Cameras

[Scorpiоn]

Three things on my might buy list:

• Webcam
• Camera
• Prepaid Cell Phone

But, I think the camera has me soundly defeated as far as specs go; I dunno what to look for!  I want the quality of film, but the workabilty of digital.  And of course in a good price too!

So, the question is, where do the tade-offs start!? Do cameras even exist that are both digital and film?  I still have c. 200 photos to scan from an airshow a couple years back.  A gargantuan project to scan and fine tune all those.  But if a camera can't produce 1600x1200 it's not even useful for photoshopping.

What should I even start looking for?

PS:  It's late, I'm tired, so please excuse my mess called a post.  More mess to follow!

[Craig.]

There are no digital cameras that i am aware of that can even come close to the quality of film. I believe film runs the equivilent of 32mp for digital cameras. You would need to give a budget as its difficult to suggest a camera without knowing what you can afford.

[Hagar]

As I've said before, it depends what you want. Digital photography has come a long way over the last few years. Even the bottom of the range digital cameras are capable of taking good quality photos at high resolutions. Most of them are 3 megapixel or over & include a 3x (optical) zoom lens. Take no notice of figures quoted for digital zoom. My old Fuji F401 meets this spec & is capable of 2304 x 1728 on the 2nd highest resolution setting. This is not really necessary unless you intend cropping the image. I have to reduce it to 800 x 600 to post on this forum anyway. 800 x 600 is also the most practical size to use on a webpage. I've printed these resized images at A4 size with excellent results.

At the other end of the scale you can get a DSLR (Digital SLR) by one of the well-known camera manufacturers that works in exactly the same way as their ordinary SLR cameras & will take lenses designed for them. This means you can use all your old lenses which can save a lot of expense.

There's still a lot of misconceptions about digital photography mainly spread by people who know very little about it. Most of the photographers I meet at air shows & events all over the country have now converted to digital. Even experienced pro photographers have told me it's far more convenient.

[Craig.]

far more convenient, definatly. A hell of alot cheaper over the long haul. I worked out i am only the equivilent of 10 rolls of film away from my 300D actually saving my money. thats how many shots i have taken with it. Plus as you have stated before Doug, you can take and view shots right then and there and delete as appropriate for a better shot.

[Jared]

Amen...

I always ended up wasting too much film trying to get a good picture, and passing up good settings to save film....just ordered a Kodak easyshare DX4530 yesterday after using a friends for the weekend and having tremendous results....we shall see if it still works as good when I get my own...

[Scottler]

I've got both a digital and a 35mm SLR.  While I prefer the SLR for my stuff, the digital does take beautiful pictures.  Most of the spec information has been covered here already, so I don't need to tell you about ignoring "digital zoom" numbers, etc.  Definitely go with at least a 3MP camera.  The more the merrier though.

Also make sure that your camera has a memory card slot.  Not all do.  (Those though are increasingly harder to find.)  

Basically just do some research and if you've got any questions, well...you know the drill.

[Rifleman]

Couple of good links here for you .....

dpreview.com

steves-digicams.com

.......both offer reviews and loads of info for those who understand a bit about photography and what you expect a camera to do for you..........dpreview also offers side by side comparisons if you have two to make a choice between.......

[TacitBlue]

The best one I could find for under $200, which was my set maximum to spend on this, was an Olympus Camedia D-540. 3.2 mega pixel, 3x optical zoom (could definately be better) 10x digital zoom (pointless), 2048 x 1536 maximum res. and a memory card slot. the memory cards are pretty inexpensive, I got a 128MB card at newegg.com, I dont remember how much it was but it wasnt more than $30. Its a good entry level camera, but if you can spend more than $200, then by all means get something better.

[Scorpiоn]

I'm willing to dish out a maximum of $300 if I can satisfy all my criteria.  The most important things to me are:

• Resolution
• The ability to get very close to objects, or to fill up the frame with a tiny subject

If there's a surplus of eligible cameras, then I'd go so far as to fliter them down by price, autofocus capabilities and body design.

Is there anything I should look out for?  For example, if I went to the store and bought a camera with a super high resolution for a good price, could I be falling for a trap somewhere?  (I know how useless digital zoom is )

Thanks for the links Rifleman.

[Hagar]

Skorp. What do you need such a high resolution for? The low-priced digital cameras I've seen can be set to a higher resolution than most people will ever need or use. If you're using the images mainly on the computer you would probably have to lower the resolution anyway. The print quality will depend more on your printer than the camera. Unless you're printing poster-size the quality is excellent at lower resolutions anyway. Most digital cameras that I've seen have a Macro lens feature for close-up work.

Digital zoom does the same thing you can do better in any graphics editor, including IrfanView. Cropping an image (digital zoom) obviously increases the pixellation so this is when the higher resolution settings come in handy. Take no notice of it.

[Craig.]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/C ... n_s1is.asp
That might be a good camera for you.

[Hagar]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_s1is.asp
That might be a good camera for you.

From a quick look that's similar to my S5000. It mentions image stabilisation on the lens which might be handy for full zoom. It also looks possible to fit other lenses which I can't do with mine. Note that it's 3.2 MP which is no higher than most digital cameras these days.

It also has an electronic (digital) viewfinder which is the feature I dislike the most about my S5000. I much prefer the straight-through optical viewfinder used on the lower-priced cameras. I think the main reason for using the digital viewfinder is the 10x zoom lens. It would probably be far more expensive than it's worth to link this to a separate optical viewfinder as they do with the 3x zoom on the lower-priced models. You have to ask yourself if you really need this amount of zoom. It all depends on what you intend using the camera for. The next step up from this type of camera would be a proper DSLR.

[commoner]

...My honest advice is if you have any intention of making prints from your camera then go for the MAXIMUM resolution (megapixels)you can afford...............even for small 6x4 prints this will allow you to CROP the important bits from your "negatives" BIG is BEST for this purpose......BIGGER is even BETTER.

If just for PC use then a simple cheap 1 or 2 megapixel camera is all you want....commoner

[Hagar]

It would help to know what Skorp wants to use this camera for. This might be a better option for most purposes than the one Craig mentioned. http://www.digitalcamera-hq.com/canon-powershot-a95-reviews.html
Same manufacturer but 5 MP & 3x zoom at a lower price. It also has an optical viewfinder.

I haven't tried either so please don't think I'm recommending them. I would hesitate to recommend a particular example anyway & only you know what you want. You really have to do a little research yourself but it does help to have some idea of what to look for.

[Craig.]

Best thing is to goto a local camera shop and ask to test out all the options they have in your price range.
My hands on experiance is limited to a Fuji 2800 which is a 2mp camera, very good quality for a 2mp camera, 6x zoom so thats handy, but You can get newer models for less than your budget so they might be better. The 300D, which is a very good budget DSLR but well outside your budget. And a Minolta X370 but thats a film SLR thats 20 years old so of no use. Anything else i suggest would just be from what i have heard and read about so its best to test everything out that you can.