Best digital camera

Coralc · December 11, 2005

We have a Kodak EasyShare 5 megapixel, the picture quality is fine. I like it because it is dork proof. A gentleman on the radio yesterday said that "It's still a camera and lens quality is the most important fearure" . And he also agreed that Canon has the best lens quality on their cameras. He mentioned a model. I don't recall which one.:)

NCTarheelsCruiser · December 11, 2005

I just bought a Canon Powershot S2IS 5.0MP just prior to our latest cruise. I am by no means a photography expert, but I found it very easy to use and overall I am very happy. Now, if I take the time to read the manual completely and learn to use all of the funtions I will probably even more satisfied.

beachchick · December 11, 2005

I am looking for a digital camera that takes pictures like a 35mm, On the spot quickand clear.

There are many excellent choices in digital cameras these days. If you go high end, you can get an SLR, but they are still quite pricy (IMO).

The bottom line is that you can get excellent results from a digital, but it is not and will not be a 35mm. For one thing, there is a learning curve on how best to use the digital capabilities. Some things are easier; some are harder. The most important thing to remember is that it is not a 35mm. If you expect it to act exactly like one, you are bound to be disappointed. (BTW though, we have 2 digitals now and love them. Still, we will never get rid of our 35mm cameras.)

beachchick

family cruisers · December 11, 2005

We have a Kodak EasyShare 5 megapixel, the picture quality is fine. I like it because it is dork proof. A gentleman on the radio yesterday said that "It's still a camera and lens quality is the most important fearure" . And he also agreed that Canon has the best lens quality on their cameras. He mentioned a model. I don't recall which one.:)

Glad to read this. We just bought our 76 year old uncle ( who looks and acts 60)the new kodak easy share z760 model . We also bought the tripod so he can take his "family pictures" etc.. He loves to take pictures and was recently saying he had an older digital that was worthless. Hope this will be something easy for him that he'll enjoy using. Anyone have this model? Ordered it online at walmart.com

EBFURR · December 11, 2005

I like the Canon cameras, with Kodak in second. Right now I have 2 Canons and an older Kodak. I ahve been through a few other brands and these are the ones I kept. I was into 35mm photography for many,many years and even used to have my own darkroom setup for processing film and prints. Now I am all digital. Digital is a mixed blessing, but it is now the way to go.

Mega pixels are not the only criteria for digital cameras. Obviously the lens has a lot to do with it (as in film cameras), but the image sensor, the internal image processing components, and even the software (yes, there is software loaded in the camera) have a lot to do with the reults you will get. My Canon S1 IS is 3.2 mega pixels, but produces results that are superior to a 5 Mp camera that I have used, even for enlargements. The Canon A75 is probably one of the best overall buys ever in the digital camera market, but they are now hard to find. They actually sell for more now on Ebay than they did when they were new. They were replaced by the A510, which is also excellent and can be gotten for around $160 retail.

Canon seems to have adressed the shutter lag issue in later models and I do not see that as an issue with mine. In low light situations, the lag is usually more related to the autofocus and was that way for my 35mm cameras as well.

EBFURR · December 11, 2005

On the issue of dining room (and other large area) photography:

On modern auto exposure cameras, most of them decide whether or not you need a flash by analyzing the light levels and turning the flash on for you. The exposure is then calculated (shutter speed and aperture) based on the flash's output capabilities. This is usually from about 4 feet to about 10-15 feet depending on how much light output your flash is capable of. Anything beyond the flash range is NOT going to be well exposed. That is done "on purpose" by the exposure program to assure that those objects (people, etc) inside the flash range will not be overexposed.

If your camera will allow you to turn off the flash feature (better cameras do, check your manual), you should turn it off if you want the see more of the room. This will cause the exposure program to try to come up with an exposure setting that will use the available light and not depend upon flash output. If a decent exposure is not available, it will usually warn you in some way, but will let you take the photo anyway. A good camera with a fast lens and a good image sensor will be able to give you a presentable picture in some very poor lighting conditions. They will not look as good as broad daylight, but may actually look pretty good. It is always good to steady the camera as much as possible in these situations since you will probably be using a slower shutter speed. A tripod is best, but leaning your elbows on a railing or table, or steadying against the side of a post will also help.

One other issue is color balance. It may help to set the color balance to a setting other than daylight to compensate for the artificial lighting. This will not make the pictures sharper, but may make the colors look better. I rarely do this, but it is a good idea. Some cameras are supposed to do this automatically with varying degrees of effectiveness.

In conclusion, I usually take a couple with the flash to get the immediate surroundings and then turn off the flash and take a few to try to get the larger area. Sometimes the ones without the flash do not look so great on the camera's screen, but when you open them up and auto adjust them in your computer's image software, they look much better.

Hope this helps.

ducklite · December 11, 2005

I have two cameras. A Minolta DiMage Z-1 (there are newer version of this camera) that cost about $300, maybe a little more--by the time you by the memory cards and case and such it's around $450.

I also have a Nikon D-70 (SLR), with two lenses, total cost on something similar is going to run you over $2500 before you buy memory and bag, etc.

In all honesty, the Minolta is a perfect camera for the average higher end amatuer. It's got a lot of great little features, is compact but still feels like a camera, and is easy to use. The photo's aren't quite as good as the Nikon when shooting in dim light, but for outside or flash photo's it's comparable.

I am a professional photographer, and I still use my Minolta when I'm just going out with friends or something like that, the Nikon is too bulky to slip in a small backback or tote bag. (Not to mention much more fragile.)

Anne

megsterl · December 11, 2005

I am a 35mm girl through and through I love the quality of the pictures and almost never have to worry about what they will look like. I just got back from a vacation to Disney and decided to take my digital, and I hated it. Every picture I took came out blurry. During the parade you set up take the picture and by the time the camera takes the picture the object moved.( and yes I know how to take pictures of moving object without blur) everyone around me had the same problem. Can anyone tell me if it is just the brand I was using? I have a fuji Finepix 3.2 mega pixels.

Cuizer2 · December 11, 2005

I am looking for a digital camera that takes pictures like a 35mm, On the spot quickand clear.

Any good quality digital camera can produce a good quality image. However, none out yet will match the super quality of a super quality 35mm camera using high quality film.

However, if you question is regarding shutter delay, then you need to look for a Digital SLR (D-SLR or DSLR). The digital SLRs are the only digital cameras I am aware of that don't have a shutter delay problem. However, a digital SLR is big and expensive - and that is without the lens, which you buy separately.

dougp26364 · December 11, 2005

I am a 35mm girl through and through I love the quality of the pictures and almost never have to worry about what they will look like. I just got back from a vacation to Disney and decided to take my digital, and I hated it. Every picture I took came out blurry. During the parade you set up take the picture and by the time the camera takes the picture the object moved.( and yes I know how to take pictures of moving object without blur) everyone around me had the same problem. Can anyone tell me if it is just the brand I was using? I have a fuji Finepix 3.2 mega pixels.

Most digital's have a sport setting. When taking pictures of moving objects, I get better results using this setting. Most also have a mult. shot option where the camera will keep taking pictures (or a set number of exposures) with the push of the button.

Iamthesea · December 12, 2005

No one has mentioned the Sony! I love my Sony DSCP72. ;)

One caution about photo editing (as in Titan(ic)5.6 post). If you crop too closely, finding a frame that will not cut into the subjects is difficult. Best to leave a margin of area around the subjects for the framing. Also, many of the photo printing services will cut some of your photo out to fit their printing perimeters. I learned this the hard way when I cropped a photo for Christmas cards last year. I didn't leave any room for the framing and the developer cut part of the subjects legs off. :eek:

LBB · December 12, 2005

I have a Fuji and love it. All my pictures come out great...snow, sun, wherever. The pictures are always bright and clear.

SylviaB · December 12, 2005

We're in need of a new digital camera too and we'll be buying the Pentax Optio WPi. It is waterproof up to 5ft!!! The image quality is really good, it's a 6 megapixel camera and really small and handy. The fact that it's waterproof made the difference for us.

wl2cruise · December 12, 2005

I have a HP camera it takes beatiful cruise pics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:) :o :eek:

ORANGEinINDY · December 13, 2005

I ended up with a 5MP Sony for the most part I'm happy with the output. Long distance indoor (such as the dining room) pics did not/do not turn out that well.

My list of considerations follows:

1. ZOOM - the better the OPTICAL zoom the better. If you have a high resolution (more MP) and don't desire large prints, you can effectively use digital zoom (but I try not to count on it).

2. MEDIA if you have other electronic devices a camera that uses the same type of media might be nice for you. My camera uses SONY 'memory sticks' not a bad media but only Sony devices use it. I would have liked for my Palm device to be able to use the same media. I also have a small amount of internal camera memory. This is nice as I use it as "back-up space" for when I unexpectedly run out of space on my card

3. POWER. I specifically found a camera that used 'AA' batteries. The camera came with NI-MH recharge-ables that have a good useful life between charges. However if I do run out of power while out for the day my 'AA' capability allows me to purchase batteries (that will get me through a short period) almost anywhere. If I had special "Kodak" proprietary batteries I couldn't do that.

4. SIZE. There were some nice cameras that had great optical zoom, but they were somewhat bulky. I can easily fit mine in my pocket or a fanny pack. I can also easily reach up as high as I can (above everyones head) and point the camera in the general direction and 'point and shoot'

5. RESOLUTION More megapixels is better (at least up to a point) A large number of MP allow digital zoom, post picture cropping and still allow prints that are pretty large.

6. SETTINGS . Mine has many preset configuration (snow, portrait, candlelight, manual and of course BEACH)

7. AUTO SHUT-OFF... As I become absent minded, I like that mine shuts it self off after a time on no use, but I particularly like that it also retracts the zoom lens and covers the lens as well.

Just my thoughts, I hope it helps. You'll also want to consider how you'll get the pics off of the camera. My first trip with the camera I brought my laptop to be able to down load nightly (digital is neat because it allow you to take TONS of pics cheaply and only print those you really want. I found a good deal on a 1GB card this fall which gives me about 400 pics @ 5MP... good chance I'll fill that on my 5 night coming up

ORANGEinINDY · December 13, 2005