Digital Cameras

The place to discuss anything to do with computers, software, hardware, no matter how basic or technical. We all use this stuff, but we don't always understand it!
Paul Carmel
Posts: 3836
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:25 pm
Location: Palma Mallorca & Greece
Contact:

Digital Cameras

Post by Paul Carmel »

I am in the market for a new digital camera. It will primarily be used for photos on my new site ( work in progress ), so it needs to be good for both indoor rooms and exterior beaches etc. Has anyone got any good or bad for that matter recommendations?
Cheers
PC
la vache!
Posts: 11065
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 7:22 pm

Post by la vache! »

I'm not an expert, but I've just bought a new digital camera, the HP Photosmart R717 which I'm really pleased with. It has a choice of up to 6MP and also allows you to take little video clips. The quality is a lot better than my old Canon, but technology has moved on! I did a search on Kelkoo and ended up getting the best price at Amazon.fr (249€). They retail in Darty in France for 299€. The memory card was not included but the rechargeable battery was. Hope this is of some help!
User avatar
Sue Dyer
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 2:26 pm
Location: Belford, Northumberland

Post by Sue Dyer »

Paul, Whatever you get I'd make sure it has a battery that you can charge with the mains rather than taking disposable batteries. Digital's just eat through batteries.
User avatar
paolo
Posts: 3885
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:18 pm
Location: Provence, France
Contact:

Post by paolo »

Don't get a Nikon Coolpix 7600. We have one and although it is 7 megapixels for about £200, it is a bit of a pain to use. There is a long delay between when you want to take a picture, and when the camera actually takes one. And a lot of pictures are out of focus. If you are only taking pictures of your house that is OK, but when you bring moving objects into the frame it is not so good. I believe these problems are pretty standard among small digital cameras, with some better than others.

My advice is to read reviews online, and you will pick up on these problems from users before you buy. Often enough a reviewer will say: you shouldn't buy this camera, you should buy this one.... Wish I had read them more carefully.

I did use a friend's Sony Cybershot (DSC-W5) which I found excellent.
Paolo
Lay My Hat
User avatar
Alan Knighting
Posts: 4120
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:26 am
Location: Monflanquin, Lot-et-Garonne, France

Post by Alan Knighting »

You can find reviews on all sorts of thing at:-

http://www.cnet.com/

Alan
User avatar
Garri
Posts: 1689
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:26 pm

Post by Garri »

Shock horror! I have to agree with Paolo on the Nikon, although mine is a coolpix 775. Fiddly thing, made of plastic and the interface is horrible.

A friend of mine has a Sony cybershot, can't remember the product code and it was excellent. Hers was made of metal alloy
and that fact alone impressed me.
User avatar
paolo
Posts: 3885
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:18 pm
Location: Provence, France
Contact:

Post by paolo »

Surely some mistake?
Paolo
Lay My Hat
User avatar
Garri
Posts: 1689
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:26 pm

Post by Garri »

Surely some mistake?
Nope, I'm pretty certain it was a metal alloy, most probably aluminum :wink:
A-two
Posts: 2091
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:05 am
Location: USA

Post by A-two »

Everything on my website was taken with a Nikon Coolpix 995, which is fairly old now - at least 3+ years. I have not picked up a traditional camera since the day I received it, even though it does not match the quality of those SLR Nikon lenses. The zoom is excellent and includes a macro, which was the main reason for choosing this model over others at the time. It has proved itself to be ruggedly resilient to abuse despite it's plastic case, with the exception of the loading bay for the memory card. The catch has stopped working and it now flaps around, although doesn't affect the operation. I agree with Paolo that the delay between framing the photo and the camera finding its focus is not good for action pics, but it works brilliantly on a tripod in low light. It's difficult to see the screen in bright daylight, hence the viewfinder is important and it's awful. Not only does it only show 2/3rds of what is actually being shot, but you have to twist the camera in half to get it into action mode, which results in a discrepancy between the level of the viewfinder and the actual lens. This quirk results in all horizons tilting 5 degrees, so you learn quickly to compensate for it. Even so, I have lost some great shots to a tilting horizon. The main problems I am describing all seem to have been fixed with the later models. I saw a new one recently that is about 1/3rd the size of mine, both the case and equivalent 256 MB card, plus the interface is now much improved and I believe that too was made of metal. So I wouldn't dismiss them altogether, but would also look at the Canons.

None of the digitals have yet to my knowledge solved the problem of a really good wide angle, the best being a 35mm, and for the purposes of taking photos of rooms, landscapes and buildings, that's not good enough. 28mm is the most important angle to have in our situation. I am seriously considering going back to a tradional camera for all the interiors, but if you find a digital that has a zoom to 28mm, then please let me know. I go to e-opinions to check customer reviews on products like this before buying them.
Waves from America
User avatar
vrooje
Posts: 3202
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 2:48 am
Location: Burgundy, France

Post by vrooje »

I tend to browse Amazon.com and look at the best-reviewed products.

First, unless you're planning on making huge posters out of your photos, you really don't need more than 4-5 megapixels. Ours is a 4 megapixel and it suits us fine -- any more than that and we'd need to pay more for all the extra storage (memory cards etc.). If you're only concerned with pictures for a website, 3 megapixels would be fine, too.

For the record, we have a Casio Exilim, which we bought for our trip to Disney World. It worked perfectly, since it's very small and easily fits into a breast pocket, yet has a lot of features. It's not totally customizable, but it can also be more than point-and-shoot. We like it, but I'd need a tripod to really explore what it can do, and I don't have one yet.

I must say, though, that I still prefer my Dad's 3 megapixel Olympus Camedia. It has a 10x optical zoom (which is absolutely great) and you can point-and-shoot or turn the settings to manual and take exactly the exposures you want. It's a great camera and it takes great pictures. Today's version is the Camedia C755, which has 4 MP instead of 3. It's more portable than an SLR, but it is not small enough to fit in a pocket. Still, it's what I'd probably get if I were shopping today.
Brooke
User avatar
Alan Knighting
Posts: 4120
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:26 am
Location: Monflanquin, Lot-et-Garonne, France

Post by Alan Knighting »

Mine is a Fujifilm FinePix S5500 and it has a rather nice history. It was given to me by one of my regular visitors who worked for Fuji at the time in return for a reduced rent on his next visit. Would the tax man want his slice of the action if he found out?

It is a digital SLR with 4 megapixels, x10 optical zoom and x3.5 digital zoom. The lense is 37-370mm and the optional wide conversion lense is 29mm. Using a 512MB card it stores between 268 and 3993 shots depending on the quality setting in use. Or it will store up to 14.6 min. in movie mode. Particularly when using flash, it eats batteries at an alarming rate. Like many of these things it comes absolutely bulging with facilities which I will never use. It looks like a small SLR 35mm camera so most certainly can not be slipped into a pocket.

I think it is very good at everything it does but I still use a Canon AE-1 SLR 35mm camera when I want to be "serious". For ultimate quality there is no alternative to a really good lense and a roll of film.

Alan
alexia s.
Posts: 870
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:38 pm
Location: Provence
Contact:

Post by alexia s. »

"Surely some mistake"
Gary, are you sure that Paolo was referring to aluminium?
Best,
Alexia.
User avatar
Garri
Posts: 1689
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:26 pm

Post by Garri »

I was trying to be cute but evidentally failing :oops:
alexia s.
Posts: 870
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:38 pm
Location: Provence
Contact:

Post by alexia s. »

I'll know next time!
Best,
Alexia.
Paul Carmel
Posts: 3836
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 12:25 pm
Location: Palma Mallorca & Greece
Contact:

Post by Paul Carmel »

Thanks for all this. It is helping me narrow down the vast :shock: choise thats out there.
Cheers
PC
Post Reply