Digital Camera

[Guest]

I know quite a few of you have digital cameras..... I want one.... so what types would you recommend??

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Dont make the same mistake I did and buy a 30 dollar one....would suggest one in the 50-70 dollar range....I am sure others will give brands for ya.

 

[Logic]

The question is , do you want a webcam or a regular digital camera

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Yes that is a good question.....my price range was for webcams....digicams would be more.

 

[Guest]

hmm I guess both???

I mean I want to be able to take pictures while away from the computer

 

[Logic]

well there are alot of brands out there and at various price ranges
i would get one at a midrange price.
I have a Sony cybershot and it is great.

 

[fgarvb1]

Hp 315.. best bang for the buck

 

[Texan]

I know quite a few of you have digital cameras..... I want one.... so what types would you recommend??

I own a two year old Sony Mavica MVC-FD81. This is the higher resolution version of the Mavica. I have had two other digital cameras before this. IMHO, there are three important things to look for.
1. resolution.... at least an image size of 1024 X 768, will give you the ability to reduce the image and get the quality you want. (yes, I know that resolution and image size are different, but try explaining "mega pixel" resolution with all the advertising propaganda out there.)
2. memory.... I chose the Mavica because it has floppy disk storage. the new 8mb memory sticks are probably fine... but the floppy disks are easier to download and cheaper.
3. LCD image size. This is more important than you might think. If the LCD display on the camera isn't large enough, you won't be able to tell if the pic you just took is properly lighted or focused until you download the pic to your computer...then it's too late.

On my www site, I have a couple of pages of travel pics I took with my digital camera. Check it out to see if you like the quality.

This camera cost around $1,000. but they are getting cheaper. You won't regret the extra money you spend on added quality.

 

[Pyper]

So HERE'S where you are, Texan. Go back to the Republican thread and answer my question.

(Er, sorry for the hijack, jadedpast. )

 

[Texan]

I went back

and answered......

 

[Weird Harold]

I know quite a few of you have digital cameras..... I want one.... so what types would you recommend??

I just bought this one last week at Wallmart for $80. (They have another brand with similar capabilities for a regular price of $69.70)

This is the site that Google.com turned up with a picture, specifications, and a sale price of $79.99.

http://store.yahoo.com/advantage123/rcacds1005.html

The camera is about 10% bigger than a pack of cigarettes, has a built in flash, and self timer.

The attached picture the box it comes in, taken is with a flash from about three feet away, which means it's a bit over exposed.

(I also had to reduce the size from the 640x480 and 180Kb JPG the camera produced on the "fine" setting)

 

[Willing and Unsure]

i just bought one for my sister online... check out this link, most of them there are new, but some are not and they are reasonably priced

http://www.compgeeks.com/products.asp?cat=CAM

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Re: Digital Camera

Originally posted by Texan
2. memory.... I chose the Mavica because it has floppy disk storage. the new 8mb memory sticks are probably fine... but the floppy disks are easier to download and cheaper.

This is one drawback to the RCA I bought. Walmart has a good seletion of digital cameras in the $250 to $400 range with removable flash memory card storage.

Mine holds 16 Fine resolution, or 32 normal resolution pictures. It does come with a cable to preview pictures on any TV with a video input as well as cables for USB or serial interface.

Originally posted by Texan
3. LCD image size. This is more important than you might think. If the LCD display on the camera isn't large enough, you won't be able to tell if the pic you just took is properly lighted or focused until you download the pic to your computer...then it's too late.

Again, a failing of the RCA and cameras in it's price range, that the $250 and up cameras don't share.

The attached pic is normal resolution, from a different angle to reduce glare and at "normal" resolution of 640x480x16M colors. (Fine resolution is "true color")

 

[Texan]

quality pays off

check out this pic taken in Brasil a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Texan]

or this pic

taken in Brasil on the same day

 

[Closet Desire]

Digicams

I've owned several but I'm finally overjoyed with the Fuji 4900Z. It's very close to an SLR in operation, better in some ways. It produces a 4.4 megapix image although it is really only equivalent to a 3.3 megapix. I use it in a studio and find that I can print A4 (8.5 x 11 roughly) without a lapse in quality. I use an Epson Stylus Photo 890 and Adobe Elements image software.

You can actually go to www.fuji.co.uk to see the camera and read reviews. It's being replaced by the 6900Z which, you guessed it, produces a 6.6 megapix image and wears a sexy black magnesium housing.

Check them out carefully...I was disappointed in the first two cameras I had although the quality on both of them quite good. It was the little things like a hot shoe, fast lens, long lens, manual focus, manual override, etc.

Oh the photo...of the engraving at the Arc de Triumph in Paris. Just shows the detail. Of course the image has been resized and is only 90 dpi.

Good luck.