| 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 | ||
| 122812 | 2003-02-22 21:12:00 | >>That is why I want to get a camera that can produce prints at 6x4 or 5x7 as good as a "normal" camera.<< At around $1,000, any of the name brands will do just fine: Sony, Samsung, Canon, Olympus, etc. Camera buffs probably would rate the Olympus brand quite high since they have had such a high profile in photography for decades. Even a $250 Digitrex 1.3 Mp would produce magazine quality shots (but not full page). But the name just would not have the status in the camera social scene. |
Steve_L (763) | ||
| 122813 | 2003-02-22 21:31:00 | A bit surprised from a $15k digiSLR. I say, buy for your needs. MP is not the only indicator of picture quality, in fact one of the least important. No point buying more than whats needed and buying less than what you need. If you into photography consider a digiSLR since they can use the same accessories as your 35mm SLR. In my opinion its much better than buying a 4/5MP digicam or one with a non-removable SLR lense type camera like the Nikon 5700 and hence the min price diff margin. Overseas duty free is nice with their 1yr intl warrantywhich is standard in NZ if you buy here except its horrendously $$. USA for a Nikon D100 is about $1900US and the benefit of the good FX rate. It can however be upgraded to 3yr Nikon warranty too. |
rayonline (2134) | ||
| 122814 | 2003-02-22 23:54:00 | Or you can be like me and wait till next year,where they will be better and cheaper,mind you I have been doing that for three years now,I really must upgrade from my box brownie. | Thomas (1820) | ||
| 122815 | 2003-02-23 04:02:00 | > Camera buffs probably would rate the Olympus brand quite high since they have had such a high profile in photography for decades. I assumed that too, but the camera shop I spoke to about this said you have to take into account many other factors, and battery type and life are extremely important. Several salesmen in that shop gently steered me away from Olympus (for my needs, that include tramping) because most models are really heavy because they use 4 x AA batteries. The Fuji that was finally recommended has just as good a lens as the Olympus in their opinion, but it has a rechargeable lithium ion battery with much less bulk and weight, and a decent life per charge. Incidentally, the steam camera I finally bought was an Olympus. And yes, as someone else said, digital zooms will not do it for you in printed pix. Choose the camera according to your needs for its mechanical zoom (sorry, can't think of the proper term!), and ignore the digital zoom figure if you want quality pix. John |
John H (8) | ||
| 122816 | 2003-02-23 07:52:00 | Good point John_H, about the battery life. As far as the Olympus brand being rated high, I meant that it may well have a high status (snob appeal) among the older generation of photographers - of course Nikon would top it. But this is a perceived rating; status does not always equate to the true specs and performance, as you have pointed out. BTW, I wonder if any digcams have Zeiss lenses? Zeiss used to be the leader for quality lenses; maybe now Fuji, etc., would make just as good lenses? Cheers, Steve_L |
Steve_L (763) | ||
| 122817 | 2003-02-23 08:55:00 | Steve - I haven't come across any digital cameras with Zeiss lenses, but some Panasonic cameras have Leica lenses - maybe their strongest selling point, and I believe Leica make their own digital cameras. Regarding Nikon cameras - one Nikon model that seems to be very popular is the Nikon 4500 CoolPix. It looks a bit bizarre, but it seems to be a strong and popular seller that has been on the market for a while. A review is at: www.dpreview.com Seems a good camera at 4 Megapixels, and included rechargeable battery EN-EL1 or 2CR5 Lithium battery. Photo and Video told me it was really good, but OTT for my needs at the time. In fact, when I was looking I think it was around $1700, but it is now selling for about $1400 at Photo and Video in ChCh. Cheers John |
John H (8) | ||
| 122818 | 2003-02-23 10:17:00 | There is no one brand that is top. Model and reviews are far better .. thou brand names can be good if its a above avg model. Like the Nikon CP 2000 totally sucks. A flatmate had it..... Things that have deterred me getting is: the price when compared to the amount of 35mm photo's I can get jus to break even fromt he $$ digicam, in addition I get real photo on professioanl paper unlike digital - good for sharing with visitors. the battery life. they are so weak travel is never a possibility unless you are making grandma and grandpa regular rounds when you can be assured of electricity and a fixed intineary. the storage space. storing compressed formats is simply a waste of good talent by the camera if ya not gonna obtain its full ability. so u need a laptop or so on travel. I so, have not got a digicam yet. It will be nice for home and short visits. Thou when I do intl travel for leisure its jus not practical. My list for a 35mm SLR is higher than a digicam. If I do get a digi one ... not sure if gonna be SLR or not ..... hence the free lenses and options I can use from the 35mm one. And note the above limitations - I am even more confused. |
rayonline (2134) | ||
| 122819 | 2003-02-23 10:24:00 | even if you have a laptop. its inpractical uploading the photo's after 30-40 full size photo's each time. like doing this 4-6 times on each day ...... there goes the quality from a $$ camera and its inability to be used away from urban areas. anyone thought of charging a digicam inside a car?? And running a laptop at the same time too so u can free the memory card. Rayonline |
rayonline (2134) | ||
| 122820 | 2003-02-23 19:56:00 | Presumably you can either buy a thudding great expansion card, of several cards (after all, you never think twice about carrying quite a few cannisters of film), or you can buy a camera that has the CF slot and accompany it with a 1Gb Microdrive . It was the quality that eventually persuaded me to buy a steam camera rather than a digital camera - the images I saw were very good in their own way, but somehow they looked artificial, and it was finally a matter of economics, taste, and the decision that I didn't need to learn yet another technology that persuaded me . For about $400 I got a steam camera that produces better results than a digital camera costing $1200 (and $800 pays for a lot of film processing!) . If I want to email pix to family members, I scan them (already had the scanner) . It became a no brainer for me really, in the view of the camera salesperson (who was the owner of the shop and who was missing out on the extra sale!) . Honest man . Mind you, when I got home, I got into real trouble with SWMBO, who was expecting the new toy! John |
John H (8) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||