| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 30491 | 2003-02-21 01:51:00 | Survey: Digital cameras | Susan B (19) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 122772 | 2003-02-21 01:51:00 | HWMO has a birthday coming up and I am thinking of surprising him with a digital camera. What do people here have? Do you always print out the pics (either with own printer or photo shop) or are the pics mainly viewed/stored on HDDs/CDs? |
Susan B (19) | ||
| 122773 | 2003-02-21 02:10:00 | Most digital cameras can be bought for anywhere from $100 to $2000+ . I usually just keep digital camera images on the computer, however at work, we print photos taken using digital cameras in comercially press printed magazines . To be able to have photo-quality prints, you will need a camera which has a resolution of at least 1 . 3megapixels, which will be able to give you prints close to normal size . I would recommend a 2 . 0megapixel camera (about $500 or so), which would give you a better quality photo . You can either print the photos yourself, or take the camera into somewhere like Kodak and they can print them for you (for a charge) . I have personally used cameras like the Kodak Easyshare series of cameras, and found them quite good . Generally, most cameras these days are easy to operate . |
somebody (208) | ||
| 122774 | 2003-02-21 02:16:00 | Hi Susan, I had a microtek take-it-350,The same as the one advertised on this site & I would not recomend it to anyone. It used to go through batteries like there was no tomorrow & as soon as it got too dark you could not take a picture as it has no flash. Any how it got dropped & it now lives where it should have gone in the first place ,Silverstream landfill. :-D As for recomendations it would be easier if we knew what sort of budget you have? Cheers Steve PS:for good pics you really need at least 3 mega pixels |
Steve Askew (119) | ||
| 122775 | 2003-02-21 02:42:00 | I have a Creative 300,cost about $300.I find I store and use all my pics on PC so do not need all those pixels. | Thomas (1820) | ||
| 122776 | 2003-02-21 02:55:00 | I have recently bought Kodak 4230 (www.kodak.com Digital+Camera&cc=US&lc=en) which works fine. I wanted the next model up as the megapixels were more but I am quite happy with the quality when viewing from hardrive. Not yet printed anything (on photo paper) yet so cant comment there. I use rechargeable batteries and it seems to last quite a while. Software is easy to use and transfer to computer very simple with usb cable so prob wont bother with cradle. Basically go for the model that gives you the most megapixels for your bucks. sam m |
sam m (517) | ||
| 122777 | 2003-02-21 04:15:00 | Agree on more megapixels for the $ is a major feature. Next, is battery in my opinion. Many have Lithium Ion which means its not convenient (or cheap) to carry a spare. AA cells are good as you can carry rechargeables or alkalines. All digicams scoff batteries. Next is memory type and cost. Compact Flash is the cheapest, and CF readers are cheap to use (look like a drive when USB connected). Therefore no need for any camera software to be used. Anything from 2 MegaPixel up will give good results. So will 1.3 MP but 2 are cheap now. Look at boot-up time and time between shots. Some are slow. Zoom lens is very good but not an absolute essential I have found. Do NOT consider that digital zoom is a useful feature, most have it but its lower resolution. I have had digicams since about 1997. In all that time I have only had 1 print made professionally. Nowdays I burn them on a CDRW as a VCD and view them on a DVD player, via the TV. One CD will hold about 1,000 pix. Presently use a Fujifilm 2.3 megapixel, uses SmartMedia memory (I have 3 x 32 Mb cards and a multi card reader). Limiting factor is the lithium battery, its too expensive to have a spare. Get about 100 + shots per charge, its just when you forget to charge it AAs would be handy. |
godfather (25) | ||
| 122778 | 2003-02-21 04:20:00 | For under $2000 I'd recommedn the Canon L45 I I reviewed in FFWD an issue back. Good quailty pics, easy to use, and with advanced features. Personally I've got a Nikon CoolPix 885 and am very happy with it. If I could afford it (which I can't) I'd grab a Sony F717 - very good quaility images and the powerful zoom lense give slots of flexibility. For output I take images to Camera & Camera, but other photo shops offer similar services. If you want to output yourself the current generation of dedicated "photo printer: inkjets from HP, Canon and Epson do a very good job. |
Biggles (121) | ||
| 122779 | 2003-02-21 04:25:00 | Hi Susan, We have an 'Intel' pocket camera. It came as an extra with the computer & has a great software package. It doesn't have a flash but we have taken good photos at night inside the house as we have downlights which seem to give enough light to take good photos. It is a bit greedy on batteries though. I have not printed off photos but have Emailed them. It has good true to colour pictures. Pauline. |
Pauline (641) | ||
| 122780 | 2003-02-21 04:35:00 | Does my Gameboy Camera count? $24.95 on special at Harvey Normans. I had to buy a $2 Gameboy to use it. :D I think the resolution is 128x192 B-) | Graham L (2) | ||
| 122781 | 2003-02-21 05:22:00 | Hi Susan: Lots of good advice here, especially from GF as usual. The question is, what is your budget, and what do you wish to do with the pictures. There is a very big difference between viewing a pic on the monitor, and printing a photo. Modest megapixels give acceptable results for viewing or emailing, but for a decent print, say up to 8x6 or 8x10 look for a camera with 2mp or more. I have used some Fuji Finepix cameras 2mp & 6mp. These use 4 x AA batteries, & the NiMH rechargeables give good service, & are easily replaced. The 6X optical zoom lens is excellent. There has recently been substantial price reductions in these models. If you wish more details give me a call. Cheers. |
Bazza (407) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||