posted
Hey, I was just going to go check out some post Christmas sales and see if there are any good deals on digital cameras. Now I know to compare number of megapixels and optical/digital zoom. But even with cameras that look similar on these, there seems to be big price differences. Are there any other features I should be looking for? Does anyone know of a good brand/model? Thanks.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
I have a 2 megapixel Samsung that reads from a SD card and I do not like it. I gave it to my son. I also have a Sony Mavica CD-400 that I LOVE. I enjoy being able to save my pics to the cheaper 3 inch CD format instead of data cards. Not only do the CDs provide a form of backup, I can take them just about ANYWHERE and download the pics for viewing, printing, or anything else I can think of...
Another thing to consider is that some digital cams have quite a noticible delay between pressing the "button" and the camera actually taking the picture. Play around with one thoroughly before you buy!
P.S. You are exactly right in shopping for megapixels and optical/digital zoom. Good Luck.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a Kodak easyshare 4.0 megapixel camera that uses compact flash, and it's pretty nice, though it has some firmware problems. I would personally recommend Canon cameras. Megapixels and optical zoom are two very important things to look for in a camera, also, there are other features that you may want to look into, for instance, if you want a more professional camera, or a simple point and shoot, or a camera that will also do video (the canon that my friend has will take instant video, for as long as it has memory, it takes compact flash as well as mine). Another less important thing, though possibly costly thing to look into is what sort of media that the camera uses, if I remember right, now all Kodak cameras use Secure Digital, mine is older (it's a little over a year old) so it uses compact flash, which is still very very nice :: loves compact flash :: if you're looking for deals on digital cameras, or anything else, try going to www.fatwallet.com go to the "forums" tab, then "hot deals" and search for "digital camera" or just "camera" and there'll be threads on deals, make sure you look at the age of the post, as well, but you can usually find the really really good deals there, as long as you remember to also send in the rebates. Good luck! Satyagraha
Posts: 1986 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My only advice is makesure that you are looking more closly at the optical zoom, over the digital. Mainly because digital zoom just zooms in on the picture, not the scene, and you get really bad pictures. If you have a 3 megapixel camera, and only digital zoom, you might only be abme to get a 4x6, instead of am 8x10, because it will look really bad. Nicon and Olympus have very good optics, and those would be what I'd look for.
posted
I'm no kind of professional. But I've taken almost no pictures in the last 5 years because I'm too lazy to buy film and have it processed. So it'll just be for regular say-cheese type photos, or maybe the occasional interesting landscape shot. I'd probably like something in the 4-MP range, that is user friendly and easy to tranfer data to my computer. Solid manufacturing and a well-made lens would be nice too. Money is a factor, but I'd be willing to pay a bit more for good quality. Nothing special, really.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being on the Canon bandwagon, I'll tell you, they give beautiful shots, the autofocus is a little complicated on the more advanced ones, but they're so very very nice. I'll put up a few pics later for examples, I bet Mack has a coupld already up. Satyagraha
Posts: 1986 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ive got the Kodak easy share with 3.2 mega pixels. It took great pictures while I was in Europe this past semester. I also dropped it from pretty high off the ground onto the pavement, a piece of it chipped off the side but it still works like a charm. It has no digital zoom, but that doesnt seem to be much of a problem, I still get great pictures. Its also really simple to use, it took me no time at all to figure the thing out, its very stright forward. My friend had a cannon, and she liked it alot too, but I think it ran through batteries alot faster than mine did, she was always changing them.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My Kodak eats batteries like no other, it's disgusting, I have to keep a set of spare rechargeable Ni-Mh batteries with me at all times in order to get at least 50, in other words, I have 8 AA batteries four of them constantantly recharging if I want to take pictures...
for getting the pictures off of your camera, all of them are really easy, either the camera has a usb or firewire cord that'll connect to your camera, or you can get a memory card reader that plugs into your computer (or if you're like me, build a computer that has it built in) and read the memory card/stick/whatever your media is just like a floppy disk. Satyagraha
posted
hmmm I wonder if the difference between the 3.2 mega pixel and the 4.0 one you have makes a big difference in battery consumption? My Kodak only takes two batteries and I can usually get around sixty or more pictures off of the two batteries.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
i used to have a camera but then this dudemed spilled water on it and then it exploded and nearly poked another dudemed's eye out!!!!!
Posts: 217 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a Canon Powershot S30, and then my dad got me the S50 and took the S30 for himself.
One really good website for digital camera reviews is www.dpreview.com. It has really in depth reviews for a number of cameras. Also, it has a search engine wear you can search for cameras by any combination of specific features.
posted
If money wasn't an object, I'd go for a SLR type digicam. That, or else get a Canon G4 or G5. I just like being able to change lenses if needed.
My next purchase will depend heavily on batteries. My current HP 312 just gags on the 4 AA batteries if I use the LCD (which is why everyone wants digital cameras ), while my older Sony S700 lasts 2 hours with the LCD on (go lithium battery packs!! ).
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with mackillian, Canon, Nikon, or Olympus are quality brands. I have an Olympus C4000 zoom and its pretty sweet. Its 4mp and it gets every little detail. I'm a digital media major, so having a good camera comes in handy. I did a lot of research before buying it (mostly reviews online) and the C4000 (as of last year) was the best buy under $400. I'm sure there's better stuff out there now though.
I didn't get a chance to do too much testing with the print quality (my printer died shortly after getting the camera), but from what I've seen, you can get pretty close to the same quality as a film camera. Besides, the main thing that megapixels dictate is print quality, and anything thats 3mp or higher should be sufficient. If you're just going to keep pictures on your computer or post them online, 2mp is probably good enough.
As for the battery issue, I would suggest getting rechargeable batteries with a charger. It might seem a expensive, but its really worth it. Just make sure that they're compatable with the camera you get. Good Luck
Posts: 99 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just got back from work, where I've been selling digital cameras for the past 4 months. Hatrack, I thought you were my calm away from craziness!
*smotes thread*
You're looking at pretty much the same advice I hand out. Good luck, and be sure to remember to check return policies when you buy the camera. Best Buy (and other retailers) have restocking fees. Some retailers don't.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got a Kodak Easyshare with a 128 mb SD card for Christmas.
Looks good to me, any way. My first digital camera, and I can't wait to use it! (I have to wait to go back to college so I can load the software onto my own computer.)
Now I can finally show Hatrack what I look like...not really sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a Ricoh-something something (numbers, I forget which). We have used it in subfreezing temps in Alaska, Chuck has taken it in the field with him, the boxer chewed the grip off of it, it has been dropped numerous times, and it still works. I kind of hope it dies soon, because it is about five years old, and it's time for a new one, really. The zoom is pitiful, and it has low Megabytes. But it Just Won't Die! I have to say it's better than any analog camera I ever had. Durnit.
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with many of the points so far: I loved my Olympus (D-450 Z). It broke after 3.5 years of use, but it was a great camera. The Sony I bought in July broke last month for no apparent reason (the auto focus broke, it's just fuzzy at any zoom), and the warranty only covered parts after 3 months. The labor cost to fix it was more than half the cost of the camera ($170, cam was $300).
I also agree that the 3 main features are: zoom (i like 3x, but some people like 5x and more), megapixels (i think 3 megapixels is enough for most people, though 4 can't hurt), delay between pushing the button and the shutter, and delay between shots.
Try www.dcresource.com. It links to an incredible Buyer's Guide and has very thorough reviews.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I couldn't stand the shutter lag with the point and shoots. So if you're shooting any action, test out the lag before you buy the camera. You can easily lose those life moment snapshots, and it's hard to tell everyone to re-do the spark they had just experienced.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a Canon PowerShot A70. 3.2 megapixels, a proper zoom (as in, non-digital), and all sorts of other features. I'm very happy with it. The only thing is the time delay between pressing the button and taking the picture, although there may be a way to reduce that, that I don't know about.
1. 8x digital zoom, low distortion because of the lens made specifically for the Digital Rebel to fix the distortion problem.
2. Has manual focus ring. Adjustable f-stops and shutter speed.
3. Manual exposure dial and adjustable metering.
4. Shutter lag is the same as my film SLRs--negligible.
5. Fast compared to the Nikon 5400...I can turn the camera off right after taking a shot and it's already done processing, even in RAW mode.
6. Eye-level SLR viewfinder, so it's the mirror setup found in film SLRs.
7. Battery 800 frames at normal temps before it runs out.
8. Has hot shoe for flash attachments.
9. Can adjust ISO to light situations.
10. Too many megapixels (6).
11. Not a metal case.
12. Won't take standard 35mm attachments because of the distortion fix in the attachments made for the Digital Rebel (and soon other Canon digital SLRs).
And it's under $1000 for a kit including the lens. Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My parents gave me the Canon S400 Digital Elph for Christmas, and it's a beautiful thing. It's 4 megapixel, 3x optical zoom (no idea on the digital -- I'll never use it anyway). I know Circuit City is selling it for $50 off the regular price -- $399 instead of $449. Not sure what sort of price range you're looking for, but I know Canon also sells a 3.2 megapixel digital Elph that's cheaper and offers most of the same features as the S400.
But I second the nomination for Canon. My parents have had the S400 for about a year, and I loved it -- that's why I decided to get the same one!
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I just went and picked up an S400. I used the sites listed to compare it with others in the same price range, and this one looks good. So far, I love it. I'll have to post some pictures sometime soon. I guess I'll have to get an AC adaptor, since it didn't come with it, but other than that it seems just what I was looking for. Thanks, all.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
), while my older Sony S700 lasts 2 hours with the LCD on (go lithium battery packs!! ![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
).
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
