Digital cameras - advice needed

My elder daughter is off touring America in the university holidays, and she wants a digital camera so that she can take pikkies and send them by e-mail. We're not looking for anyting exotic - as I understand it, you actually don't need a squillion pixels for snapshot and reasonable enlargement quality. So, something simple and robust (and relatively inexpensive!) needed. I know there are keen photographers out there - any recommendations?

By the way, what's the difference between "optical zoom" and the other zoom (name forgotten)?

 

Hi Tones,
I don't know how much you want to spend but for take anywhere travelling I'd go for something small with a metal body. The cheapest option is a Minolta Dimage X 2 meg model, it's not made anymore but you should be able to get one second hand. The current model is the Dimage Xi (I think) it has 3 or 4 meg (can't remember). There are also 3 & 4 meg Canon Ixus models which are small and sturdy, a friend dropped his 3 meg Ixus onto concrete and it still works! I myself have a Pentax S4 which is a 4 meg model, they also do a 3 meg version, the Pentax s. The Pentax is about the size of a credit card and a centimetre thick with a metal body. I think all of these can be got for under 300 ukp.
The zooms you mention are an optical and a digital. The optical works as a regular zoom lense, the digital puts in extra pixels based upon existing ones to increase magnification so the quality suffers.
Hope this helps

Andrew

 

My favorite is the new logitech Logitech Pocket Digital 130. 1.3mp, It is the size of a thick credit card, metal body, has a limited flash. No batteries - rechargeable from USB - which could be either an advantage or disadvantage - I love it. Optical viewfinder, no LCD back. Very fast to operate to catch that fleeting shot, and small enough to have with you always. A big improvement on the previous model, which is, however, thinner. £80

The Fujifilm Digital Q1 looks like the analog version (funky round styling) and is 2mp, with limited flash. Unlike the Logitech it has a LCD back. Digital zoom, AA batteries, plastic body, takes movies and an optional extra media card. It is nice enough, but it is so slow response compared with the logitech. For example, a button-press for power on takes maybe 3 seconds or more to start, during which time the picture has moved. The same when operating the shutter for people on the move. No optical viewfinder, so you just have to have the back on and run down the batteries. At a rough guess, they last long enough for about 200 pictures. £83 plus optional extra memory.

I used both on a recent skiing holiday. The Fuji was better in that it offers white balance for snow correction, but it was a lot slower to use, and the little buttons are difficult with gloves on. The fact that the LCD is on all the time means you want to turn it off, but if you do you can't boot up quick enough for those passing moments. The logitech is basically a joy for speed and ease of use but could be limiting if you don't have a USB port around for charging after a 100 or two pictures. On both of them the flash is very short, making the useful range something like 4 to 6 feet. On balance, I'd have the logitech and something more serious for better indoors and planned shots.

 

It's really a question of how much you want to spend.

One thing to bear in mind is the present state of the exchange rate. Chances are that it'll be cheaper to buy a camera in the US than here as normally they cost the same amount in $ that we pay in £, and there is an exchange rate of 1:1.8 (ish) at the moment.

If you want cheap and cheerful, it's possible to buy a Canon A60 for just £100 from Amazon at the moment. Uses the same body and optics as the A70 and A80, whcih cost 2-3 times as much. If I were looking for a more expensive camera, I'd be inclined to wait until I get to the US, then buy a Canon 300D, which is a digital SLR and a fairly awesome piece of kit. In the UK you'll be lucky to find one for £900. In the US, can be bought for $800. So she could probably buy it out there, use it on holiday, bring it back and sell it for more in the UK than she paid for it in the US.

Just one other point, if you're going to buy any digital camera, buy one from a group that have been a camera manufacturer for a while. Whilst any old group can go out and buy an off the shelf CCD and electronics, providing the optics, control and metering is something else entirely and is probably at least as important as the number of mega-pixels. So buy from a group like Canon, Nikon, Minolta.

 

I can thoroughly recommend the Cannon Ixus as I've had mine for 2 plus years and its built so well I have no desire to change it.

You are right that you do not need so many pixels to take good quality holiday snaps and enlarge them for printing etc when you get home.

I would recommend getting a larger memory card then the one supplied with the camera, this way your daughter can go snap happy and not worry so much about running out of space, say 128 at least should cover it. Also I agree that with the exchange rates as they are it will probably be cheaper to get one over there as apposed to in duty free.

 

I'd agree with what Mr_Sukebe said allthough it would seem to me that tones' eldest is not looking for a digital SLR (like the Canon 300D)! Something a little more portable is probably in order.

The minimum number of pixels I'd go with is 3 megapixels. That will get you very good quality images which will withstand printing at A4 size easily.

My wife has a Nikon Coolpix 3100 which is a superb little thing and reasonably cheap. Even cheaper now that it's just been superceded by the 3200.

Another recommendation is the Olympus mju 300 digital (known as the Stylus 300 digital in the US).

Both are extremely portable, take excellent pictures and should be available in Europe for around 3-400 Euros. In the US they're both avialable for around $300.

Michael.

 

Gentlemen, thank you all. Great food for thought there.

 

I'm also looking round for a new digital camera, having lost my Pentax Option 430RS, whic was great all bar the shutter lag. I've seen Jessops doing the Nikon Coolpix 4300 for £199 - anyone have a view on how these compare to similarly priced models (eg Olympus mju 400, Pentax s4)? Meanwhile, prices on old SLRs have gone mad - I just saw a mint Nikon 801s, superb camera, for just £120.

 

I have an S4 it's great!
That's a damn good price for an 801s was that in Jessops?

 

yes, it's in the window in the Cannon St, London branch. I've got an 801s which has served me well for many years - and I thought it was worth more than that!!

 

...talking of digital pictures - does anyone know if there exists a printer in consumer land that will produce lab-quality photo prints - genuine lab quality...? I am still a committed slide photographer and plan to acquire a slide scanner some day soon but need to sort out the printing issue before I purchase anything. I heard that the Epson Stylus 2000 is good somewhere (archivable prints with inks that do not fade for 80yrs etc) but I want 6x4 prints that even under a loupe do not reveal printer banding/graininess... not a lot to ask. And no, my budget does not extend to the quarter million required for a high-end laser based photo printer.

 

Lodger, from what you require I reckon you're looking at dye-sublimation printers rather than inkjets so how about the Olmpus P400 or something similar?

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRINT/P400/P400A.HTM

They also have reviews of a variety of 'Photo' printers

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRINT.HTM

Not very exhaustive but might give you some ideas.

BL21DE3

 

I've got a fujifilm finepix a201 - which you can probably buy for about 60 quid (obsolete, and uses smartmedia memory cards tho...), but their newer versions use the Xd card..?

but check out some pictures I've taken using my camera, it's a 2.1m camera too...

-
To get there, simply click the address below and enter your guest password: password

http://www.photoisland.com/servlet/GuestLogin?USERNAME=mrcat

If that doesn't work, go to www.photoisland.com, and log in to my albums with the following information:

Log-in ID: mrcat
Guest Password: password

 

Gents,

Many, many thanks to all of you who participated in my decision to get the Canon IXUS 400. What a great little gadget! The shots printed off on the computer are excellent, and the girls have been having a ball playing at making movies with the thing. It's the sort of thing that could make one give up one's Pentax...

 

Tones

I think digital is overated. You have only to look at some of the pics submitted in this and other forums to see that in most cases quality is lacking. The best instance is to look at pictures of Mana rigs taken with digital cameras. The black sounbases just appear as a black blob with no definition or contrast. Then look at some pics of Mana taken by Vuk and the difference is apparent.

Her best bet is to buy a good 35mm camera with good lenses. The pics can easily be scanned and will appear sharp.

The photograph of my Sunbeam in the thread on motor cars was taken with a Leica. Please compare the quality to the other pics. I do not wish to sound like a snob but in photography you need good lenses and most digital ones are poor.

Regards

Mick

 

Tones.

I suggest with the exchange rate as it is wait until she crosses to purchase!

Mick, Digital technology what ever you think of it is the only way forward, and bear in mind my girlfriend works for kodak!

Things are possible:

 

Gary

Please take a look at Mr Pigs digital photograph over on PFM, page 2 of the Micromega thread. It is a joke.

Your photograph is also poor. There is no contrast between the bottom of the platter and the plinth. It just looks like a black blob.

Regards

Mick

 

I was trying to stick a photo in here, but mabye its not allowed in this site?

Mick, in fairness you can't blame the technology for this type of thing.

 

That is the photographer, not the tool – Vuk could get radically better pics with a 200 quid digicam than most people could with a £2k film camera. It is simply about understanding composition, correct exposure, and using a tripod when necessary.

I have both formats, I have a absolutely beautiful black 1967 Nikkormat FTn with a couple of same period Nippon Kugaku lenses, and also a mid range digicam, a Canon G2. Whilst I love the Nikkormat it's the G2 that gets the use.



That's a pic of my trusty Nikkormat taken with the G2 – even allowing for the fact I have reduced the image from 4 megapixels down to 300x222 pixels and compressed the .jpg to hell to reduce image size down to a mere 24k I think you will agree that there is still detail in the black areas. I could easily take clear pictures of Mana!

Tony.

 

Mick. There are good and bad digital cameras. Currently there is more of a limitation on dynamic range in digital cameras than on film (actually they're about the same as slide film now).

However, good digital cameras leave film absolutely standing. The canon EOS 1DS matches medium format quality.

As for the poor exposure you mention, it is just that. Digital does not make up for poor photographic technique, just as film doesn't of itself (but when labs make prints they almost invariably correct the images, sometimes with odd results for the photographer who does know what they're doing).