| Author | Message | ||
     Rocketman |
I was just curious, so can anyone who might be smart with these things , name THE digital camera of the moment, please, thank you  small compact metal bodied, lcd screen, zoom and movie mode movie mode not critical but would be nice Rocket  | ||
| Hans |
Rocketman, what did you do now ? Starting a flame war? As if you asked: Name me THE car of this moment: Small, compact, metal body, 4 wheels, must have an hand or an automatic gearing, but is not critical. Yes, I know the only right answer, and I keep my mouth shut, because 150 persons with a different and wrong answer will flame on me and show you the wrong way and make you confuse. Nah, it is my second hobby now and for an unbiased answer you better read the tests of Phil Askey on http://www.dpreview.com/ If you have formulated more specific wishes log in on the open forum and put your question there. Thousand eyes will read the answers and if one is nonsense, it will be corrected in no time. http://www.steves-digicams.com/ is also a good site. Good luck Hans. | ||
| Hans |
Double posted | ||
| Dave |
My Olympus D-460Z has has served me well for the last 2+ years. It's been dropped a few times too and keeps on workin'. No complaints ... just praise. Yep ... sold the XR1000 Rocket. S2 and S1W http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/37/645.html?1035655784#POST129813 DAve | ||
| Jima4media |
Rocket, After two years of use, I still recommend my Canon PowerShot S100. I've taken nearly 5,000 pictures with it, and the reason is it is small enough for me to take anywhere. I can put it in a pocket and have it with me everywhere. I throw it in my tank bag whenever I'm on the bike. The camera that is the best is the camera that you use the most. I have two big Nikons in the closet that I never use. Jim X-2.5 | ||
| Kerryx1 |
Rocket, I just picked up a Nikon Coolpix 4500. I liked the aspect of the split swivel case. It's small enough but has more bells and whistles that I'll probably never use. It was between it and the Canon and the "upskirt" possibilities of the swivel case won out. Like Jim said, the best camera is one you'll use. Take it into serious consideration. I'm a snapshot taker, not a photographer. Check out the sites for each, then check them out in a good camera shop. Find one you like and save a bundle with smart internet shopping. Kerry | ||
| Nevco1 |
I have an Olympus C-4040 Zoom and am very pleased with it. Small, compact and easy to use. As a 35mm SLR buff, I find this camera works wonderfully in either auto or manual modes. Is easy to use with summer weight gloves and helmet. With 4.1 megapixels, I archive to CD the shots I want to keep and copy/downsize the shots I want to email. I added 128 card which gives me 130 pics in hi quality. Also has a short video/sound mode that I have yet to play with. Also picked up a short flexible leg tripod that allows me to get in the pics with the remote control (included). Tripod works on virtually any surface (tank/tail bag, Saddle, rocks, etc). I use it almost exclusively in auto mode. Will later use shutter priority for race action and aperture priority for some macro work for ebay. Check it out, you may find it to a very good all round digital camera and I am sure the prices are dropping as we speak. | ||
| Jim_Witt |
Hey Rocket, I really like my Olympus C 4040Z (everything goes with what Bill mentioned above). Battery life is execellent too. The Websites Hans directed you to are simply outstanding. Of course you can see some of my flicks with the 4040Z at My Site too. I haven't posted any of the new Bonneville pictures there yet. I had some images blown up to 16" X 20" that we're not his-res images a few weeks ago (meaning they wern't the highest res the camera supports). I gave Richard a couple and one to Aaron at Bonneville last week. I was very happy with them. BTW, the C 4040Z is selling for ONE-HALF what I paid for it a year ago. I gave my Son a Fujifilm last year too. He's totally happy with the puppy. Colors with the Fujifilm are outstanding. Look at Aarons images too, he's very happy with the Fujifilm. S'later, -JW:>  | ||
| Prof_Stack |
I borrowed my brother's Canon S40 when I looped WA state last July. The 4.0 megapixel pictures turned out so amazingly clear that I bought the same model in August. It fits in my coat pocket and nowadays I don't leave home without it. | ||
| Rudebike |
My wife's PowershotA-20 is a good all around utility camera for her and me. I find that for a such a simple camera to use, the pictures are amazingly clear and bright. I, like Jim, have a nice Nikon that gathers dust in my closet. When I was a kid, my camera of choice is a Zeiss Ikon with the bellows. Old camera...best pictures. Still have it. | ||
| Timbo |
Rocket, I have a Nikon coolpix 775. It's the fourth digital camera I've owned and is by far the best. It is small, light and powerful. I like the optical zoom (3x) and movie mode too. Even though it's a 2 megapixel camera, it does take very good pictures IMHO. Better pictures than my previous camera that was a 2.2 megapixel camera. I belive this is probably due to superior optics and metering within the camera. Anyway, just another opinion. Timbo 72 XLCH | ||
| Grizzlyb |
Rocket, I have that little 2.1 megap. Canon Ixus for 3 years now. Big advantage is that its smaller then a pack of cigarettes and the pictures are crystal clear. Disadvantage, it has only 1 zoom and no movie. My son has a Canon S40, now that is a great camera. All the advantages and no dis. Came out in top 3 in some Dutch digital camera tests. Would be my next choice, ciao Grizzly | ||
| Rocketman |
Thanks everyone, keep 'em coming please. Rocket | ||
| Jdbuellx1 |
I like the kodak DX3900 myself, 3.3 megapixel, but no movie, if you go a step up or down you get the movies. | ||
| Court |
Court here Nikon CoolPix 950 2.4 Megapixel Excellent quality Excellent features Bad thing: All Nikons very delicate. Standard "fixed" repair cost is like $237, which I've done 3 times. Good thing: I paid $1,000, they are no avaialbe used for el cheapo. | ||
| Aaron |
If you want to print 8x10's, look for at least 3Mpixel. More is good, because often you want to crop a picture before you print it, and that reduces the number of pixels. Also look carefully at the selection of resolutions the camera offers. If you know, for example, that you only want a certain shot at 4x6 or 5x7, you might want the ability to shoot 2Mpixel. If it's going on the web, a 640x480 mode is best. Pictures can always be resized downward, but that's an extra step and a hassle and some size reduction software is better than others and also the smaller you shoot it at, the more pics will fit on you media. Optical zoom is important, too. All too often you can't get close enough to your subject, and without enough zoom, your subject ends up as a tiny dot in the center of the photo. If you're looking at really compact cameras, 3x optical seems to be about the limit. Look at convenience features, too. Myself, I want a protected lens because I want to put the thing in my inside jacket pocket when I ride, but I can't stand detachable lens caps. So I specifically looked for a camera that would retract the lens and automatically cover it. Okay, it's been a year and a half since I went through the process of selecting a camera, but based on all the things that are important to me, I came up with the Fuji FinePix 6800 zoom. The salt flats pic I sent you last year was taken with it and printed on my HP printer. Also, the wallpaper pics on the team website were taken with it, although those are resized down to .75Mpixel (1024x768). It's bigger than the Canon, but has a few more features, like 3x zoom and a 3.1Mpixel sensor. Color reproduction is outstanding, although I often find myself adding a touch of sharpening to the pics in Photoshop. It has a docking station which is really nice, just drop the camera in and presto, it looks like a hard drive on your computer, and it charges the battery too. Battery life is good. It can store over 100 3Mpixel fine quality pics on a 128MB Smartmedia cartridge. Automatic lens cap. Has a movie mode, but quality is so-so. That clip of the dyno pull was done with it, but then it was compressed into an mpeg and some quality was lost. They have a new version of it out now that I believe has manual exposure controls (mine does not). | ||
| Court |
>>>>That clip of the dyno pull was done with it, but then it was compressed into an mpeg and some quality was lost. But, the EXCITEMENT remained....now THAT's what I call a movie. Court | ||
| Pdxs3t |
I have had a Nikon Coolpix 800 which I retired about a year ago, then went with a Nikon Coolpix 950 and have now stepped up too an Olympus E10 which is one really nice camera. | ||
| Pdxs3t |
This is a decent site for reviews of almost every digital camera made! http://www.steves-digicams.com/ | ||
| Rocketman |
Thanks again all. Your web site reviews were awesome, and thanks Aaron, good points. It's my friend who is looking for his first digi camera, and my suggestion we ask here, because Badweb is a true vault of knowledge. He thanks you all too Myself, I have a 3 year old brick made by Kodak, the DC215, and it's shot 1500 pics or so, is covered in dents and 'bruises', and still works. Crude by todays standards though !! Rocket | ||
| Blake |
I agonized over my digital camera. My criteria in order of importance were... 1. Rugged Design from reliable name brand mfg. 2. Compact but with LCD viewfinder 3. 3x optical zoom 4. Video mode with sound. 5. 8x10 photo quality print capable (2.1MPix or more) 6. Multi mode, multi quality settings. 7. Simple user interface/controls. 8. Compact Flash Card removable memory 9. USB and Video out for easy display/playback on television I found the Cannon Powershot S300 best fit my needs. Great Camera, not much larger than a pack of cigarettes. Stainless steel exterior. Only negative aspect is the relatively short charge life of the rechargeable Li Ion battery. Battery is usually ready to recharge after 30-40 pics using the LCD. Get an extra battery. They recharge quickly. Get a 256 MB CF card. | ||
| Turnagain |
Rocket, Pass this link on for a good comparison of features. 'course you'll have to do some currency conversions. | ||
| Bomber |
All I borrowed a friend's digital still camera about a year and a half ago (forget the brand) . . . there was quite a delay between hitting the "shutter release" and the exposure being made . . . I was told at the time that this was fairly common in these things . . . . made track-day pics kinda catch-as-catch-can affairs is this still the case, or is the affect of making an exposure more immediate these days? | ||
| Reepicheep |
A 2.4 megapixel camera like the Nikon Coolpix 950 (have it and love it) is plenty good up to 8x10, and acceptable for 11x17. Much higher resolution does have the advantage that you can more aggressively crop your shots and still have great resolution, but over two decades of pretty serious photography work, I have noticed that if I shoot wide and crop down, my pictures never look as good as framing well before I shoot, and leaving the crop alone. So it might bail you out of 1 out of every 50 shots, but it's just (IMHO) a dangerous crutch, and if you depend on it you will loose more quality then you gain. Another aspect of resolution is optics. Even at "only" 2.4 megapixels, the quality of the optics on my Nikon are visably better then any other camera I have owned (digital or film). So even though the resolution of my camera is awfull compared to ISO 64 film, the pictures look FAR better. 2.4 megapixels are more then enough to show all sorts of optical flaws, and even the coolpix has some at extreme wide angles (that you will never notice unless you are a pro). All these sub $500 cameras with 4 megapixels are probably not a whole lot better then the 2.4 mp cameras, as they are limited by optics, and you are not going to get good enough optics to really realize the advantage of the higher resolution in that price range. Getting good optics is hard, and expensive. Another few critical things to consider that I don't see mentioned above. These are the most important things I would consider. 1) Acquisition time... some of the cameras (an Olympus and a Cannon in particular that i tried were just terrible). What is the fastest you can actually acquire a picture from when you push the button. I don't mind having to "pre-focus" (point to a pre-determined spot and push the button half way down) to get good times, that is an evil I have learned to live with. But even doing that, the Cannon and the Olympus took some huge fraction of a second, maybe more. It effectively made it impossible to take a picture of anything that was not stationary, and was totally unaccptable. 2) Metering / color balance / autofocus. An improperly metered photo is going to look bad, even after being worked over with photoshop. An improperly color balanced shot can probably be salvaged, but gets to be tiresome, and all the colors might not come back right (i.e. fleshtones can be adjusted to be natural, but then all the lights are green). A picture that is not focused correctly is junk and cannot be salvaged. I want a camera with a spot metering mode, a very small area at the center of the display. I want to be able to put that area on the center of interest for my photo, push the button half way to get a focus and exposure lock, hold it down while I properly frame the photo, then push it the rest of the way to get the shot. I have yet to see even the most advanced metering techniques come even close to the quality of results with this technique, and I doubt they ever will. 3) Light sensitivity. I am very tempted to upgrade my CoolPix 950 to a CoolPix 990, not because the 990 has better resolution, but rather because it does a better job in low light. Look at the following examples, shot just this weekend at my younger sisters wedding rehersal. Both myself and my brother in law were taking pictures, me with my 950 and him with his 990. Neither shots used flash (to the best of my knowledge).   My 950 would just not reach low enough, I was shooting close to 1 second long exposures trying to hand hold braced up against something. The 990 has a low light mode that introduces pixel noise (you can see) but allows much faster exposures. Most of the 990 shots came out, about 1 in 5 of the 950 shots came out (about what I expect). Many other brands of digital cameras would not have been able to get anything. The difference is obvious, even after both pictures have been knocked WAYYY down to 640 pixels wide, and heavily optimized. So I think once resolution gets up to 2.4 mp or better, it ceases to be an issue. Optics, metering, color balance, acquisition, light sensitivity, and other issues become the major drivers. I also disagree about USB out... compact and portable USB compact flash readers run for between $9 (PCMCIA adapter) and $20 (usb dongle). They are no harder (in many ways easier) to use to transfer images from the compact flash. I leave one (USB model) teatherd to my main PC all the time with cables nicely routed, and use a PCMCIA adapter (FAST) for travelling with the laptop. I have never hooked the data transfer cable up to my camera, all it would do is kill my batteries and make me more likely to pull the camera off a table or something. I also would not put a lot of weight on the video mode... its a fun little toy, but it eats the relatively expensive compact flash memory at an alarming rate, and the quality is not great. You will need a real video camera to do real video work. Having the ability to do short video clips would be fun, but I would rank it way down the list (but I am biased for stills over video anyway). I like the Nikons because they really understand what photographers need, and don't get caught up in the "spec wars". They just tend to be a lot more usable, a lot more flexible, and to get better end results. But take everything I say with a grain of salt, as I bought my coolpix 950 about two years ago, when it blew away every other camera on the market. The competition is no doubt better now, but the 950 continues to work so well that I have no need to look around at other models. That being said, I make a point to pick up and play with friends digi cams whenever they let me, and have yet to come across one as useful as my 950 (10 or so cameras) except the CoolPix 990. Bill | ||
| Rocketman |
Thanks All.Tis' Gareth, Sean's friend. It is suprising how fast we learn these days. 48 hours ago I knew nothing about Cameras at all. I only bought my very first camera 3 or 4 years ago. A Cannon Ixus m-1. A week after I got it they brought out the Zoomy blighter.I'm sure It'll happen again.I can fly it prety well,but it is only semi Digi.But pleased with it. Not bad as a point shoot. Now I can fly a computor I want to go full Digi.I aint fully converced on it yet.Dipped me Toe so to speak.But it was the reason I talked myself into buying and using the computor in the first place.I confess I was one who said, "computor me"? Ha Ha no way. So,now after reading this and that,I've got a lot to choose from. It seems I have to exept that most have quirky and common faults. So I have revised my criteria somewhat. I dont need video.Dont really want stick out bits I want good optics(protected with good action on body).good zoom.good results after learning how to fly it.I'm not that bothered about paper printing, all saves are going on disk. See Ixus. I did fall in love at first sight with the Konica KD 400z but I can wait and see.Still more to see. Once again many thanks for your thoughts,and tutorials,appreciate it. I look forward to hear again. Thanks All, Gareth | ||
| Spiderman |
Ok, Any one know where I can get a Digi cam with a 3.5 floppy drive in it? I have seen them and the only place I could find one is on the BestBuy website. Anyone know where else I can get one???? | ||
| Reepicheep |
A lot of the sony's have them, but I would highly recommend against them. A floppy only stores 1.44 megs of data, which is roughly 3 pictures from a 2 megapixel camera (the smallest resolution I would recommend). You can buy a 64 Megabyte reusable compact flash card (stores over 120 pictures) for less then $50. A nice portable USB adapter that will read and write it (pictures, or any other files you might want to move) is like $20. A PCMCIA adapter (for a laptop) is maybe $15. Also, the more mechanical parts you have on the camera the more likely something is to break. Floppy drives are very unreliable to begin with, even when they are not being carried all over the place. Sony has a camera that writes to CDR media, but I have many of the same reliability and durability concerns, though you can't beat the size and cost of the media. IMHO... | ||
| Rocketman |
Spider dude, Steve P has one of those gadgets, and he seems to get a lot of great use out of it. Maybe he'll ping in, or click on his profile and shoot him an email. Rocket | ||
| Spiderman |
Reep I am just gonna keep it here at the shop and use it for e-mails to customers so memory isn't a big issue, but good point on stuff breakin. The only reason I wanted to get the floppy cam is so every dept can use it, this way there is no one specific computer to use for the cam. This way if service needed a pic, click... download... and mail away and etc. | ||
| Reepicheep |
That would be an application for it that makes sense... check ebay item number 1940360274 there are no doubt others out there. You could get a USB camera and just put drivers for it on all the PC's as well, the camera would probably look just like a drive. |
