Digital cameras

[TonyG]

I have been thinking of getting a digital camera for several reasons with one being to get better quality pictures onto my computer. However, with how fast technology has been changing in that field I have not been able to keep up with the latest news.

Has anyone been using them here and if so, what do you use, what are the good/bad points and what options or accessories are good to have with the camara? What about on the software side? Right now I have MGI Photosuite III.

 

[Juliangel]

My video camera, a JVC, has a digital camera built into it. I can flip from video to camera or snap a picture while video taping, the best of both worlds.

It came with it's own software to download the pictures from the camera.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I have a 99 buck special. Software came with it. Software comes with most of the cameras you buy nowdays, from what I understand. Just gotta have a matchin port, mine is serial, and I have a serial port. Some are USB, the cam I have will do a USB port, but you have to buy the plug for it separately. Also, check the way the camera stores pics and the way it gets it's energy. Changeable chips are cool cause you can take a bunch and store tons of pics. Mine will hold about 40 pictures then it's datadump time. It uses 4 double As, which I have to replace about once a month, but I don't use it much.

 

[BlondGirl]

If you are purchasing the camera to have pictures to upload over the web, don't worry about getting the super-model. I bought one with a good quality resolution that gets really really spectacular pictures. NOTHING ANYWHERE TAKES THEM- and it takes 15 minutes to upload each one from my AOL to another AOL--I have a great picture now that I can't seem to manage to convert to a "cheaper" resolution. (I just use the lower resolution most of the time now.)

I bought a fujifilm fine pix 1300 for 230$ at Circuit City (The BEST prices anywhere--next in line is Best Buy and then Amazon.com--I just bought the cam a month ago so I am sure my price research is still valid.....)

At the lower resolution, the card that comes with the camera holds around 80 pictures.

When you are looking at the camera in the store and comparing prices, be sure to compare the storage media and its prices. You will be pissed off if the camera costs 15$ less with the lowest available storage and later find out that another card costs 35$.
I also suggest that you spend an afternoon parking your ass in a chair at Barnes and Noble or Hastings or some other super-bookstore and read all the ads from the photography mags. You will have a great source of information to choose from.

The features I really love on my cam--
It has the screw hole for the tripod.
It comes with a decent media level.
It has a timed picture option. I was able to obtain a family picture at Christmas that was beautiful.
On the low resolution, you have the option of camera zoom.
It is super user friendly. (I tried them all out in every store--if I could not figure out how to take and delete a picture in 2 minutes, I went on to the next camera. I should never ever have to give a lecture to a stranger-type-relative who is taking a quick pic of me and my kid.)
The batteries do not seem to be eaten as quickly as in other cameras.

(I did get questioned today about if I ever make any decision without fully researching all availabe aspects today. LOL--I felt very complimented. And it brightened a very very dark day.)

If you wish to see the picture quality, I did submit some pictures from the new cam to the site for the amateur pix, if they get posted. They were taken by a close and special friend. Of course, this should prove how easy it is to use the camera since that was NOT a time when we needed to figure the thing out!!!!!!!

 

[Weird Harold]

I have been thinking of getting a digital camera for several reasons with one being to get better quality pictures onto my computer.

A scanner will produce better picture files for printing than a didgital camera. If you're just looking for good pictures to e-mail friends or post on the net, a camera is a good choice.

My neighbor just bought a Sony Mavica for 1200 dollars that takes picture that are 1200x 1600 at the best resolution. It uses mini CD-R/W disks for storage, and becomes an extra drive on your computer through the USB port to access the pictures. You can also use an adapter to read the disks in a standard CD drive. It has most of the "bells and whistles" that a good 35mm film camera does, including optical and digital zoom functions, exposure controls and built-in, hotshoe, and external flash connections. You can print "photo quality" up to 4x5 inches, and good quality up to 8x10 (@ 150 dpi)

If you're looking for printable pictures, or exposure control and adjustable focus, you need something like my neighbor's camera ($1000+). If you just want to e-mail snapshots, then a cheaper camera will do.

One comment about storage. Flashcards are neat, because you can carry a pocketfull and take pictures all day. The problem is finding a computer that can read flashcards. (Most cameras don't include the flashcard adapter so the computer can read them.) Cameras that use disks (either 3.5" floppies or mini-CD) have to be bulky enough to contain the drive for the disks. A camera that plugs into the USB port and uses a TWAIN interface will work directly with most photo processing software -- if it will take input from a TWAIN scanner, then it will take input from a TWAIN camera.

Every camera I've had any direct experience with either stores pictures in JPG format, downloads directly into a photo processing program through a TWAIN interface, or downloads into a program that can save in JPG format. Therefore any program that can open and display JPG files will work for manipulating the pictures. I use PhotoShop Pro 6.0 from JASC software. (You can download a time stamped trial version from JASC.com.) I haven't found any picture format it can't read and convert to JPG. It can convert JPG to just about anything except Kodak CD format.

Speaking of Kodak CD format, that is the easiest way to get high quality digital pictures from film to digital if you don't have a scanner. It's just a bit more expensive and takes a week instead of an hour.





I have a "JamCam" that is a fixed focus viewfinder style snapshot camera. It uses a TWAIN interface via the USB port and tops out at 640x480 on picture size. last I looked, it was selling for $89. It isn't good for much more than pictures to send with e-mail.

 

[Closet Desire]

Digital photography...

I never thought, in my wildest dreams, I would ever buy a digital camera. I have a house full of lovely SLRs, lenses, flashes, studio equipment, etc. But, after playing around with scanning photos from my 35mm I decided to make the leap and bought a Kodak DC 280 for £399 (about $650). I have to admit being pleasantly surprised by the capabilities of the camera which is a 2.3 megapixel model. I'm about to replace it with the Fuji Finepix 4900 which looks like a real bang up camera for a tad under $1,000.

Before saying anything else I will say that I still use both cameras, but more and more use the digital for a lot of reasons. As for computer equipment to support it...pretty standard stuff with a CD-RW, USB Flash Card reader, HP 5300C scanner, and an Epson Stylus Color 900. For software I use Adobe Photoshop, Epson Film Gallery (a must have for snapshots $19 from their web site), and Corel Photo House. By properly matching resolutions and sizes I get excellent quality A4 size prints (although not 35mm quality).

I don't personally agree that scanned images are better than digital unless you mean a 35mm film/slide scanner which does deliver stunning results. When you scan a print you are copying a copy which may not match the negative. You are at the mercy of the photo lab and their interpretation of colour reproduction. I find that when scanning a print I usually have to increase the contrast by as much as 20% and brightness by around 5%. If you have a really good print then I do think scanning gives good results. I usually only used scanned images for web sites and not for reprints because of this.

If you are serious about digital photography do get a decent one with at least 2 megapixels. Also, ignore claims aobut "digital" zooms because the quality sucks. I biggest criticism of the Kodak I have is that the optical zoom is the equivalent of 35-80 MM and I usually prefer something as long as 125 mm. The digital zoom is awkward to use (doesn't display in the viewfinder) and reduces the resolution of the photo.

If you ever loved doing darkroom work you may quickly come to love digital because you can do the same things on screen without turning off the lights or mixing up chemicals. I'm afraid I'm a convert...I'm so ashamed.

It changes so quick, like WH said, so read reviews and think carefully about what you want it to do. They are so expensive and if you buy the wrong one you will be in a perpetual state of annoyance (I bought three before I was happy).

Our web site has a mix of scanned photos and digital photos if you want to compare. The digital images are of CD-able in a corset on the Shows page while all of the Paris photos are scanned from 4x6 prints (no retouching).

Good luck...give it a whirl...it is great fun!

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Digital photography...

I don't personally agree that scanned images are better than digital unless you mean a 35mm film/slide scanner which does deliver stunning results. When you scan a print you are copying a copy which may not match the negative.

Good point about scanning a copy rather than the original. (negative or slide) I think scanning is better for files you intend to print only because the best your camera can do is 2 megapixels (in the 1200x1600 range?) while a scanner can gather enough pixels from a 4x6 print (or smaller) to print it at 300 dpi or better at 8x10. The resolution available from a scanner is limited more my the memory available than the scanner resolution in most cases. (My scanner can scan as fine as 4800 dpi but I don't have the memory for more than about 1/4 square inch at that resolution.) 4800 dpi is not quite as fine as the grain of a good 100 asa film, but it's better than most digital cameras can produce.

I wish I could afford a transparency adapter for my scanner. The scanner was $200 but the transparency adapter for it is $600. ::sighs::

 

[Closet Desire]

Figures don't lie...

...but liars figure! (and NO I don't mean you!)

I was confused by the whole numbers game, but managed to come across some articles over the past few months that helped clear it up for me. Most scanners, like my HP, have some ridiculously high res value that, it turns out, isn't real. They achieve it with interpolation. Some of the guidelines I've seen are that 150 dpi is a sufficient quality scan for most output on a 1200-1440 dpi printer (also res numbers that don't really jive) with 300 being more than enough. More, they say, just uses up storage room.

I agree wholeheartedly that a high res scan of an excellent quality print will be better than a 2 mp digital, but I'm usually disappointed in the focus and colour balance of machine prints from the lab. In these I've found my digital images to be preferable to scans. I expect that when I have the Fuji 4900 even this will cease to be an issue as it is rated at over 4 megapixels, has full manual control, and a 35 - 210 mm lens. Ahhhh...boys and their toys!

On another topic I did some experimenting with nudes in the studio with the camera set in black and white mode. It doesn't have a hotshoe for flash so I covered the flash with an IR filter to eliminate the visible light, but let enough IR through to trigger the studio flashes. The results were impressive. Apparently the CCD reacts quickly enough to meter flash from any source and give good exposures (with my Canon A1 I have to use a flash meter and manually set the camera). The real weakness is printing out a good tonal range on colour printers as using colour gives a tint and using black only results in dithering rather than smooth grades. There are some companies that make black and white inks to replace the colour ink cartidges that are supposed to be fabulous, but I think it would only be practical if you have a dedicated printer (now...where is that computer shopper?). The same companies also make arcihval inks and papers that last up to 100 years without fading.

I don't know about the US but there are some low-end film scanners here in the $300 range that have received raves from the reviewers. I think Jenoptic makes one and the other one is branded under Jessops which is a photo store chain here. I lusted after one, but after trying a digital camera decided to give it a miss.

I don't know if you're interested in the Epson Film Factory software, but it does something I haven't found anywhere else. It downloads the camera images (or any images you choose) into a simulated "roll" and then displays them as contact sheets. It can print a contact sheet in a lot of different configuration and the, get this, print the whole lot out as snapshots onto whatever size paper you choose. It can also auto-retouch the whole roll...just like the one hour lab. It's clever and I use it all the time when we've used the camera as a snapshot camera.

I've decided digital is as good as computers, cameras, and cars with an infinite variety of products to waste money on. Ah...the satisfaction of money well and truly spent!

 

[Chuckus]

I have been thinking of getting a digital camera for several reasons with one being to get better quality pictures onto my computer. However, with how fast technology has been changing in that field I have not been able to keep up with the latest news.

Has anyone been using them here and if so, what do you use, what are the good/bad points and what options or accessories are good to have with the camara? What about on the software side? Right now I have MGI Photosuite III.

All the way up until mine got broken I had a Olympus 460 and it was a good one, though now it is broken and I am looking for another one to get.........I am interested in this thread for the same reasons as tony..........

Any thoughts on the Kodak or Sony cameras?

 

[teresafannin]

My best friend has a Sony Mavica & she loves it. Her entire collectables business is on the internet, so she has to have good pictures to post. I have a little Minolta that my mom gave me for Christmas, I am still learning how to use it, but it seems to work really well, good clear pictures & it came with the software that I need. My sweetie uses it more than I do & he really likes it. I would love a Mavica, but it is out of our price range right now.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

I have a Mavica and it is great. I took a hundred disks to Beijing and filled them all up with pics and movies and I was sorry that I had not packed more. The pictures are great, I use them for ads, newsletters, and press releases. Fan-damn-tastic.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Figures don't lie...

Most scanners, like my HP, have some ridiculously high res value that, it turns out, isn't real. They achieve it with interpolation. Some of the guidelines I've seen are that 150 dpi is a sufficient quality scan for most output on a 1200-1440 dpi printer (also res numbers that don't really jive) with 300 being more than enough. More, they say, just uses up storage room.

I agree wholeheartedly that a high res scan of an excellent quality print will be better than a 2 mp digital, but I'm usually disappointed in the focus and colour balance of machine prints from the lab. In these I've found my digital images to be preferable to scans. I expect that when I have the Fuji 4900 even this will cease to be an issue as it is rated at over 4 megapixels, has full manual control, and a 35 - 210 mm lens. Ahhhh...boys and their toys!

The scanning software that came with my UMax 610P can do a lot with the color balance although the focus is difficult to correct. What the scanner software can't fix, PaintShop Pro can. (including some improvement in the sharpness.) A true scan resolution of 600 dpi is what my scanner offers, and the 4800 dpi is interpolated. Interpolation isn't as bad as it sounds though. If I understand the documentation correctly, the interpolation is achieved by scanning multiple times with a slight offset for each. It's not a purely mathematical interpolation of the pixels as a photo processing software package does.

Where I use higher scan resolutions the most is when I'm cropping as well as scanning. I try to scan enough pixels that the printer software doesn't need to do any interpolations to print 300 dpi.

Getting the picture from a 2 or 4 megapixel camera that can optically zoom in to frame a picture to minimize cropping is definitely going to reduce the amount of comutational errors induced by making a picture fit a particular size output. A camera like my Jamcam just doesn't produce the size or quality of image that is suitable for printing. It's strictly a snapshot camera.

I don't know about the US but there are some low-end film scanners here in the $300 range that have received raves from the reviewers.

I'll have to look into a specialized scanner. I have a lot of old negatives and slides that I'd like to burn onto a CDROM for archival purposes. The prints have long been lost and I'm not even sure what's on the negatives.

I don't know if you're interested in the Epson Film Factory software, but it does something I haven't found anywhere else. It downloads the camera images (or any images you choose) into a simulated "roll" and then displays them as contact sheets. It can print a contact sheet in a lot of different configuration and the, get this, print the whole lot out as snapshots onto whatever size paper you choose. It can also auto-retouch the whole roll...just like the one hour lab. It's clever and I use it all the time when we've used the camera as a snapshot camera.

Epson Proofsheet came with my printer. It's a great program for printing a sheet of wallet size or a couple of 5x7s. I haven't seen the film factory software.

Paintshop Pro has similar features, but it sounds like film factory is easier to use for multiple image prints. PaintShop pro has a browser function that will print thumbnails of what images are in a directory. Setting up to print multiple full size images on the same page is a bit more involved.

 

[TonyG]

Wow! Everyone has given me lots to think about and compare. Thank you all. I will take a look around and post some more questions as soon as I get confused again.

 

[Chuckus]

Hey tony...........

 

[TonyG]

Chuckus

Yes, you rang?

 

[Chuckus]

Just thought I would say morning to you, sitting here listening to Pantera and drinking java and eating blueberry muffins....yum yum

 

[TonyG]

Thank you and the same to you. I noticed you are also interested in digital cameras. What type of computer system do you have and what are your plans for the camera?

 

[Chuckus]

Well I have a P3 800 MHz, 512 Megs of Ram, 45 GB of HDD space, a 10/12/32 CD Burner, 50X Rom,3Com Network card, 20 inch monitor with a Viper 770 Ultra Video Card, SB Live sound card, Polk audio speakers on 1 machine

The second machine is being pieced together though, I have a P3 700 MHz, 512 Megs Ram, 30 GB HDD, 50X Rom, 770 card but no network card yet, 17 inch monitor......all I have left to buy is the Motherboard and a case.....

As for the camera, taking personal photos mostly. I have a camera that I can commandier from work and use when needed, but I want to get my own again, as the last one I bought I dropped and it shattered into a million pieces (they usually do from 40 feet up). Mostly for personal use and taking snapshots of cool stuff. I am like you seeing what the latest and greatest is, if anyone knows.....the last one I had was an Olympus 460 something or other and it was a good one........

oh and software, I got the software for 10 computers......all kinds of goodies. and a cable modem too

 

[TonyG]

Gee, you have one of the smaller type of systems

Mine pales in comparison, P3 536mhz, 128mbsdram, 20.4gb disc, 800x600 vid with 11mb mem, 8x dvd-rom, cdrw, Polk speakers, HP Officejet 600 color printer, Visioneer 7600 1200dpi(true) 36-bit color scanner. I want to get pictures for emailing and also to put into brochures and a business web site.

Now, I'm wondering if this hardware is going to be good for the digital camera. Harold, are you listening?

 

[Chuckus]

well you know tony, I like to be modest when I do build my own machines, no store bought ones for me. I do it all myself. I don't have a DVD drive as I have one on my home theater system and don't use it for that. Though one day I might put on a DVD rom........that Viper 770 is 32 Megs RAM and it rocks.....my 512 Megs of ram is RD Ram also....flies man it just flies, this system rocks.

I have a netgear hub also in my place for when friends come over and we play games like Counterstrike, Diablo 2, Quake 3, Starcraft Brood War and C and C Red Alert 2...**** stuff.

I have a printer but nothing fancy just an old Canon Laserjet model that does what I need it to...

Tony, your system should be fine for a digital camera, you have USB ports don't you?

 

[Jake2001]

Digital is great for small images and the Internet

As a result of my wife giving me an Olympus D320L (1024 x 768 pixels) a couple of years ago, I have a renewed love of photography. I say renewed because I was really into photography as a teenager. Financing my way through school doing wedding and real estate photography gave me a big case of burnout. I still have my old Rolliflex TLR and a Nicon F1 SLR in a closet someplace.

The digital camera allows me to do things that I never could before. CD made an especially good point that you can do in the computer what you used to only be able to do in the darkroom. You can crop, color-correct, eliminate red-eye, and do all kinds of fancy stuff with even the free software that is available. You can get acceptable prints using high quality paper (available at any office supply or computer store) on your inkjet printer. You can also weed out the good pictures and take only them to your local one-hour photo center on a floppy disk and have them printed. They are as good as any snapshots. You can save a chunk of money by not having to pay to have the whole roll printed out, in addition to not having to buy film.

I use "Adobe Photoshop v 5.0" to manipulate the images before printing them. Probably the handiest program I have though, is a user supported software program called "Thumbs Plus" [Cerious Software, Inc. http://www.cerious.com ]. It displays all your images in the various sub-directories as thumbnails and you expand them by simply clicking on each thumbnail. It also automates the making of thumbnail web pages that you can upload to your personal website. I suggest anyone with a digital camera to check it out.

 

[TonyG]

Chuckus

Yes, one front and one rear mounted. I use to build my own but then time restraints kept getting in the way. I have been thinking of adding more ram and a better vid card.

You have hit me with a term I do not think I know. 'CD' ram?

 

[Chuckus]

Re: Chuckus

Yes, one front and one rear mounted. I use to build my own but then time restraints kept getting in the way. I have been thinking of adding more ram and a better vid card.

You have hit me with a term I do not think I know. 'CD' ram?

RD Ram, it is faster and less error prone, quicker man quicker and you pay a premium for it. Check it out and see what I mean. I notice the difference but only because some of the crap I have done makes a difference.

The video card is awesome that I have. 32 Megs SD ram and its bus speed is like 166 mhz or something like that (can't remember) but I love it. RAM can help speed a slower processor up some, so it cannot hurt, I have another 256 MEGS coming next week so i will be close to a gig of ram.

 

[Jake2001]

Re: Re: Figures don't lie...

Paintshop Pro has similar features, but it sounds like film factory is easier to use for multiple image prints. PaintShop pro has a browser function that will print thumbnails of what images are in a directory. Setting up to print multiple full size images on the same page is a bit more involved.

Try Thumbs Plus (see above). There is a full function version you can download and try for 30 days. It will print out multiple images of any size you choose on the same page.

 

[Closet Desire]

Yep...

...that sounds similar to the Epson software. Epson's is also available on a 30 day trial so you can give it all a trial run. Funny how you settle on using several programs to do particular things. I do find that I like Adobe for anything really serious although most of my efforts are quick and dirty.

Thanks for the explantion WH on the interpolation. I've never heard it explained so clearly. Sounds like it works the same as the newer high res cameras that have a 2 megapix CCD but an effective res of 4 megapix which they do, as you said, by making a multiple exposure. I think the max on my scanner is also 600 dpi but I don't usually go above 300. I tend to use it only to scan my book covers because I don't have any way to convert pdf images to tiffs.

Sounds as though all of us have blazed similar trails! I'm glad to hear others have come to similar conclusions about a lot of it.