Any recommendations on a digital camera?

[Questioninggeller]

So I am planning a trip to Europe and wanted to get a digital camera. I don't know much about what to shop for, but I would like to get one that could record a few seonds of audio and video if the price is reasonable. Somewhere in the $2-300 range, if I can help it.

Anyone buy one and have good or bad things to say?

[geni]

Just the straight forward get as many pixels as you can afford and don't wory about digital zoom(it's a waste of time).

[ceptimus]

Once above two million pixels, or so, the extra pixels won't make much difference for general use, and will fill up the memory cards too fast.

A good quality lens ideally with an optical zoom is more useful.

[Questioninggeller]

For a good quality camera (about the same resolution as the nice 35mm) how many pixels would be required?

[geni]

What are you planing to do with the pictures (ie are you going to print them out or are you going to take them to somewhere to get them developed?)

[ceptimus]

You won't get the resolution of a good 35mm film camera from a digitial camera (well maybe, if you spend tens of thousands).

If you want to enlarge a print so it covers a wall, this matters. If you are going to print no larger than A4 (about 8 by 11 inches) then it doesn't really matter, and a few million (say 3 million) pixels is plenty.

Most of the lower cost digital cameras are let down by poor lenses. It is a lot cheaper for the manufacturers to fit a CCD with lots of pixels, than it is for them to fit decent lenses.

Digital zoom works by only using part of the CCD (the CCD is analagous to the film), so when digitially zooming, you have less pixels anyway. This is why a good quality optical zoom is important. That way, you can frame the picture how you like, and still have it distributed over the (say) 3 million pixels.

I have an early Nikon CoolPix, with only just over 1 million pixels, and it still takes much better photos, than some of my friends' toys that have 3million plus.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by geni
What are you planing to do with the pictures (ie are you going to print them out or are you going to take them to somewhere to get them developed?)

I'd like to be able to enlarge a few to a 8x10 photos, and probably take some of the better ones to be printed on glossy paper in normal 3x5.

[geni]

The simplest thing to do then would would be to work out the highest quality your printer can handle (because the chances are that is going to be the limiting factor) and buy accordingly. As a rough guide my 2.2 megapixel camara produces images that are just about good enough to be blown up to that size on a fairly standard printer.

[jimlintott]

Something else to think about is what will you do when the camera is full? Will you pack along a laptop to save the images? Will you get a camera with many external memory cards? If you fill all your memory cards what would you do then?

Film has a very serious advantage here.

[Wudang]

64MB cards are getting cheaper all the time. I took 4 64s and a 32 on holiday and had trouble filling them. And they're re-usable and take up an awful lot less space than a roll of film. And with a digital camera you know right away if you messed up that shot.

[Questioninggeller]

Does the airport sceening wipe out the cards?

[Beanbag]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
For a good quality camera (about the same resolution as the nice 35mm) how many pixels would be required?

I've worked in both worlds, film and digital. Assuming that you want to make actual prints, and not just look at them on a computer, 5 megapixel cameras are roughly equivalent to 35mm film. Of course, this is also dependant on what kind of printer you use to make the prints. I started out using an Epson C80 inkjet printer, which for my first 1.3 megapixel camera worked fine as long as I stayed around 5x7" format. Larger prints looked a little blocky, but not too bad.

I recently dumped about a thousand bucks into a Kodak 8500 dye-transfer printer, and I can tell you for certain that the last $900 difference in the price makes all the difference in the world. It's a real 8x10 print. Until you flip the photo over and look at the back, you can't tell if it's a "film" or digital print. I bought the new printer because I now use a Sony F717 5-megapixel camera. I've also done prints for my friend's Fuji S2, which does something ridiculous like 12 megapixels (interpolated).

If all you're going to do is look at images on the computer, you can get by with as little as 1.3 megapixels.

I've bought into Sony cameras simply because both my 1.3 megapixel and 5 megapixel cameras use the same batteries and memory sticks. While some people preferr cameras that use regular cells like AA batteries, I like the Infolithium packs that the F717 uses because the camera can accurately predict how many minutes are left per charge. I average about 3 and a half hours continuous use on a full charge, and the remaining battery life is shown in the viewfinder. No surprises. My friend's S2 uses AA rechargeables, and it regularly goes dead on him without warning. The downside is that Sony's batteries are about $50.00 each, but I've never had to replace one in the 3+ years I've been using them. I've got three -- one spare, plus the one that came with each camera.

It comes down to a matter of personal taste. I would like an SLR-type digital camera with interchangeable lenses, but the ones with the features I want run about $2000 for just the body alone. My other complaint is that the cameras are too smart -- I don't want autofocus or all that other garbage. I use the F717 in manual mode most of the time. The viewfinder screen lets me know whether the exposure was correct or not right after pressing the shutter. Sometimes the autofocus and I can't agree on what the subject of interest is. You can override it to some degree, but it's clumsy. I wouldn't want to do action photography with it -- sometimes there's a lag of 2 or 3 seconds between pressing the shutter and when the picture is actually taken while the autofocus "hunts" for the correct setting. The manual focus setting disables the zoom ring on the lens, making it the focus ring. The ring is just a position sensor. The internal motors still have to move the lens elements to adjust focus. The feel of the manual focus is nothing like I'm used to with a good manual SLR. If I could find a good digital back for my Pentax MX's, I'd be in heaven -- fully manual, all metal, all mechanical.

I expect to get a digital SLR in the next few years, when the price drops down to something reasonable. The F717 does what I want it to for now. I can't see spending $3000 on a digital setup now when I know the price will drop to about $1000 for the same capability in a year or so. The F717 cost me $999 in January, and I've seen it for as little a $699 yesterday. Early adopters pay the price, I suppose.

Regards;
Beanbag

[Thumbo]

Follow-on question:

I have an ancient Panasonic digital (no longer made). The thing I hate most about it is the lag betweeb pressing the shutter button and it actually taking the picture. I've lost count of the number of pictures I have where the focus of interest has just departed from view...

It's time for an upgrade.

What's the current state of shutter lag in digital cameras? Can anyone recommend one that actually takes the picture when you tell it, instead of some time later when it fells like it?

J.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
Does the airport sceening wipe out the cards?

Nope. I hand-carried them so I watched them go through the x-ray.

[HarryKeogh]

i suggest you buy your camera from gateway.com.
they've yet to charge me for my 450.00 digital camera and i bought it july 4th weekend.

[rustypouch]

I would suggest going with the largest sensor you can afford, as well as a good printer if you want to print them.

Also, some photo editing software is a a very good idea, as it can really help the quality of the final image. I consider the unsharp mask filter in photoshop mandatory for any of my images, as it does a great job of increasing the apparent sharpness.

Thumbo, the digital camera I am currently using is a Canon 10D, and there is almost no shutter lag with this body, but it is kind of pricey. But there are digis out there with minimal lag.

[Soapy Sam]

I bought a Fuji Finepix 4700 about 3 years ago. I love it. It goes everywhere with me. Note the following-
1. DCs are high power devices. Most come with Li ion batteries, which are expensive and customised. Not something you can buy on the street. I bought the Fuji for several reasons, one of which was that it uses standard AA cells. But! 2 Duracell AAs will get you about 5 photos. On a good day. Rechargeable NiMh cells are the only way to go. This means carrying a charger and several spares on your trip.
2.Storage. The new cameras come with SD or XD cards- 2Gigabytes are available in these formats (though I have never seen anything above 256Mb and they probably cost 10x their wight in gold.) The ideal combination is a laptop with a direct connect cable that reads from the camera, or a card reader and a spare card. I use a 128mb Smartmedia and I also have a 64Mb. I download to the laptop, then , after dumping the rubbish, to CD.

An alternative is one of the portable, self powered USB hard drives, which can double as an MP3 player etc. The Archos Jukebox range is good.

Warning. This will set you back a LOT more than $200, even at US prices. Don't think you can pick up any electronics cheap at European duty free. You can't. I speak as an embittered UK resident unfortunate enough to be paid in US Dollars (grump!)

3. Optics. As others have said, ignore "digital" zoom. Get a good quality lens. 3X is my advice, max 6X. The 10X or higher lens systems I have seen just lose too much light. CCDs are small and so are DC lenses. The laws of optics are the same as for film cameras. The wider the lens, the more light goes through it.

4. On the type of storage card- try to find one that fits other devices you already have, if any. This may save some cash.

5. Get one that goes in your pocket. The SLR- like ones are bigger, clumsier and give few advantages over a good pocket model. You will not get a bigger CCD (unless you pay $1000s). If you can carry it , you will. And it's that accessibility that is the real advantage over film.
6. Last point. If trying several models, try to get one that is fast in the way it processes the image. Mine is no use for action shots, because it has a long shutter lag. Try several in the shop, panning as you shoot. See if the image is sharp. It's not like you are wasting film.

7. Have fun!

ps. So where are you going in Europe?

[Segnosaur]

I guess I have to agree with most of the other people here... forget digital zoom, try to get an optical zoom. Personally I think a 2megapixel resoultion is fine. (can print up to about an 8x10.)

You may want to get some expansion memory. Most low-cost cameras have about 16 meg standard. You can get different types of expansion memory (a 128meg module will probably be enough, unless you're a real shutterbug or like taking movies with it). However, keep in mind that different cameras take different expansion memory, and not all will be easy to find (some take SD memory, others XD, and some memory sticks).

I just bought a Kodak Easyshare camera (think the model number is 6230). Cost me $200 Canadian (cheaper in the states of course). Its got 2.1 megapixels, 3x optical zoom, a digital zoom (which I'll never use), and can take movies (with sound). It only has 16 meg internal memory though. (The Kodak uses SD memory.)

[Thumbo]

Originally posted by rustypouch

Thumbo, the digital camera I am currently using is a Canon 10D, and there is almost no shutter lag with this body, but it is kind of pricey.
One google search later...

...Ouch! You're not kidding!

The first hit came in at about $1,300. That's well out of my price league.

But there are digis out there with minimal lag.
If you have time, I'd be grateful for any review site recommendations. The ones google pops up are more fluff than substance, so far.

[jimlintott]

Just checked out the Canon 10d on their web site.

Sweet.

How about that EOS 1Ds. 11.1 megapixels. Double sweet.

To my eye these 6 plus megapixel cameras easily rival, and possibly surpass, 35mm quality.

[rustypouch]

Indeed. The 1Ds is on my list, but I will wait until I am more established before I can justify it. I know many people who have ditched their medium formats for this one.

For studio stuff I would like one of these:http://www.phaseone.com/upload/h25_datasheet_us.pdf

But I'll just have to stick with the 10D and L series glass or my large format for now...

[Philip]

I checked out CNET and ZDNET ratings before I got my digital camera last year. At the time, the camera that had the features I wanted, was well-reviewed, and was within my budget was a Fujifilm Finepix S602.

I don't know what the best buy is now.

I got a 1 GB CompactFlash card with my camera so I have plenty of space for pictures and can even record up to 30 minutes of QVGA video.

I took 331 pictures on a trip to Portugal, Italy, and France this summer and still had room left for about 1400 more on my memory card stored as 3 megapixel normal quality jpgs. (It would have held fewer pictures if I had used the maximum resolution and quality for the images stored as TIFF.)

The airport screening didn't affect the memory card.

[Soapy Sam]

Never heard of airport screening affecting Smartmedia or compactflash. Don't know about the newer formats (SD /XD) but it seems improbable. You can always take the card out and pass it around to the security guy with your pens and watch.

For the latest specs, check the websites of the big makers- Fuji, Olympus, Nikon, Kodak etc. The new Fuji 7000 series look tempting, but I think out of your stated price range.

Do remember if going to Europe to buy an adapter to plug in your battery charger and other electronics. Most airport shops have them. Europe uses a mix of electric standards, mostly 220-240V, using several different plug styles. UK is a 3 square pin 240V system quite unlike US 220v plugs and also different from most mainland Europe round pin plugs.

[Clancie]

I'm not a tech person, but I like to look at epinions.com to get a quick overview of what's out there....

[exarch]

OK, I was just suggested this camera (http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start;sid=i3sE45CC49IE469xoBMO6N-SndA6hi1_lyQ=?CategoryName=dcc_DIDigitalCameras_Cy ber-shotDigitalCameras&ProductSKU=DSCP92KITIS&Dept=dcc), and it looks like this is one of the 5 Megapixel 35mm equivalent cameras. At just under $400 this is probably extremely cheap for its kind.

I don't know if I want to start printing my pictures though, and right now I'm more interested in having a decent camera so I can at least make pictures. Maybe I'm better off with the other suggestion (http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/PDF/coolpix3100.htm) at less than $300?

:confused:

[Soapy Sam]

IExactly what is meant by "(effective)"?

[Michael Redman]

About 6 months ago, I bought a Fuji (A303?) for about $225. It has 3.2 MP, 3x optical zoom, and shoots video, but without sound (As do many. Be sure it has sound if you want sound). Little lag time, easy to use. AA batteries, which shoot for a decent time, and I use rechargables. My camera uses the xD cards, which are quite small. I bought a 128 meg card with the camera, and it holds over 100 pics at highest resolution. I've never filled it. I'm very pleased with the pictures this camera has taken. (Although I take a 35mm SLR for most of my shots.)

With the $200 to $300 price range you mentioned, I would definitely look for at least 3MP and 3x optical zoom. You should have several good cameras to choose from. Look for something that fits in your pocket, and you're more likely to carry it with you. Look for sound recording if you want sound. Look at battery type and memory type.

And, of course, look at the cost of the memory. If you're buying on a budget, you should be aware that at this price range your memory will be a significant portion of your total expenditure.

[WildCat]

I've found Ken Rockwell's (http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm) photo site very helpful. Here's his page on megapixels. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm) Basically, he says a camera has to have 4 times more megapixels than another one for the difference to be very noticeable. Far more important are the color and sharpening algorithms used. Also, that you'd have to have 25 megapixels to equal 35mm film.

He likes his Canon A70. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/a70.htm) I've done a quick search and it can be had for $265 or so.

[WildCat]

And in another shameless excuse to post this photo, here's pick of a car fire (http://home.mindspring.com/~turniton/carfire02.jpg) I took w/ my girlfriends Fujifilm FinePix 2650. 2 megapixels, you can get it for under $150 now.

I did brighten that pic up a bit w/ Photoshop though, otherwise you couldn't see the firemen.

[Soapy Sam]

Did you use flash on that?

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Did you use flash on that?
Yes, that's why the license plate is overexposed. But no built-in flash would cover that distance, you'd need a pro flash like the SB-28 I have on my Nikon N80. Even on the most expensive cameras, the built-in flash is only good for 12 ft. or so.

[Soapy Sam]

Wildcat-
Yup. I was actually being just the slightest , teeny bit sarcastic there. (Using flash on a fire??). I guess your girlfriend's Fuji has a fixed flash. (The one on my Fuji 4700 folds away, so it's easily bypassed). The result here is good though-it brings out the red car in the foreground, which gives the picture depth.

I find night shots problematical with the digital. The "Night" setting seems to be simply a long exposure, which is hopeless unless you have a tripod (or use the self timer on a solid surface). Built in flash, as you say, is hopeless at any significant range and close up, anything in the foreground burns out and swamps the background. (Bald heads are particulary bad indoors. I speak from embarrassing experience.)

I miss the old "b" setting and the sort of bizarre effects I got with very long exposure to film. Still, can't have everything. Of all the gadgets I ever got, my Fuji is the most fun.

(Or the most I'm telling you about anyway.)

[William H.]

Check out these bizarre photos made with a cheap digital camera, be sure to scroll to the right, to see the whole picture:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=7072175

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
So I am planning a trip to Europe and wanted to get a digital camera.

Are they cheaper in Europe ? Strange...

[bug_girl]

i got both my 35mm camera and my digital camera used. (the digital one had been factory reconditioned.) depending on how long you have before the trip to make sure you didn't get a lemon, you can definately save big $$ this way.
i was able to buy a nikon body with several macro lenses at a pawn shop for $100, and got a 6x digital zoom, 3mpxl camera for under $200.

alas, a digital body that will accept my macro lenses is still way out of my price range :(

[exarch]

Originally posted by William H.
Check out these bizarre photos made with a cheap digital camera, be sure to scroll to the right, to see the whole picture:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=7072175Woah, talk about slow recording. Definitely something to do with delay between scanning the image and recording it anyway.

Oh no, wait, it's obvious evidence of the existence of aliens and their warp field technology of course :D

[peptoabysmal]

I've had a Canon S30 for a couple of years now. For the price and features and quality of photos I have no complaints. The battery is still going strong, too. I think the current model is the S40 or S50? S30 = 3 megapixels, S40 = 4 megapixels and so on. It also takes (30 seconds per movie) AVI movies with sound.

I regularly print really nice 5 x 7's on an Epson 660, using photo gloss paper. It will print to 8 x 10 or 8.5 x 11, but it's kind of a stretch IMO. (8 x 10 looks better if you squint a little).