# [Wet Thumb Forum]-need opinions about cameras



## countrymouse (Jul 6, 2003)

Hubby and I are looking at buying a digital camera within the next several months, so I could use some advice from the experts, please!

1. Do we really need more than 4 megapixels?
2. Has anyone ever used the Kodak Easy Share DX6490? How does it perform?
3. I seem to remember that last summer a few of you said good things about a Nikon Coolpix. Would the Nikon Coolpix 8700 be worth the extra money? (a few hundred dollars more than the Kodak)
4. What about the Canon PowerShot Pro 1? 
5. How long do the batteries on these higher end cameras last before they need recharging. 
6. Is there another camera you recommend more than these? 

Thanks!


----------



## imported_Mike (Feb 7, 2003)

I bought the Nikon coolpix 5700 and it's been a great camera. Lots of features and easy to use. One thing to look for in deciding between cameras is the quality of the lens. You want your zoom to be optical not digital. Only the good quality lenses will give you good optical zoom. The Nikons, Fujis, Minoltas (hard on batteries) and Canons in the higher end models have good lenses.
Good luck and have fun.
Mike


----------



## countrymouse (Jul 6, 2003)

I appreciate the advice, Mike.







I remember reading favorable comments last year about the Coolpix. The new one is the one I'm leaning toward at this point, but I've got time to look around.


----------



## Pooky (Feb 13, 2003)

This might be a little late, but I figured better late then never. I'm not sure my opinion is worth much, but I'm in much the same boat you are. I've been researching many of the same models you've asked about.

1. 4 megapixels is really only necessary if you plan on printing your images. If you only want them to show off online, or to e-mail to people, then you probably don't need to go the extra step.

2. I Haven't used one of these, maybe someone else can help you here.

3. I spent more then an hour today playing with this camera. It is a fabulous model and the one I'm nearly positive will end up on my computer desk within the next few weeks. It is an expensive camera, but it has what is seemingly a million features, the macro pictures are amazing, and you can still get nice distance from it. With 8x optical zoom, and 8 mega pixels, its a hard camera to beat, but it is also professional grade. If you only want this for fish pictures, or just the point and shoot sort of thing at a family gathering, then this camera probably isn't for you. Then again, it will do some pretty awesome shots. I guess it depends what you want to do with your pictures. FYI for you tho, if you plan on buying one of these, I don't know if your aware of it or not at this point, but it does not come with a memory card, so you will have to purchase one.
If it's out of your price range, you might want to consiter the Olympus C5060, which is consiterably less money (only about 650 dollars new), and takes pictures that are nearly the same quality. I personally didn't like the look of the camera, and the fact that you can't change the lenses. But that was about my only complaint with it.

4. I tried this camera, and it didn't impress me much. It was large, heavy, and I found it difficult to use. Then again, I'm pretty short, and don't have very big hands. 

5. From what I've heard, the Nikons battery life has little to be desired, but there easy to change, and not terribly expensive. The salesman today, told me I could probably get about 250 pictures out of it, depending on if I used the flash or not, or how long my exposure time was. It isn't great, but it shoudl be enough. 

6. As I said, the Olympu C-5060 is a camera very compairable to the Nikon. It's a few hundered dollars cheaper, and not much different in both body shape, and its functions. YOu might want to try that one out as well. Your best bet though, would be to find a camera dealer, and just spend a little time playing, and holding all the ones your interested in. It will give you an idea of what works for you, and what doesn't. GOod luck!
4.


----------



## countrymouse (Jul 6, 2003)

Thanks, Pooky









250 pics per battery change, I can live with. One of the nice things about the coolpix is I could use the memory cards we already have for the HP camera hubby bought a few years ago. Like a lot of the older digitals, it has a max of 2.1 mp's and the lens is slow at that setting, so the pictures tend to come out blurry. Can't get good pictures with it.

I would like to be able to print some of the pictures we take, also. I'm still leaning toward the Coolpix.


----------



## António Vitor1 (Feb 2, 2003)

The new DSLR cameras are starting to get acessible prices!

What some manufactures don't want you to know is that with increasing resolution there ARE allways trade offs...

For instance in picture quality!

with higher sensor density on the CCD we get lower light sensitivity.

The only way we can surpass that problem is with bigger CCD, that is why DSLR are a LOT BETTER than the rest of the cameras, DSLR usually have CCDs of 5x times the size of normal CCD of common prosumer cameras.

With bigger CCD's we can have better results with a lot less light.

we can have the same digital noise with ISO 3200 settings with a DSLR than with 200 ISO with common cameras...

If you want to buy a camera you should take this into consideration...CCD size matters!
if the CCD is for instance 6mmx5mm size for only 3 megapixels, then this is a lot better in most situations that the same sized CCD for 8 megapixels of resolution...

Of course with lot of light that difference is subdued...and 8 megapixels is allways 8 megapixels.









I will not talk about which brand is better, they usually are close...I would buy the brand who gives the best for the money, there are cheaper brands with equal quality than nikon or canon...
But that is in the "prosumer" market (cameras with tiny CCD sensors)

In the DSLR Market the cheapest cameras are from Canon and Nikon (below 1000 US$), none have 8 megapixels (6 megapixels cameras), this are cameras for quality photos, not for megapixels craziness...

Regards!
António Vitor


----------



## António Vitor1 (Feb 2, 2003)

Any lausy lenses can produce good results with larger CCD cameras, any small imperfection (bad quality lenses) on a small CCD camera will get you bad results...

Any digital prosumer cameras have to got good and decent lenses, or else the quality would be very poor...


----------



## countrymouse (Jul 6, 2003)

Antonio, thank you for the information. Please forgive me, but what is CCD?


----------



## António Vitor1 (Feb 2, 2003)

CCD is the "film" of any digital camera, It's what converts light information into digital information...

the most important thing on any camera.

In the typical camera it's the film, in the digital world it's the CCD.


----------



## António Vitor1 (Feb 2, 2003)

some good links...








http://www.thetechlounge.com/article.php?directory=beyond_megapixels_part_1

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm


----------



## countrymouse (Jul 6, 2003)

Thanks for the links, Antonio.









I have another question about CCD sensors. In looking through camera reviews I noticed that the sensor sizes of the better prosumer cameras were either 2/3" or something like 1/2.5" (or some at 1/1.8ish). Is the difference in that range significant?

The DSLR's are still out of my price range, since I'd also have to purchase at least one lense and a memory card. I have an old Olympus 35mm slr to use if I want to do something really challenging. (If Olympus made a DSLR under $1000, then I'd consider it.) Whole tank pictures have proven difficult to do well with it, though, since on film the pics come out with a yellow cast where they ought to show pink on the plants.

I suppose what I'm really after is to replace my point and shoot 35mm with a digital camera that's more versatile (more zoom, and with macro), and lighter and smaller than my slr. Digital appeals to me because I can circumvent buying and developing rolls of film - in other words, practice to my heart's content.


----------



## António Vitor1 (Feb 2, 2003)

If you are going for a non DLSR, it will be a big downgrade!
my oppinion...

for a little more than 800 US$ you are able to buy a canon EOS DSLR kit with lenses included!
even cheaper than some prosumers, for example that nikon coolpix 8700...

If you will only shoot places/situations with good ilumination, then you could go for the higher megapixels prosumer...or for some middle ground prosumers, but those situation are rare.









In non DSLR cameras usually there would be less noise (in lower light situations) in photos taken with lower end cameras (with low megapixels numbers) the size of the CCD in those expensive 8 megapixels prosumers are only a little bigger than in those lower end cameras, so the noise will be the same or higher with "expensive" prosumers.


----------



## António Vitor1 (Feb 2, 2003)

You must take notice that because of the light sensibility advantage of the DSLR, you can get decent shutter speeds (preventing blured photos) with those cameras, even in low light.

increasing the ISO number will make that possible, that is the biggest difference!


----------



## countrymouse (Jul 6, 2003)

Where is a Canon EOS kit with lens available for under $1000? What kind of lens does it include?

Could you give me an idea of how picture quality would compare between the Canon EOS kit and, say, a 4mp prosumer with a 10x professional quality zoom lens (with macro)? (If I do purchase a DSLR, I want a good, versatile lens; the ones I've seen are not inexpensive.) Not being a professional photographer, I'll be happy to get a good 5x7 sized print, which, according to reviews I've read, can be obtained with the prosumer cam I'm considering. Most of the reviewers were happy with how this cam performs in low light, the quality of the lcd display, and the recording speed. The kit would cost me @$400, and I'd add an extra set of batteries and a 256 mb card. 

There's some speculation that the DSLR's and lenses (currently made as though to fit the film cams) could be produced lighter and smaller. I'd rather spend less now, and wait to see what kind of improvements are made over the next several years, since I have my old 35mm slr as a backup, with good, versatile lenses.


----------



## bharada (Apr 17, 2004)

I don't know about reducing the size/weight of lenses, but there can definitely be some improvement over the weight of the body, mainly through improved battery technology. I have a 1st gen Nikon D1 at work that weighs close to two pounds for just the body and battery!

I'm not sure what you need to know regarding your comparison between the EOS kit and a prosumer camera. With the DSLRs (as with 35mm SLRs) the quality of your pics will ultimately hinge on the quality of your lenses. In that regard the EOS DSLR (like the Nikon D100) offers you the ability to match high-end glass with a more consumer oriented body (more plastic, not as durable as the pro models). But buy a cheapo lens and you may not be any better off than if you'd bought a good digital P&S (Canon G5 or S50 for example).

BTW, I have a friend who owns a G5 and it takes incredible pictures! He took a panoramic shot of a tree lined road at a winery, printed it out on an Epson large format printer (about a 36" wide print) and it was absolutely gorgeous.

I, on the other hand, opted for a Canon S400 as I was looking for portability and convenience more than anything. When I'm on vacation I do not like to be carrying a large bag of stuff so the S400 is perfect as it fits into a front pant pocket and still takes crisp, clear pictures...although it's flash photography leaves a lot to be desired (a lot of red/white eye). But this is more due to the extremely close proximity of the flash to the lens, and is inherent in most of the ultra small form P&S cameras.


----------



## bharada (Apr 17, 2004)

Oops. Meant to say the Nikon D70, not D100.


----------



## countrymouse (Jul 6, 2003)

> quote:
> 
> Originally posted by bharada:
> I don't know about reducing the size/weight of lenses, but there can definitely be some improvement over the weight of the body, mainly through improved battery technology. I have a 1st gen Nikon D1 at work that weighs close to two pounds for just the body and battery!


 That's most likely what my Olympus OM10 weighs, with the smaller lens attached. If I'm taking pictures and doing a lot of walking at the same time, it's a bear to have to carry it around, and to change lenses, etc. Then I also found an article last evening that explains why I'm not getting thrilling results from scanning and cropping 35mm prints - you really do lose image quality in the process. (Not my imagination after all.)



> quote:
> 
> I'm not sure what you need to know regarding your comparison between the EOS kit and a prosumer camera. With the DSLRs (as with 35mm SLRs) the quality of your pics will ultimately hinge on the quality of your lenses.


That's what I thought. The EOS Rebel kit with lens for @$900 comes with such a cheap lens that it would be a waste of money to spend the extra $400, imo. No macro mode, either.



> quote:
> 
> BTW, I have a friend who owns a G5 and it takes incredible pictures! He took a panoramic shot of a tree lined road at a winery, printed it out on an Epson large format printer (about a 36" wide print) and it was absolutely gorgeous.
> 
> I, on the other hand, opted for a Canon S400 as I was looking for portability and convenience more than anything. When I'm on vacation I do not like to be carrying a large bag of stuff so the S400 is perfect as it fits into a front pant pocket and still takes crisp, clear pictures...although it's flash photography leaves a lot to be desired (a lot of red/white eye). But this is more due to the extremely close proximity of the flash to the lens, and is inherent in most of the ultra small form P&S cameras.


One of the smaller SLR-like digitals is most likely to suit my purposes for the time being. It would replace two cameras, and cost less than the digital p&s we've had for a few years (no optical zoom, nearly useless lcd display when outdoors, etc.) My film p&s is a decent little camera, but I have to buy film and pay for processing (which for good processing runs $9 per roll), and then sometimes scan and adjust, losing quality along the way. A medium-priced digital p&s with zoom and macro, and not a lot of extra stuff to lug around is what appeals to me.


----------



## bharada (Apr 17, 2004)

What scanner are you using? I've had Umax and Microtech scanners that did a pretty marginal job at scanning photos (and an even worse job at color negs), but the Epson 1660 I have now is great! Color correction is minimal even with color negatives, and with the USB 2.0 interface it's pretty fast, too.


----------



## countrymouse (Jul 6, 2003)

My scanner is an HP Photosmart 4400c. (Also, I looked at my slr lens, and it's an old Access zoom with macro. Maybe it's a cheap lens?)


----------



## António Vitor1 (Feb 2, 2003)

Those reviews might said that those prosumers were sensible to light.
but even the best and more expensive prosumer fall short from those DSLR.
Might be sensibly to light comparing to other prosumer...but the comparation ends there!

http://dpreview-cnet.com.com/4014-6501_9-30519911.html?subj=Canon+EOS+Digital+Rebel+%28EOS+300D%29&part=dpreview-cnet&tag=4014

without the lenses I think it is even possible to buy below 800 US$..
interesting.

there are good cheap lenses, you must find those.

A bad lenses in a DSLR is still better than a good one in a prosumer.
My oppinion.

I would never buy a non DSLR after the price some DSLR went this year!


----------



## bharada (Apr 17, 2004)

Until I bought the Epson I never realized how bad the scanners I had previously owned were. When I first hooked it up I stuck a book of stamps on it to test scan and was blown away with the clarity and color of a scan made with all default settings. Same with the first time I tried scanning a color negative. The Umax scanner I had with a transparency adapter always had a weird green color cast which I attributed to using a flatbed instead of a dedicated slide scanner. But the Epson proved to me that a flatbed is fully capable of making great transparancy scans.

I can appreciate António's perspective on high-end P&S vs. DSLR, and if I were buying a camera for serious use (where taking pictures would be my primary concern as opposed to snapping pics of the kids with Mickey and Minnie) then I'd opt for a DSLR for sure. But like I said previously, for my needs size and portability are more important than absolute photo quality. Having a great DSLR sitting at home because it's too inconvenient to carry with me does me no good.

Even with regards to the Nikon D1 I have at work, I put more emphasis in buying good lenses (each of which were >$1000) since good lenses are good lenses, while body/battery/CCDs will improve with each new generation of technology...and get cheaper to boot!


----------



## fotonutz (Aug 4, 2004)

Hi: Just bought a DX 6490-I love it-(I don't have any tank pics to show!)But this was shot at a distance of approx. 25 ft. on automatic with no fill.I have printed this image to 8 x 10
with great results.The only down side I have with this camera is the lack of manual focusing.
Good luck in your search for a good camera-
Fotonutz


----------



## fotonutz (Aug 4, 2004)

Sorry C.Mouse-Image was too large-If you drop me an E-mail, I'll send you a couple samples of the quality of the DX-6490-
[email protected]


----------



## countrymouse (Jul 6, 2003)

I'll pm my email addy to you, fotonut; I'd like to see the image quality.

bharada, I ended up getting an Epson 2400 flatbed scanner, and it does a great job! I haven't tried scanning negatives yet because the scuttlebut is that flatbeds can't do that well, but sounds as though that's only a generality. So I'll try some. 

Here's how it has all come out in the wash. After reading a bazillion reviews of digicams and a few dozen articles comparing film and digital photography, I realized that, among the 4-5 cameras I liked, I'd end up complaining about one thing or another. I'm not ready to spend $500=$1000 on a digital camera yet. So, I did three other things. I purchased a lightly used Olympus "zlr" (IS-50) for a combination point & shoot/creativity film camera. So far, so good. Second, I found an HP digital 735 kit at 1/2 price (railroad salvage or something), $150.00 complete with camera dock. 3.2 megapixels will print a nice 8x10. It's a good practice camera and is especially good in macro mode. Third, I outfitted my OM10 with a new 28-210 zoom that is light as a feather, wasn't too expensive, and is reasonably fast. 

Once the kids are back in school, I'll take some shots of the tanks with the digicam and post them. (Yes, I really do have two tanks!)

For those who might be interested or have something to add or correct, a couple of things I learned with all the reading:

It is true that if you pack more and more pixels onto a small ccd sensor, the images will have more noise at higher ISO settings. That's one reason to give a DSLR preference, since their ccd sensors are much larger.

The viewfinders on the prosumer digicams give you the same electronic image you see on the lcd screen; therefore, when you click, the image disappears momentarily (on most of them.) Can be trouble if you're in burst mode trying to pan a moving subject.

Most prosumer owners complain about autofocus not working well in dim light. 

For most amateurs, 4 megapixels are a gracious plenty. 2 mp's will print a photo quality 5x7. 

When comparing, take note of how fast the lense is. (The Leica lens on the Panasonic FZ10 and FZ15 is 2.8 maximum aperture throughout its range of 38-420mm equivalent. If I were buying, the FZ15 would be my choice.)

There are a lot of breakable features and gizmos on these cameras, but that's true of the autofocus film cameras, too. Also, the color coatings over the pixels fade with repeated exposure to light, but no one knows yet how long it takes for this to be noticeable in terms of image quality. According to the info, something else on the camera is likely to break before the sensor becomes unusable anyway.


I'm not ready to give up film or my OM10 yet. (The OM10 can take shots none of the others can manage!)


----------

