Digital Cameras

[Jorddyn]

For Christmas, I'm thinking of buying myself a new digital camera - probably in the $300-$500 range. Right now, I have an inexpensive Nikon Coolpix (which I got last Christmas) that does fine for posed pictures and outdoor pictures, but has trouble with action pictures or pictures with less than perfect lighting.

And I friggin' hate the delay between pressing the button and taking the picture.

Any suggestions?

Jorddyn

[Bobmuhthol]

<<And I friggin' hate the delay between pressing the button and taking the picture.>>

If you knew how to take pictures properly this would not be an issue (assuming your camera does not suck very, very much). With a digital camera, you're supposed to lightly press the button halfway and then apply more pressure when you want the picture to be taken. No matter what camera you have, that's going to be the case.

As for a good camera, that's cheap by your standards but very highly acclaimed: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16830150057

[Back]

I’m very happy with my Canon Digital Elph.

In the Black Friday thread, its seems COMPUSA is having a sale on a really nice model.

http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?&ref=cj&pfp=cj&product_code=31933 9

[Unique]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
With a digital camera, you're supposed to lightly press the button halfway and then apply more pressure when you want the picture to be taken. No matter what camera you have, that's going to be the case.


That's the case for low- to mid-range digital cameras. Higher end digital SLR cameras will take pictures immediately when the shutter is released and are limited in speed only by the shutter settings. They can take a number of consecutive pictures this way by holding down the shutter release depending on how much room is available in the buffer (10-20 is typical).

Low- to mid-rage digitals are not SLR, though, and will suffer from the lag.

Unique.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Higher end digital SLR cameras will take pictures immediately when the shutter is released and are limited in speed only by the shutter settings.>>

High end digital cameras belong in the hands of professional photographers. I can't imagine that people have them for personal use. Those things get damn expensive.

But you're right.

[The Ponzzz]

Don't buy into the need for 5+ megapixils like everyone else has. Unless of course you want beautiful quality on sizes over 3 foot by 2 foot...

You can have wonderful prints on 3.2-4 megapix... That will get ya to standard 8 by 10s. And you can save a boat load of cash...

[Bobmuhthol]

A 7.1 or 7.2 megapixel camera is ideal. You can change the quality whenever you want to make the pictures smaller. My camera (years old) takes 2 MP pictures and it saddens me.


<<Unless of course you want beautiful quality on sizes over 3 foot by 2 foot...>>

Physical dimensions vary by pixel resolution, both on-screen and in printing. :whistle:

[Edited on 11-23-2005 by Bobmuhthol]

[Back]

The higher the pixel depth the higher the detail the better quality print. Still, digital has not caught up with analog film. Yet.

[Brattt8525]

http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi?page=proframe&prod_id=1176041.

I love it and it is not that expensive.

[Bobmuhthol]

That thing is huge.

[Jolena]

I'm crying because my digital camera that I've had for about a year is now unfunctional. My daughter used it to take a picture of something last week and when she handed it back to me it just wouldn't turn back on. I've no clue what it is. Even changed the batteries and it just..won't turn on. LE SIGH.

[Ebondale]

Honestly I wouldn't go about 4.1 Megapixels.

A lot of people think that with buying a 7-8 Megapixel camera "more is better" but this isn't necessarily the case. At a certain point having a "better picture" actually starts causing it to look more grainy than its lower-quality and less expensive bretheren.

If I were you I would save some money and go for a lower-end digital camera. Nikon Coolpix cameras are actually really good. :)

[Drew2]

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7030116&type=product&id=10993949 30588

I highly recommend that camera. I had it until I lost it, but I absolutely loved it.

Great picture quality, records small movies at pretty decent quality, and compact.

That's the lowest price I've seen it, too.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ebondale
Honestly I wouldn't go about 4.1 Megapixels.

A lot of people think that with buying a 7-8 Megapixel camera "more is better" but this isn't necessarily the case. At a certain point having a "better picture" actually starts causing it to look more grainy than its lower-quality and less expensive bretheren.

If I were you I would save some money and go for a lower-end digital camera. Nikon Coolpix cameras are actually really good. :)

I have to totally disagree with you, even though we share an author in our sigs.

The best quality you can get is still film.

The higher pixel depth you get is closer to film.

My Canon Digital Elph pwns a Nikon Coolpix from my experience. Having said that, Nikon may make a model that pwns Canons Elph.

[Drew2]

Take a picture with a 4.0 megapixel and take one with a 8 megapixel, reduce them both to 4x6 and they're the exact same picture.

Gauranteed.

Backlash really is dumb.

[Bobmuhthol]

4x6 is relative. You don't know how many pixels are in that picture. 8 MP has inherently better quality compared to 4 MP when they are the same size.

[Back]

Originally posted by Tayre
Take a picture with a 4.0 megapixel and take one with a 8 megapixel, reduce them both to 4x6 and they're the exact same picture.

Gauranteed.

Backlash really is dumb.

If you reduce them to the same pixel depth you are going to get the same thing. Duh.

[The Ponzzz]

My job converted to digital recently. The camera he purchased was somewhere in the 8 grand region. My 214 dollar one I got at Wal-Mart back in 2001 that is 3.2 MP looks EXACTLY like his at 4x6. His pictures however look alot better when they are fullpage in the paper.

Unless you want professional quality, there is no reason for a higher MP. And it still hasn't been proven that digi print paper will last over 50-100 years. So 50-100 years from now, you might just end up with blank paper due to the ink fading...

[Edited on 11-24-2005 by The Ponzzz]

[Bobmuhthol]

<<If you reduce them to the same pixel depth you are going to get the same thing. Duh.>>

I don't know what the pixel depth of most cameras are, but it's probably the same amount: 32. Anything past 32 bits isn't visible, and a digital camera should be able to handle image colors just as well as a computer can.

Virtually nothing past 10 bits per color channel is visible on any graphics card or scanner.

[Ebondale]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Ebondale
Honestly I wouldn't go about 4.1 Megapixels.

A lot of people think that with buying a 7-8 Megapixel camera "more is better" but this isn't necessarily the case. At a certain point having a "better picture" actually starts causing it to look more grainy than its lower-quality and less expensive bretheren.

If I were you I would save some money and go for a lower-end digital camera. Nikon Coolpix cameras are actually really good. :)

I have to totally disagree with you, even though we share an author in our sigs.

The best quality you can get is still film.

The higher pixel depth you get is closer to film.

My Canon Digital Elph pwns a Nikon Coolpix from my experience. Having said that, Nikon may make a model that pwns Canons Elph.

What good is having super-high quality pictures if you have to shrink them way down to make them a practical size? :)

[Bobmuhthol]

Why do you have to shrink it, exactly?

[Ebondale]

Well, if you want to print a high quality picture like that then its going to come out like... a whole freaking sheet of paper. Not exactly wallet photo size, you know?

[Bobmuhthol]

No, that high quality picture is going to be whatever size you want it to be. There's a reason image programs allow you to set the number of pixels to assign per square inch.

[Apotheosis]

If I was spending up to $500 or so, I would try to find some extra in the budget and pick up a Canon Rebel.

[Ebondale]

:master:

[Sean of the Thread]

I'm buying (or thinking about) the Kodak easy share 360 in the flyer from bestbuy tomorrow for $129. Any comments? I depart at 5am for shopping bliss.

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml;jsessionid=Z5KQDCDOSBLCRFW4FBBHW EMW1YUEK4L4?pq-path=7076&pq-locale=en_US&_requestid=29150