[Dick Friedman]

I've got two digital cams; a Sony Mavica 1.2 mega pixel that uses floppy discs for storage, and an HP 3.1 tht uses memory sticks. They are both good for different reasons. The sony is fine for my web businesses and for print up to about 5by7 (inches). The images are big enough for some cropping too, as long as you don't want them bed sheet sized when you're finished. The sony's batteries are rechargeable and do so quickly with the power cord supplied.

the HP is newer and will allow larger prints or more cropping, whichever is your preference. The quality of the pictures is good, but that depends on your printer more than anything else. It does seem to be a battery hog, though. We've got a dock and recharge it that way, but it seems to need charging much sooner than the Sony.

For most applications not connected with National Geographic or House Beautiful, 3 mega pixel is probably more than adequate. For the web, anything more than 1.2 is probably overkill. Just my 2/100 of a dollar.

[grandpopswalt]

Gentlemen,

Some of the respodents to this thread seem to be pretty digital camera savvy, so my question is to you. Has anyone heard of a retrofit option to put the digital imaging "guts" into a standard SLR body? It seems a rather simple task, put the CCD chip the right distance from the lens and viola, a digital camera with all the benefits of an SLR. Imagine being able to use all those fine (and expensive) lens' you bought for your Canon 35mm SLR, but instead of sending off 4 or 5 rolls of film for processing, you merely download them to you own PC.

Sure seems pretty staightforward to me, or is there some compelling reason why it's not being done ?

Walt