BS: Digital cameras?

Subject: Digital cameras?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 10:21 AM

People on the Mudcat have opinions about everything, and information about everything. So here goes.

I'm thinking it's be fun to have a digital camera, without spending an enormous sum of money on it. There seem to be a fair number these days down the lower end of the price range, so if any people have any good advice or warnings that'd be handy.

For example, I find when I buy anything, there always seem to be aspects to it which I hadn't thought about at all. What that means is that, if I was buying it again, either I'd make sure to include that feature, or I'd make sure I avoided it. Or sometimes there's something I'd thought would be really worth including, and it turns out I really don't need it at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 10:34 AM

Well Mac, you can read what we had to say awhile back HERE, but things have changed and are changing more every day so some newer opinions will be good.

We are still very satisfied with our Nikon. The picture quality is superb and it works extremely well in the "auto" mode making it great for snaps while the numerous manual features will give you more than enough "pro" features to allow you to screw up all kinds of ways! Really it's a great little camera, but all have their drawbacks......

Most people are now looking more at the floppy system I think as opposed to the card system Nikon uses. We had to buy a card reader (an added expense) plus you can't just whip out the floppy and put it on virtually anyone's computer. However, the card system works well for us as that isn't something we do a lot.

All digital cameras are battery eaters and purchasing NIMH batteries and a charger is a must.

We bought more camera than we needed but we got a good price and have been very happy with it.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 10:57 AM

Choosing a Digital Camera

Lots of information

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 11:57 AM

the major thing to consider is whether you want to print hardcopy from digital files. When I bought my Olympus 2000, it was one of several (including Nikon) that offered over 2 megapixels, whild allows you to print a decent 8x10 inch photo..now there are 3 megapixel cameras that would print up to 11X14...

secondary considerations include storage media...some have little cards with various capacities..(I have two cards, one is 8 megs, the other 32....the 32 meg card will take 450 'snapshot' size pics, or 150 bigger pics (140,000 bytes or so) like most of thosethose posted in the Getaway photos...or 40 VERY big pics of 300,000 bytes...or 15 HUGE pics at the full 2.1 million bytes for the best possible printing)

some new cameras use internal mini-disks with even larger storage, but these are the more expensive option. ($600-700+ US or more)....

other considerations are the various specific features ...lens..zoom ratio...remote controls..etc....(I especially like the little clicker remote that came with mine, which allows you to operate the camera from a distance, like your TV. It also has standard timer..(about 8-9 seconds to run and get in the picture)..it also has cords which allow you to play the pictures thru your TV set.

as to downloading to you computer, that is up to you. ANY camera will have some way to do this, from a parallel port (slow) to USB (faster)....and you can buy readers of various sorts which are VERY fast.....we are seldom in a big hurry, and can download something like the entire Getaway bunch of 80+ pics of 140,000 to 300,000 each in 30 minutes or so (using parallel port) One picture of 140,000 bytes takes about the same time as it would to display on a 56K modem computer...8-9 seconds??

so...final item is budget and brand name...you can get a camera with basic features like mine for $250-400 US now, and some of the fancier things with bigger zoom ratios and BIGGER pics and fancier storage for $500-900+.....I personally would look at major name brands like Nikon, Olympus, Canon, ..etc...

It sure is fun...and you can take the same picture 17 times till you get it right, deleting in between!...have fun looking!

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 01:37 PM

Don't even consider the casio wrist watch camera
unless you want hoots of fun with yer mates, and mega pose (not my style **SNIGGER**) and large characters
on the plus side there is the 177by144 pixelation, the tying up of two serial ports (hint use two h/w configurations), a bit of fish-eye effect and a little matter of the price tag.
Oh and no backlight.

Whatever - insist on one with a flash by the way - no matter inexpensive &/or how low lux it can do!
Oh & how about posting some of the pix when you get going?
Mine? still wrestling with the time function old boy, but at least I can see it without glasses - in the day!

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Madam Gashee
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 01:43 PM

I've had my Sony DSC-P1 for 6 months now & still think it's the bees knees. The battery life is incredible. I used two batteries in 5 days in Portsmouth for the IFOS snapping everything. It also takes video for about a minute, which is fun. The memory stick thing is brilliant. I've an 8MB which came with the camera & a 64MB which i bought seperatly (with the second battery). I can reel off about 40 good quality pictures on that chip. The great thing has got to be downloading direct onto my PC (No developing costs) plus you can always send them to be printed on the net & sent straight to yours (or anyone elses) home. The charger is small and easy to carry & the playback & editing on the LCD screen brilliant! Not that i think it's the best thing since sliced bread but....... Visit the www.sony.com site & view all the assets of all their cameras.

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: X
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 01:51 PM

A camera is not a camera unless it gives you a 8"x10" neg.

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 01:58 PM

More lower price digitals every day. The Fuji 4800 is small, 2.4 mp electronically converts up to about 4 mp, USB cable, and produces excellent 8x10, even 10x12. Look for 3 mp now (becoming the new amateur standard), most companies have them available for under $1000. These are fine for the 95% of amateurs who are not into pro-type creations. The models with 5+ mp are, as my wife says, too much sugar for a dime (no, don't know what it means) and are for the well-to do or the pro.
When you see similar digital data for different makes, that means the companies are using the same electronics (e. g. the Fuji mentioned above shares electronics with one of the Leica models). All of the major makes are good; look for one that matches your kind of use.
A good place to cf. makes is www.bhphotovideo.com. Their internet catalogues are informative and comprehensive.

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 03:12 PM

My first digital camera was pathetic, taking as few as 8 shots, up to 16, depending on detail and settings. It downloaded quickly though, straight to computer.

We now have a super duper straight to disk jobby, and I would highly recommend it... Of course I can't tell you anything about it, except it was less than £500, takes pictures straight to 3" floppy, has a good long battery life (up to 2 hours), various effects available and a good size view screen. Unfortunately it doesn't do well at the 'candid' shots, as it takes a while for the image to load, you can miss that 'moment'. If you want to see the results though, buy a Mudcat Calendar, both Micca and I have similar cameras (his does movies, ours doesn't), and the lighting in mine wasn't all that bright....

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Ed.
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 03:25 PM

McGrath,

As you can see from the diverse relpies here - this question is a bit like asking "what's the best car for me"

If you could give a bit more information on what you want:

Simply for snaps, something for web pages, something for 'professional' landscape shots etc, etc?

Also a rough guide as to your budget would be helpful.

Ed

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 03:27 PM

a friend has a Casio that saves directly to 3" floppy...has LOTS of memory...neat camera....3.3 megapixels... it was out of my price range, though

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 03:35 PM

Have so far managed to save 24 pictures onto one disk, possibly space for more, light ran out before the battery did!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 04:02 PM

Useful stuff there, as I knew there would be. Browing around, while waiting for the Mudcatters to put me wise, I came across this enormous and impressively organised site It even has a forum, though it isn't a patch on the Mudcat so far as I can see. Technically I think that should tell me more than I care to know.

"Most companies have them available for under $1000" (Dicho) - that's not really what I had in mind when I said "lower end of the price range". I'm thinking more in the £50-150 vicinity. In which there appears to be a surprising amounty of options, most of them probably pretty poor options, but not all.

It'd still be useful to have subjective observationbos from other people who like pictures, but are more into other stuff liek music than the technicalities of getting the pictures right.

One thing that intrigues me is the way that clever technology gets used in a way you'd never imagine, and the designers never did either. Like just now my wife had lost her mobile, so I phoned her up from the other side of the room, so that its ring would tell her where in the house it was. And the way people use mobiles in supermarkets and crowds to fidn each other.

I get a feeling that the same kind of thing must happen with a switch to digital cameras rather than film.

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Tom French
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 04:04 PM

We've owned a Nikon Coolpix 900 for two years now, and i gave it an extensive workout on an 8-week trip this summer. The 900 is a 2.1 megapixel, while their newer model, the 950 is one of 3.1 megapixel variety. I shoot all my pictures at the normal setting, so the files have a nominal size of about 420K, allowing 16 shots on an 8meg card, 64 on a 32meg card. For the trip this summer I purchased a 128meg card for $125, (compact card prices are dropping, but not that fast.) The 128 meg card allowed 256 shots. I also took along a laptop computer to download the pictures at regular intervals, particularly before taking long hikes. It worked out well, but when the card prices get lower, I'm just going to buy cards, the bigger the better. NiMH batteries are indeed a must. The 900 takes about 60 pictures on one charge. I carried four sets of batteries and ran the charger from the car cigarette lighter while driving. So in truth power, not card space is the bottleneck. I also used the LED screen to frame pictures using a wide angle lens on the camera most of the time. Nikon offers some nice optics for its Coolpix series.
The standard for digital pictures gets better and better, but my 420k jpg shots are extremely clear. I don't know what the new normal standard for the 3.1meg cameras are, but because they have more online memory capacity they can process bigger pictures in a convenient amount of time. Even the 2.1meg camera can process a mini movie shooting the very small .vga files. If you intend to make portaits, you'll be interested in shooting .tif files. An 8meg card holds only one of those. Tif shots are too big for anything else, emailing, whatever. Saving them will eat up lots of space. Get a card reader as mentions. Camera to computer is too slow. For laptops they make a $10 adapter that receives the compact flash card from the camera and then allows it to slip into the laptop PCMCIA slot for a direct download. Very handy and cheap.
From processing the summers shots, I narrowed down about 1700 shots to 1400, which fit on a 650MB CDRom disk. That is the need mode of showing pictures to friends. Give them the disk. Windows 2000 also has a nice screesaver that shows your pictures stored in a special "my pics" folder on your hard disk in random order. It makes looking at pictures effortless.
Coolpix offers the best macro (closeup)shooting as it can focus as close as 7/8 of an inch. This also allows it to be a dandy slide shot duplicator. I have about 5000 slides I intend to digitize before the emulsion gets any worse.
What I don't like about the Coolpix and every other digital camera made in the compact 4"x6"x1" size is that the LCD screen is useless in sunlight. You can buy makeshift sunshades for them to get by, but the camera companies should get their act together and do something about this. My sunshade is a metal unit with a 2x magnifying lens that renders the camera something like the old single lens reflex cameras in shooting. Still, if I bought again, I think that I'd abandon compact size and get a more professional digital that is built around the old SLR styling and can accomodate professional lenses. I'm a wide-angle buff in both landscape and indoor shooting. Humans see in wide angle.
If you intend to shoot indoor shots often, and many of your shots are beyond 10 feet, the camera flash is inadequate and you'll want an add-on flash. Of course this is more to haul around and that's always the tradeoff. The compact cameras take excelent pictures and they are idea for hiking or carrying to functions where you might want a few memory shots. Nothing will ever beat silver oxide for image clarity (molecules are an awful lot smaller than pixels), but the pictures are excelent and flawless to the normal uncritical human eye.
I'll never go back to film! Once you have the equipment, pictures are essentially free. You'll get better pictures because you'll shoot more knowing that they'll come out with developing and printing cost. When you shoot a lots of shots you are bound to get the four or five fabulous shots you wanted of whatever you are shooting. Emailing pictures is a pleasure. The digital advantages can't be beat.

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Mac Tattie
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 05:08 PM

How much "fun" you will have with a digital camera depends on how much fun you have with a film camera and how high or low a picture quality you find acceptable and what you want to photograph. The film verses digital battle has raged for some time and while the gap is closing, film is still way out in front. Film wins on price, on versatility and on ultimate quality. The same is true about the cameras. For £600-£650 you can buy a good SLR camera and film scaner capable of producing quality unmatchable by ANY digital camera at ANY price. The three main factors that determine the quality obtainable from a digital camera are; 1,the actual number of pixels used (not allways tuthfully the 2.1 or 4.2 which is written large all over the products); 2,the lense, true of all cameras but many digital cameras have very basic lenses. If you have ever had your eyes tested then you will understand the differences between one chunk of glass and an other; 3, how the camera fits your hands. This is, again, the same with all cameras but the digital type tend to have a lot squezed into a small space. Big fingers dont mix well with small buttons and controls. Added to this you will also have to consider if your computer and printer are up to the job(s). Then there is the price of photo paper and extra ink and a decent softwear program to manipulate your pix. Still sound like fun?

Here is an unrelated photo site (not mine) you might enjoy and hopefuly get some ideas of what to take with your new or old camera.

www.jimmaginn.fsnet.co.uk

cheers.

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 05:31 PM

I have the Coolpix Nikon too and I will say that I haven't seen anything else as good at close range or truer in lighting colors. You can read all of that on the other thread, but I was just echoing what Tom said about his Nikon. Like Bill D. said too, I'd stick with the major brands and we decided to make the choice for camera company instead of computer company although I'm not sure there is a lot in that.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Nov 01 - 07:11 PM

Mac Tattie, of course is correct about the advantages of film and good lenses. I have Leicas and a Rollei that I use. I assume, however, that Macgrath wants something for amateur purposes but that gives good quality. Most of the digital cameras include software that is suitable for the amateur and that will give good results.
Many of the makes use electronics from the SAME factories, so don't get hung up on names. As I said before, the 3mp is becoming the standard for non-professionals. Select one that is easy to handle and that throws in software.
As Mac Tattie also said, your final prints will cost you a lot more than prints from that roll of film you take in to the photoshop. It's lots of fun, though!

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 01:45 AM

By coincidence, I just received today a new issue of PC Magazine, with a cover article on "15 Digital Cameras, 15 new models reviewed" and a subtitle "3, 4, 5, megapixels - how much do you need.

I am not into digital photog, and have not looked at the mag yet, but they do usually give test results and (unlike many) full accounts of their test methods and criteria.

A quick look showed results are up at http://www.pcmagazine.com/.

I have found these guys to be a good source, although you have to keep in mind that what they test is the "latest and greatest that marketeers submit" - usually in response to their request for test articles.

The site is not particularly easy to navigate - and it is much easier if you go through their relatively painless "register and join." (I've been registered for several years, and do not get junk mail from them.)

There have been a number of earlier articles, testing and comparing what will now be "cheaper models," and some of the earlier reviews may still be accessible, although I haven't dug into that.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: GUEST,DaisyA
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 07:05 AM

DON'T under any circumstances buy a Hewlett Packard 215. I have had one for about 4 months and it has been working for about 2 weeks of that. They have replaced it twice but it keeps breaking. It's not even as though I'm doing anything bad to it, it just must have a really unreliable design.

Daisy

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Justa Picker
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 01:54 PM

Although it's probably a lot more money than you want to spend, I spent months researching digital cameras and wanted something that had all the capabilities of my Nikon FE, and found it in the Olympus 3040. It's absolutely marvellous and I have zero complaints.

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 03:48 PM

I wish I had been able to wait for the 3000 series Olympus...it sounds like a great camera...I am doing 'ok' with my 2000, and have been shooting Olympus film cameras for years...good, dependable company!

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 04:09 PM

The Olympus 3040 runs about $700 from major dealers. The Nikon 995 is about $725. Canon Powershot G1 about $650. All of these are in the 3.3 mp range. The Fuji 4800 at less than $500 is very good but the 4.3mp is electronically assisted and not quite up to the true 3.3 mp cameras. The 6800 and 6900 Fuji's are 6mp electronically and are excellent cameras for under $700.
The Kodak 360, 3.1mp, is good for the price, $450-475, but lacks some of the features of the ones listed above.
The Hewlett-P 215 is a throw-a-way, which the $125 price indicates.

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Justa Picker
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 07:52 PM

Another little tip.
As Dicho was kind enough to provide some "street" pricing, it's not the cost of the camera itself that drives the price "up there" - it's the add-on accessories.

In my case I bought a floppy adapter for the smart media card (stupid mistake, because you WANT to use the USB connector between the camera and the computer to transfer the photos. With the USB, the computer just treats the camera as another harddrive and the transfer of photos is as fast as copying from one hardrive to another. The floppy adapter would be okay if you have an older motherboard that is not USB equipped, but it's slow. Takes nearly a minute PER photo.) As well you might want to add an A/C adapter (for those times when you want to shoot but your batteries have died, or for use when transfering photos so as to conserve battery strength), as well as nickel metal hydride rechargable batteries and the charger, and then you might want to upgrade the smart media card (which stores the prints and determines the storage capacity). I found the 16 meg card mine came with to be inadequate and upgraded to a 128 meg card, which can literally store hundreds of shots, taken at high very high image quality with a 1024 X 768 resolution. Then you need a carrying case for everything, etc.etc...By the time I was done, I paid nearly the same amount for all the accessories as I did for the camera, but I figured sooner or later I be getting them, so I decided to do it at the onset and just get it over with...

...And then of course, if you want hard copies of some of your finer shots (family, friends, special events, guitars pictures *G*, etc..etc..) there's the whole range of photo quality inkjet printers. In my case I have found the HP Deskjet 990c, to produce superb photo quality images, indiscernable from what you'd get back from a lab, provided you use the right papers and inks -- but it gets costly. Still, you are paying for the convenience of taking a digital picture and 10 minutes later, looking at it in your hand. It's a great thing, as long as you don't invite relatives over, show them the photos and then THEY want copies too!

I decided on this particular printer for a few reasons. I have always found HP's to be right on the money in terms of reliablity and quality with respect to their printers, it also received several "Editor's Choice" awards from the PC Mags I read, and lastly the printheads are built into the ink cartridges, so everytime you replace the ink, you are also putting in a brand new print head. This might not seem to be much of a big deal, but I considered the Epson equivalent before settling on the HP, because the Epson print head was built into the printer. Replacing the stand alone printhead, can end up costing you more than you paid for the printer! (and, they don't last.)

I did not want to deal with this having bought a (lemon) Canon Bubblejet printer a few years ago, and the print head started going about after a year, and I sadly discovered it was $250.00 to replace the print head inclusive of labor.

Stick to inkjects that have the printheads built into the ink cartridges themselves. Yes, you'll pay a little more for them, but it's long term maintenance, it will give you a much longer extended use from your inkjet, since the printhead part is critical to good operation and consistently good print quality.

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Justa Picker
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 07:54 PM

(Clones....only the word printers was supposed to be in bold above. My mistake. Can you fix, and delete this message? Thank you in advance.)

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 08:34 PM

Looks like I'll remain a luddite for some time - all second hand stuff and not top of the range equipment but Pentax ME Super and a couple of lenses in addition to the std one seems to keep me quite happy.

Printer wise, I have stuck with Epson and have been quite happy with them. I did have a print head go (clog beyond all hope) on my Stylus 440 but that seemed to be connected to me refilling cartridges.

Having said that, I do wonder about the economics - lets say a cartridge costs £20 and I could do 5 refills for that price. One could argue that you don't need to get away with many refills before you are in credit to the tune of a new printer which of course would by that time be of later and higher quality (for the same money) than the one you are replacing. I'm being a good boy now though with my Stylus 880.

Thinking inkjets, I believe Epson use a different technology to the rest. If I have it right: HP, Cannon and others use a thermal process to create a bubble which "bursts" to squirt the ink and Epson use a piezzo mechanisim. I seem to remember reading somewhere that in theory this gives Epsons better control over the jet and that they have more flexibility in ink design as the inks don't have to be heat tolerant. Where this is true or makes any real difference in practice may be another matter...

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 08:48 PM

Yep, tain't cheap. I doubled up on some things I didn't need, like a charger (when I got to the bottom of the camera box, I found one included). The 16 cards they provide are teasers, you have to upgrade to at least 64, and I agree that the AC adapter is almost a necessity if you do any amount of work. I use Epson papers and printer (the local school board prefers Epson because there is less down time- apparently more kid-proof). I know that HP works fine for most people. The PC magazine tests are fair and honest, in my experience. Just remember that HP, Epson, etc. are out there to make money, so they have equipment for everybody, and some of the low-end stuff is disapointing in use.
I suggest making a copy of your images from hard drive to CDR as a safety measure.

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 11:19 PM

Jon..2nd hand isn't Luddite...it is being economical!...as the people who MUST have the newest upgrade, there are many deals to be had in nice, barely used stuff!...

JustaPicker...my wife insisted we save up for the HP Office Jet with scanner, printer, fax, copier (with reduce/enlarge)....it makes toast, shines your shoes, translates Polish to Hawaiian and calls your boss with a new excuse when you're late to work...(well, maybe I exaggerate a LEETLE bit)...but it sure has been great. Quality prints and the feed mechanism seems to NEVER jam.

Yes, it IS an investment, but since we do NOT print every picture, (mostly archive the digital pics on CD), we don't spend nearly as much as we did on film....and if we need to re-shoot, we don't have to wait till Aunt Maude has gone home, or the craft item is sold!

One important thing...for general B&W printing of text, there are fast, money saving modes (less ink)...and for color prints, there is an HP paper which is 'almost' as good as photo-quality for much less cost, so you can test color and do minor jobs cheaply.

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 11 Nov 01 - 11:51 PM

Bill, I meant still being on 35mm film as being Luddite. I think this camera was made in the early 80's but it still seems to work well and I doubt that I will ever have a use for a camera that does more (forgetting digital - the instant result is attractive...).

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Nov 01 - 12:19 AM

The Epson 890 uses 6 color piezo inkjet technology ($300). One of these is working well for my daughter, who puts out her own brochures for her store, as well as using it for hobby purposes.
The HP 1215, same price, I believe still uses the 4 color system, but turns out about the same resolution. I think they are a little behind at the moment, but that is a personal opinion only.

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Terry K
Date: 12 Nov 01 - 02:42 AM

Since going digital I find myself wondering why on earth anyone would want to print photos. I keep everything filed on the PC and can instantly access any part of my photo collection with a click or two. Which means that I now actually look at my photos. The past ones stored in boxes somewhere never get looked at.

If budget is limited, I'd suggest NOT going to entry level, but rather go second hand good quality. There are people out there who absolutely must have the very latest, so there is a lot of good, hardly used stuff available. (Like my digital video camera for example!).

Cheers, Terry

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Nov 01 - 12:00 PM

Mcgrath, we haven't scared you away yet? Of course, you must get a scanner to take those old prints and negatives into digital so you can remove mother-in-law from that otherwise good picture or the garbage bin from that photo of Mt. Murgatroyd. A good print scanner runs $400 and a 35mm neg scanner around $1000.
Seriously, no really serious photographer would get rid of his film system. Resolution and the capabilities of a good series of lenses as yet cannot be replaced by digital cameras. The digital provides another tool and professionals use both. If you already have a good film camera, consider a scanner to process your negs and prints first.
For the amateur with a computer, however, the digital system is hard to beat. A lot of your errors in photography can be corrected by the Adobe and other programs available. They take time and experimentation to use properly; the manuals are good but much practice goes into the good digital print.
Used equipment with a guarantee is a real money-saver; also there are factory-rebuilt items out there that are every bit as good as new.

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: GUEST,Deborah
Date: 12 Nov 01 - 03:32 PM

I haven't seen the Sony Mavica family mentioned yet. I was a public school music teacher who purchased one for my fellow teachers and our students and even the Principal couldn't mess it up.

Saves to floppy disk so it can be shared and used a lot. I would get one with Zoom for those non-intrusive close-ups of your friends playing and singing.

They have really fancy ones that also shoot short movies, but I like my oldie.

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Nov 01 - 06:48 AM

Good stuff. Having read this thread and chased around a bit I can now walk into a shop and have some clue as to when the assistant is talking about.

One thing I found on the net that might appeal to economical non-ludditesis a neat way of using my flatbed scanner to scan negatives. I haven't tried it yet, but it looks like it should work and a lot less than $1000. Free in fact, just folded paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Digital cameras?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 01 - 09:02 AM