Mike Dame Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 I was playing with my buddies camera at a match today and have pretty much decided that I'm going to get one. But I don't have a clue about what the spec's mean. What should I be looking for and what do you recomend. I just want it for when I go to matches, I want to be able to take vidoes and pictures. And I don't want to pay an arm and a leg if I don't need too. thanks for your help Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 Take a hard look at the Kodak. They're super simple to use and have great optics. I never would have thought they were worth a crap, but much to my surprise Kodak makes a fantastic pocket camera. I bought one for my Mom and it is absolutely excellent. That said, Kodak and Leica seem to have found the best balance between image quality and camera size for a pocket camera. As far as specs go, you need to decide what you want to do. If you want to make large prints, you'll need 4-6 megapixels *and* good glass. Kodak, Olympus and Leica would all be good choices. More megapixels = better image resolution. If you're only going to email photos, anything over 4MP is a waste of money. 4MP would also be the minimum I would buy in camera because that seems to be the price point where they start putting in decent glass. Steer clear of any of the cheap models with the teeny-tiny lenses. No matter what MP they are, the image quality is exceedingly poor. The Nikon Coolpix 2500/3500 is an example of one to avoid like the plague. Great idea, lousy execution. Another thing to look for is a separate viewfinder. Virtually no LCD is usable in bright sunlight. The viewfinder is a non-negotiable, must-have feature. Ignore all references to "digital" zoom when comparing. It's a worthless feature that never should have been put in a camera. Finally, if you have access to Costco - serious consider buying your camera through them. Their return policy is absolutely fantastic - and digital cameras are still flakey enough that you may well need to avail yourself of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eerw Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 Pretty much what Eric said.. you will be hard pressed to find one that will do video and stills well..each one sacrifices something to do the other.. decide what your end use is..email, making prints (8x10 or larger) that will help you decide where to spend your money.. a good site to try look at reviews and do side by side comparisons is www.dpreview.com. I have had pretty good luck with the Nikon Coolpix 950 and 990..and the D1 and D1H (the D series is probably our of your price range..though) If you are interested.or anyone else is..I have a Olympus C5050 for sale..it is new in the box..maybe shot 10 frames with it..It is a great camera..I just don;t need it right now..I bought it new for $699 and asking $600 for it and will throw in a good condition Lexar 256mg CF card...but willing to listen to an offer.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 Hi All, I had a Kodak DC-265 for about 3 years, then the warranty ran out, and I got into a Nikon CoolPix 990 for under $600 ($549 plus tax at my local CompUSA). Now that Nikon has some even newer models out, the 990 is going real cheap. The Nikon 990 is a real good choice for a full featured, high resolution camera. For a real budget camera, any of the little Canons get the best marks in most reviews. My hands on experience is with the high end of the consumer digital cameras, and IMHO the Nikon 900 series rules the roost there. The Kodak was OK, but I had to send it back for repar/replacement twice (they always sent me a totally re-built camera with a different S/N). The picture quality was Great, but the user interface was klunky compared to the Nikon. I have a friend who got the Kodak DC-265 also, and he is on his second one right now (the Kodak warranty is as good as the Dillon warranty until it runs out). My wife who is a professional shutterbug (she does large format work), hated the Kodak, but thinks the Nikon is "normal" enough to actually use. Tip: No matter which camera you settle on, get two 128, or 256 MB storage cards right upfront. I don't bother with the smaller cards because I always shoot at the max resolution, and re-sample as needed later. You should also get a PCMCIA card adapter that allows you to read the card right into a laptop after doing a card-swap type reload at the camera. You can get a USB card reader if you don't have a laptop, and it will still work lot's better than the camera cable method. It basically mounts like an external disk, and ya drag', drop. You clear the card out after verifying images on the computer, and you are ready to swap again. It beats the heck out of the "incredibly slow" USB download apps that come bundled with camera's. I usually disregard most of the image handling software that comes with cameras. Once the JPEG's are pulled off the "Flash" card into a folder on my hard drive, I use PhotoShop, (or similar) for manipulation, and various shareware/freeware sorter/viewer software to browse, and catalog. Video cameras do a poor job of getting good stills (the resolution of the ccd sensor is too low for good photo printing quality), and still cameras don't do good motion video in return (the sensor of the still camera blurs motion, and suffers from slow frame rates). This is truly a one, or the other thing. A good digital video camera will cost over a $Grand. Unless my priority was making movies, I would get a still camera for everyday usage/utility. Hope this helps, Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George D Posted April 12, 2003 Share Posted April 12, 2003 I did some considerable research on this subject when I was buying a digital for our business. I found that the Olympus range offered the best value for money. Having used it now for about 1 year it has done everything I expected of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn jones Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 look at the cameras that have 8-10 optical zoom and at least 3 meg-pixals. the olympus and hp have several models. lynn jones ps digital zoom is a farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 A year after making the switch to digital as a newspaper photographer, I finally bought my first point and shoot digital in March. I bought the Canon G3, a four-megapixel camera with a fast zoom and full manual override. Price is just north of $ 600.- if you shop carefully. Good images --- up to 11x14 if I do my part --- and it's got movie capability ----although I can't evaluate that since I've never even owned a video camera. The pop-out LCD is handy for low-angle work and it's got an eye-level viewfinder for times when the LCD is unusable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2alpha Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Nikon all the way, best lense by far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eerw Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 The lenses on the consumer line of DIT cams are all pretty much the same as long as they are glass...you won't see the difference until you get up into the professional lines of either Nikon or Canon.. If you look close at how all the manufacturers have their lines laid out..you will see cameras emerge in different categories.. a lot of the features that will determine the price the range, type of lens..lens speed, glass, plastic, zoom range the features on the cameras..LCD, viewfinder, autofocus capability, autoexposure capability, manual feature, auto features. the type and size of CCD chip or CMOS chip type of digital media it uses..CF cards, CF2 cards, memory stick, etc. My personal choice has been Nikon and Canon..as that is what I use at work..The little Olympus that I have for sale..is pretty trick for a small camera..you have a lot of choices to wade through...just about every manufacturer has about 6 or 7 cameras to offer.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 If you want a good lens, buy a camera with a Carl Zeiss lens. I believe they sell their lenses to a couple of manufacturers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 I just bought a Nikon 5700, it's their prosumer camera. It's 5 mp with a 8x optical zoom. I usually have it set on 2 mp which allows me to take a little over 1000 pictures with a 1 gig compact flash, or 400+ on 5 mp. The movie mode is limited to 1 minute, just long enough for most stages, but the quality sucks. The 8x optical zoom is nice, 35-280mm equivalent, it allows you to get fairly close to the shooter. The high quality continuous mode allows you to shoot 3 frames per second, but the buffer can only handle 3 frames. There's a ultra high speed mode, but the quality is very low. Here's a link to the photos that I took at a recent IDPA match. http://photos.yahoo.com/scottyu@sbcglobal.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Dame Posted April 13, 2003 Author Share Posted April 13, 2003 I'm more interested in the video aspect, would I be better off to get some kind of software to take a camcorder tape and upload in it on to my computer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2alpha Posted April 13, 2003 Share Posted April 13, 2003 Oh yes, get a digital video camera, the video on the still camera's is just a little extra perk. You need both!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 If you want a digital video camera, Sony is the only way to go. They have pretty much dominated the industry. The TRV950 is their top of the line camera, but it does require a lot of light for the 3 CCD to work. My boss recently tested a TRV950 and a TRV50. The TRV50 can take slightly better video and pictures than the 950 because it requires less light for the CCD. The 950 pictures and vidoes tend to be a little darker. The TRV50 is now replaced by the TRV80 which can take 2 megapixel pictures and short movies on a memory stick which you can download onto your computer. Don't be tempted by the small size of some of the new camcorders out there like the new Sony MicroMV IP55. These are actually a little too small and you will have problems acessing the buttons. It is also a little difficult to hold steady, you know the heavy gun vs. light gun debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Oh yes, get a digital video camera, the video on the still camera's is just a little extra perk. You need both!! You really don't need both! The Sony MiniDv camcorders from the TRV30 up have Carl Zeiss lens, 2 megapixel or better capability, use memorysticks for image storage, take excellent photos and are very easy to use. I did all my close-up photography for the Front Sight articles using a TRV30 camcorder. Plus you only need to carry one camera instead of two. Be certain to get a camcorder with A/V input (Analog Audio/Video input) so that you can use it with a HoserCam. Just kidding, sort of! With the A/V input you can record all of your old VHS home movies to digital and put them on CD or DVD with your computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 I totally agree with Nolan about Sony being "It" when it comes to motion video. My company rents the bigger broadcast brothers of the Sony "weenie-cams" (sorry, buts thats just what we call the pro-sumer camcorders in my industry), and the Sony cameras give the best picture for the "buck" Period Canon's cam-corders are OK, but the best picture quality award (video pictures, that is) pretty much always goes to Sony in the pro-sumer arena. The feature sets vs. price are the best in Sony gear too. They pretty much own the broadcast/industrial video production market (yeah there are a few other broadcast camera options, but your gonna look at em on a Sony monitor and/or record them on a Sony deck, anyway! Oh yeah, they also own all of the tape, and encoding methods that we use too. Sounds a little like a software company we all know, and love, doesn't it?). So Sony is definitely the word here, and the TR-30 is a good choice. It will give you the ability to do things on your computer that were flat out unimaginable just a few years ago in the professional arena. If you are running on a Mac, and have FireWire I/O, you are "In Like Flint" for video editing with the iMovie application Apple provides (it's about the best software available to edit video for under $500 bucks, it's free). In Windows, ACD's Video Magik, and Windows Movie Maker 2.0 are starters, and here's a link to the rest of em' http://desktopvideo.about.com/cs/toppick1/...opvideditsw.htm If you want to do "desktop video", make sure the camera supports FireWire, and that your computer does also (Sony calls it "iLink" cause they think they own that too!). Get ahold of one of the aforementioned applications, and your pretty much "in business" here. But, one thing that the TR's are a "still" a little light on is the still resolution (Sorry Nolan, but I do disagree here, but very politely). 1360 x 1020 isn't enough to do much more than fill a 17" monitor, or print 4.53" x 3.4" @ 300ppi (300 Pixels Per Inch is pretty much rock bottom pixel pitch for "photo quality" print work on modern inkjets with photo paper. Yeah, I know it looks "OK", but have ya seen the real thing here? Inkjet Photo Printing is really impressive when done up right). 1360x1020 is only 1.2 MegaPixel, and ya really do want 3MP, or more when you do anything other than e-mail the images to your buddies, and relatives. In fact 2550x1700 is only 4.3MegaPixel, and 8.5" x 5.6" print size @ 300PPI. I am not saying that ya need 4.5MP, but if you are planning on replacing a 35mm film camera with a digital for your family photo album, you will need it (or more!). It still truly comes down to one for each type of shooting if you want each @ optimum. Multi-function devices always blow at one, or all of the intended uses. Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 Well, I went the other way with my last digital camera purchase-- My criteria were: - Tough & Small for pocket & range bag use - At least 3MP - Movie mode - Macro mode - Under $500 What I ended up with was a Canon Elph 230. Super-tiny, 3.2MP, 2x optical zoom and a 30-second 640x480 movie mode (which the 4MP version doesn't have ) For a tiny robust point-and-shoot digital range camera it rocks. $399 before discounts. No, I won't be printing coffee table books of the Sistine Chapel with it, but it works great for always-there use and the pictures print nicely up to 8x10 and can be shrunk to excellent web pictures. These days, consumer digital cameras are about $100/megapixel, and add another $100 for more controls and features. Price/performance is dropping almost as fast as computers, so there's not much point buying more than you need right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Dame Posted April 15, 2003 Author Share Posted April 15, 2003 thank you all for your comments, Roy do your movies have sound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Heiter Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 As Shred points out, it all depends on your criteria. I've got a Cannon XL1S at the office and it's a fine camera for video or stills but it doesn't meet all needs. Mine were price, physical size, and image quality. I decided to go with an Olympus Stylus 300 Digital. It's 3.2 MP for under $350 and it comes in a "weatherproof" package that's smaller than a pack of cigarettes. I can put it in my pocket or in my bag and never notice it. The optical zoom is a little on the short side but the image quality is pretty good and I was pleasantly suprised with the remote control and rechargable Lithium Ion battery included in the kit. My advice is to spend most of your time defining your criteria because these days, the internet makes shopping around all too easy once you've done that. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Yeah, it records sound (mono) with the video. You can't hear it on the camera, but you can on playback on a TV or computer. Here are some videos from last weekend's match You'll note that they're huge files (~1MB/sec).. Throwing them into Movie Maker or something shrinks them down considerably with little quality loss. Get a big flash card if you want to record a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Dame Posted April 16, 2003 Author Share Posted April 16, 2003 Shred, I can't get the link to open up. As for criteria, Price, size, best video I can get before losing picture quality. Once I see the videos that shred put the link to I think I'll have a better Idea about what type of movie quality will work for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 FWIW, I have a Sony S50 (2.1 megapixel) that I use basically for fun and web graphics (low res). I love it. It also takes 15 frames/sec movies, that's fun as well. I could print a nice quality 4" or 5" picture with it as well. be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 Sorry.. I crashed the server and forgot to reboot it for a few hours. They should be working now. Those are 640x480 15 fps-- They look pretty good up to 200% zoom. Many more cameras will do 320x240 videos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcschwenke Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 I researched digital cameras several times before buying one. My choice was the Minolta Dimage which is the smallest zoom cameral available. Now they have a version called the Dimage X, which is a 3 megapixel versus mine that is 2. Great camera and very portable. I compared the camera against our companies 3 megapixel Olympus and not one person could tell the difference. Even in for close-ups. You can also take movies, memos, or record voice captions for each picture. For the money it is definetly one to consider. One nice feature is that it will take true TIFF pictures so you can manipulate each pixel if you have a Adobe photoshop. Many of the higher end cameras do not have this feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted April 24, 2003 Share Posted April 24, 2003 Here's a second vote for the Minolta. I just bought a DiMage 414 at Costco for $380. It's a great camera. It has the brightest LCD I've seen on any camera, it's fast, easy to use, and has some nice advanced features. The downside: it's big, the viewfinder is a bit fuzzy, and the battery life on Alkalines is zip. Great deal for the money though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now