Clipped and Shorn Posted April 21, 2002 Share Posted April 21, 2002 True, I have been up to my lobes in higher level distractions from distractions, but I did just now read this thread, since, as HornEd accurately mentions, I will be utilizing fini's diligent legwork to make my own digital camera decision also. Both fini and I have a background using various tools, still cameras, movie cameras, and spoke shaves etc., and this has tended to program a certain pride of ownership which the digital era is not really good for, in the sense that an investment in a current tool will not maintain or even increase in value the way a Leica SLR did. The bottom line now really is what specific purpose the tool will be used for in the next couple of years before it is a worthless piece of junk. I too would like a simple camera for advertising items to unload on eBay. However, it does cross my mind to think ahead to other possible back burner projects such as documenting my artwork or even having a website. A question might be, if one is mostly using the images online, why does one need more than 2 MP to start with? Is it mostly for large prints that one needs the higher mega pixies? How many megapixels are needed for making convincing images of ghosts and other apparitions? Ever seen those books full of these early special effects passed off as "proof", quite amusing sometimes. I am hoping to use the digital camera to display images which will once and for all answer the great speaker cable debate. -pickled and pixelled ps. gradually catching up. ------------------ Cornwalls currently upgrading to all tube components Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seb Posted April 21, 2002 Share Posted April 21, 2002 HornEd, fini, Clipped and Shorn, I am no photography expert, but I am a salesperson. So while I cannot help you on the gritty technical details, I know what people like, and what people dislike, and having tried many different models, I know what to look for in a camera. 1) Resolution is important. However, it is not the be-all, end-all of digital photography. You need a camaera with a layout and features that you like, and especially if other non-techno people are going to use it, you need it to be intuitive and easy to use. No one likes user's manuals. 2) Sorry HornEd if it seemed like I put down your opinion, it wasn't my intention. I didn't know fini or Clipped and Shorn had arts background. In that case, as I actually mentioned, I concur with you, they need to go with something good the first time around. 3) If however, you really only use the camera for daily practical tasks, then 2.1MP digicams are more than enough. Remember however, that 2.1MP cameras are likely to have much less features as well, so if you need a certain degree of control over your pictures, even without using a high resolution, you'll probably have to go with at least a 3.1 model. 4) EBay... I wouldn't touch used cameras with a tne foot pole. I have seen what people do to them, and it'S not pretty. Remember, it'S not just a big black box sitting in one place, where the user at maximum presses buttons, it's a portable object that the user manipulates all day long. So unless you find one new on EBay or Ubid or wherever, buy in a store. 5) Try the cameras out to get a feel for them in a store or from a friend. No better way to determine whether you like the camera, or only its features. A camera is a package. You can put all the bets features in a camera, but if its design is crappy, you'll still get a crappy camera. For example, the QV4000 has amazing features for the price, but it is hard to use and get used to, and some aspects of it are kind of quirky. Still one of my favs though, once I got used to it! ------------------ http://members.fortunecity.com/sebdavid - go laugh at my crappy website/equipment http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mc.asp?alias=Sebdavid - go laugh at my puny little DVD collection This message has been edited by Seb on 04-21-2002 at 03:58 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornEd Posted April 21, 2002 Share Posted April 21, 2002 Oops, my fingers typed eBay when I was thinking Ubid... I agree with Seb on avoiding used digital cameras. Ubid has been selling closeout 2/1-3.3 megapixel cameras to reduce manufacturers inventories. While 2.1 MP (megapixel) do well for snapshots and casual Internet uses... they demand critical composition in the viewfinder skills for compelling eBay sales photos or hard copy printouts. While 72 dpi (dots per inch) works for most computer screens, it takes over four times the resolution (300 dpi or more) to make a quality printout. Having a few too many pixels just gives more information for a better printout (similar to over-sampling on CD's) but a few too little pixels create the "Curse of Idealization"... blocky blotches that not even the talent of Jackson Pollock can save. Having a megapixel margin to work with makes it possible to save shots in which the photographer did not get close enough. This is particularly true when the camera is in less talented hands... the extra resolution increases the chances of enhancing the photo with computer software. In today's market, the difference between 2.1 MP and 3.1 MP is usually less than a hundred dollars... all else being equal. That's pretty cheap insurance for preserving photo records of work that may not get another chance in the fini hall of woodworker's fame or the Clipped & Shorn eBay Bazaar! There is good reason why "prosumer" cameras are over 4 MP and pros look to 6 MP to be able to get sufficient detail in photos worth keeping... or must earn their keep by depicting something for sale with compelling accuracy. While it is true that not all high pixel count CCD's are equal... it is also true that you can't make a megapixel silk purse out of a minipixel sow's ear. -HornED This message has been edited by HornEd on 04-21-2002 at 07:06 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted April 21, 2002 Author Share Posted April 21, 2002 I took a gander at the Canon A40 today at Best Buy (sorry to not invite you, C&S...only had a few minoodles). I wasn't impressed. The aux lens mount is plastic-yuck. The Nikon was there. Absolutely the best out-of-the box for macro work. I did like the feel of the Sonys-Justin's camera, and the 707 epecially with its EFV. The Nikon's viewfinder was WAY off up close (and of course useless w/aux lenses). There are aftermarket hoods with loupes attached-anyone try these? They hook (and loop) over the LCD screen. After all this research, I know what Sting meant in that song. fini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klipschguy Posted April 21, 2002 Share Posted April 21, 2002 Fini, I really like my Nikon 885. Great combination of features, price, and quality. BTW, I use the monitor for up close work, not the viewfinder. Andy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornEd Posted April 22, 2002 Share Posted April 22, 2002 Note to fini & Clipped and Shorn: A sudden change in plans has me headed East this week instead of North... hunting some bargains for the motorhome. Since my laptop is in the shop, unless I find a bargain on the road I will miss the Forum and the Klipsch sound at home for a few days. In the meantime, I feel the need to make one more plea to your camera shopping. You have no idea how truly valuable a 3 megapixel (MP) camera can be until you try to get the quality you desire out of a 2 MP "bargain" snap-shot shooter. Raw pixels contribute so much information to a smaller final print on the screen or out of a printer that there is a tremendous up-tick in quality for eBay or the family photo album printouts. As you may know, when a digital photo is reduced in pixel dimensions prior to posting or printing, new pixels of the proper dimension replace the larger dimension's pixel base. Within practical limits, the more information that a computer program has to determine the exact shade of a "print size" pixel... the more accurate the reconfigured pixel will be in its presentation form. The strength and ability to shape your final image depends upon your original pixel base... it is what allows your computer to function like a film photo artist's darkroom. It is because I have had a chance to know you from an artist's perspective that I implore you to make a good choice of camera with a 3.1-3.3 MP range... which may prove to be more of a compromise that you will like once you get into digital photography. This is one time you shouldn't let your ears decide... unless your reading this aloud! -HornED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boa12 Posted April 22, 2002 Share Posted April 22, 2002 though i'm a real dig photo novice, i'm really satisfied w/ my oly d510 2.1mp i got from j&r. have found the oly software does even let me reformat down to smaller file size pics. evrything i need but then again my eyes are still developing in this arena. ------------------ My Home Systems Page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 Just when I was beginning to reconsider the Nikkon 995.... fini stated: "The Nikon's viewfinder was WAY off up close (and of course useless w/aux lenses). There are aftermarket hoods with loupes attached-anyone try these? They hook (and loop) over the LCD screen." I am confused...I thought that with digital still cameras one is looking at the LCD screen seeing exactly what the camera is seeing while shooting. No? Is this not the way it is with my digital video camera and thus the same with the digital still camera? I think I am going to reconsider using my digital video camera for making images to use for selling items on eBay and wait until I have a burning need for some higher end digital still camera. -Cropped and Solarized ------------------ Cornwalls currently upgrading to all tube components Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted April 23, 2002 Author Share Posted April 23, 2002 The viewfinder on the 995 is similar to a point-and-shoot camera: it's not looking through the lens and there is no paralax correction. The LCD screen, on the other hand, is looking through the lens, and is a very accurate representation of what you'll get in the finished product (and, in fact, will show you the shot after taking it). There are cameras that have other kinds of viewfinders, just like those found on video cameras (they're known as EVF's- electronic viiewfinders). Those cameras are usually more expensive. The Sony DSC-S707 is one ($999). Nice camera with a nice lens. Yesterday I took a more critical look at some online test results of some cameras I am considering, mainly looking at chromatic abberration and blooming. The Sony DSC-S85 (Justin's camera) seemed to do comparatively well, but is a bit pricey ($699- a bit less by about $50 at B&H Photo). Where did Justin get his? fini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 Interesting, so the still digital cameras at the lower prices only show you an LCD image after you have taken the picture, thus you really do not have the equivalent of an SLR at the price range we were wishing for? Shows you how naive I am at this point. Now that I think of it the digital video camera I have was originally more $ than what these lower end still cameras are going for. fini, your research efforts are much appreciated. -shlipped and cornered ------------------ Cornwalls currently upgrading to all tube components Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted April 23, 2002 Author Share Posted April 23, 2002 I'll call you and explain it. fini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornEd Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 Check out your choices carefully, fini. While digital displays are derived from the CCD they usually do not cover all of the area that will be in your photograph. That is something that most manufacturers don't crow about... but that can be obtained from reading the work of a better quality reviewer. Also, digital displays have considerably less acuity and, therefore, create some awkwardness in achieving critical manual focus. In fact, film based SLR's also tend to have less than the full area represented in the viewfinder... but they do offer critical focus in the center of the lens that is vital for quality macro work. Clipped and Shorn, I would venture to say that if the truth be known... the cameras that you think are showing the whole picture are more likely showing less than 95% of it. Getting all of the photo information into a viewfinder becomes a more expensive manufacturing process that few cameras achieve. With diligent research and functional awareness, I am confident that you, fini, being the shopper you are... can find a Clipped and Shorn worthy product that can capture the gleam in a bug's eye! Happy hunting! -HornED This message has been edited by HornEd on 04-23-2002 at 11:56 AM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted April 23, 2002 Share Posted April 23, 2002 http://www.steves-digicams.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted April 25, 2002 Author Share Posted April 25, 2002 Well, the wait is over. Last night I went to CompUSA and picked up a Sony DSC-S75. It had recently dropped $200 to $500, they had a few neat freebees to go with it, and I got 6 month, no cost financing. PLUS, it's a great camera! I'll have it fired-up by this weekend, then I can figure out how to post here...get ready! HornEd, don't worry...It's a 3meg camera (you'll still be able to be seen with me in public ) Thanks Ed, Justin, Seb and everyone else here for the suggestions! fini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HornEd Posted April 25, 2002 Share Posted April 25, 2002 I knew you would come up with a good camera and a good bargain. I would be privileged to be seen in public with you if you had a throw-away Fuji cardboard special... and had the flap hanging down from your longjohns! My only concern is that the quality of your mind applied to photography would reach a dissatisfaction level much faster with less than three megapixels. I think that Seb had a similar opinion when he understood you had an art background. I think your children will also enjoy your choice... how about posting some pics of Mrs. fini's needlework? -HornED This message has been edited by HornEd on 04-25-2002 at 07:29 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted April 26, 2002 Author Share Posted April 26, 2002 HornEd- I'll get some shots of her quilts after I figure out how to get a shot of my down-flapped longjohns. Then you'll all be able to see my Bose tatoo... fini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.