Digital Cameras

[Deej]

I'm in the market for a digital camera, I have about a grand (give or take) budget and want something that has at least 5 mega pixels. I've looked at the Sony DSC-V1 with a Carl Ziess lense and it looks good but now a dude tells me I'm looking at the wrong brand and should be going for a Canon or Nikon.

Any camera experts around? (i would go to a camera website if i knew of one)

 

[_espoir]

Originally posted by Deej
I'm in the market for a digital camera, I have about a grand (give or take) budget and want something that has at least 5 mega pixels. I've looked at the Sony DSC-V1 with a Carl Ziess lense and it looks good but now a dude tells me I'm looking at the wrong brand and should be going for a Canon or Nikon.

Any camera experts around? (i would go to a camera website if i knew of one)

why is sony not as good as canon or nikon? well basically SONY is a electronic brand, great tv's, great phones..... not good lenes. Canon and Nikon are photographic brands, who make their own lenses. (i sounld say the price stuff)

3-5 meg cameras you will not tell the difference in printing standard size photos (4x6) so if you are not gonna be printing large size photos (A3-A1) size then dont worry so much about getting a large meg if you're not gonna use it.

3 meg cameras start from $400 up wards depending on optical zoom. 5megs start at around $700.

Myself i have about 4 digital cameras, one canon SLR digital D60, and Nikon 4500, and Fuji 603 and Canon G2. any other things just ask i'm sure i can as a wholesaler or look it up for you

(i own a camera store ...well part on )

 

[dockertor]

Re: Re: Digital Cameras

Originally posted by _espoir
why is sony not as good as canon or nikon? well basically SONY is a electronic brand, great tv's, great phones..... not good lenes. Canon and Nikon are photographic brands, who make their own lenses. Not only that sony is a tad over priced for the standard they produce.

3-5 meg cameras you will not tell the difference in printing standard size photos (4x6) so if you are not gonna be printing large size photos (A3-A1) size then dont worry so much about getting a large meg if you're not gonna use it.

3 meg cameras start from $400 up wards depending on optical zoom. 5megs start at around $700.

Myself i have about 4 digital cameras, one canon SLR digital D60, and Nikon 4500, and Fuji 603 and Canon G2. any other things just ask i'm sure i can as a wholesaler or look it up for you

(i own a camera store ...well part on )

Sony and Panasonic have made imaging technology far longer than than film camera makers and are very good at it. Essentially the DSC is the same as a video camera in that it uses ccd image sensors. This is what they have done for years. Your point about lenses is exactly why Panasonic use Leica and Sony use Ziess lenses.
That rhetoric sounds like it came directly from a Canon or Nikon rep.

 

[GoEagles]

Deej - I posted a Digital Camera topic on this board just a few weeks ago.

Here is the thread: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97258

 

[Zeke]

Kodak DX6490 - check it out, highly recommend it.

 

[_espoir]

Re: Re: Re: Digital Cameras

Originally posted by dockertor
Sony and Panasonic have made imaging technology far longer than than film camera makers and are very good at it. Essentially the DSC is the same as a video camera in that it uses ccd image sensors. This is what they have done for years. Your point about lenses is exactly why Panasonic use Leica and Sony use Ziess lenses.
That rhetoric sounds like it came directly from a Canon or Nikon rep.

Your abservation on Ziess and Leica is some what true but they are only approaved lenses not actually manufactured by them. I should also be pointed out that Canon and Nikon have been producing images as far back as 1947 which I beleive is a little bit earlier than Sony and Panasonic. The CCD receiver on a digital movie camera in usually 1/6th or 1/3rd of an inch, digital still camera is better than 1/2 or 2/3rds of an inch and produces a better still image on this basis.

 

[Falchoon]

Originally posted by Deej
I'm in the market for a digital camera, I have about a grand (give or take) budget and want something that has at least 5 mega pixels. I've looked at the Sony DSC-V1 with a Carl Ziess lense and it looks good but now a dude tells me I'm looking at the wrong brand and should be going for a Canon or Nikon.

Any camera experts around? (i would go to a camera website if i knew of one)

I've got a Canon G5. Very happy with. PM me if you have any specific questions.

 

[nut]

At Brian Murry's Camera centre in Horsham you can get a Camera on a plan like a phone. Up front 0$ than depending on the cost of the camera you go on a plan. 25, 40, 60 ........etc...
Pretty sure this idea is catching on in Melb. The catch is you have to get your photo's developed at the store you bought the camera.

It's a good Idea. Say your on a 40$ a month plan, the camera costs you nothing. you than recieve 40$ worh of CD burns or prints a month. Perfect for a buissness or someone with a newborn.

 

[Yianni]

Originally posted by nut
The catch is you have to get your photo's developed at the store you bought the camera.

Sounds like a good idea, in theory.

I'm sure profit margins are eroded by the ongoing costs of hiring Private Investigators to follow you around to enforce this though...

 

[grimlock]

Can someone explain the difference between optical and digital zoom and which one is better? Thanks.

 

[_espoir]

Originally posted by grimlock
Can someone explain the difference between optical and digital zoom and which one is better? Thanks.

optical zoom is the lens zooming in and out (much like a 35mm compact camera)

digital zoom is the photo being cropped and lowing the resolition of the photo. 1024x768 will come to 600x800 when using digital zoom for example.

optical zoom is the best way to go, olympus offer 10x optical zoom, so does kodak... and fuji s5000 ...cant remember other ones i'll get back to you if i think of one!.

 

[Frodo]

The Canon Ixus 400 is brilliant but only 4M

 

[Dean3]

I'm not any sort of camera expert, but make sure you ask about the image compression rate when considering a camera claiming a high megapixel number. i.e. some cameras have a headline 5,6 or greater megapixel rate, but also have a high compression ratio when generating the jpg file (to save memory space) which means that you are losing a lot of the information anyway. For example, if a 5 MP camera takes a pic and then compresses it to, say, 1.9mb, then you're probably only getting a 3-4 MP result anyway. From memory, the Nikons have high compression rates and should be approached with caution. Other brands too. Shutter speed is also something to consider — how many blurry digital images have you seen?? Heaps, as most people just click the shutter without using the auto-focus properly. With a lot of cameras there may be up to a 1 second delay from hitting the button to taking the picture, by which time your subject has disappeared out of frame.
The Ricoh's have very good shutter speeds.

 

[grayham]

Anything over 4 Megapixels is a waste for your average consumer.

A 3.3 Megapixel is around 1Mb per photo. 7 Megapixels work out at around 4 or 5Mb per photo.

Unless you have a big hard drive you are going to be chewing through disk space pretty quickly with that sized photos, not to mention memory card sizes, and transfer speeds.

a 3.3 Megapixel is equivalent resolution to a standard 35mm film.

 

[Zeke]

Keep in mind that digital zoom is basically useless, apart from being a false selling point that camera salesmen seem to get excited about. All digital zoom does is stretch the existing pixels, and sometimes adds dummy pixels, it does not capture any more real pixels.

The Kodak DX6490 features 4MP images and has a nice 10X optical zoom lens. A very nice camera.

 

[dockertor]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Digital Cameras

Originally posted by _espoir
Your abservation on Ziess and Leica is some what true but they are only approaved lenses not actually manufactured by them. I should also be pointed out that Canon and Nikon have been producing images as far back as 1947 which I beleive is a little bit earlier than Sony and Panasonic. The CCD receiver on a digital movie camera in usually 1/6th or 1/3rd of an inch, digital still camera is better than 1/2 or 2/3rds of an inch and produces a better still image on this basis.

Sorry, I should have said ELECTRONIC imaging technology, which the leading broadcast acquisition makers have been doing a lot longer than said film stills camera manufacturers. Quite correct in that stills cameras use larger CCD’s than domestic DVC’s but broadcast and hi definition cameras have always used these large CCD’s.

 

[Deej]

I can get a Canon S50 which is the one just above the IXUS 400 in their range, key diff i guess is it's 5 mega pixels instead of 4. Price on ebay fluctuates of course but roughly is about $950, rec retail is around $1199 although i think teds has it for $1150, all inc gst.

Is this a good purchase good quality camera?

 

[Docker_Brat]

Is a 2MP camera worth the effort? Can get some very affordable ones with that kind of resolution.

 

[_espoir]

Originally posted by Deej
I can get a Canon S50 which is the one just above the IXUS 400 in their range, key diff i guess is it's 5 mega pixels instead of 4. Price on ebay fluctuates of course but roughly is about $950, rec retail is around $1199 although i think teds has it for $1150, all inc gst.

Is this a good purchase good quality camera?

i have to admit the s50 is a really really good camera for its size .. last price my business had them at was $1059.

Ixus 400 was at $795 ...

Canon themselves are bring out another 20 cameras in the new few months, so look out for some of the current models going out a bit cheaper.

 

[_espoir]

Originally posted by bluecrow
Oh crap haha I just got mine! RRP for IXUS 400 was $899 but I got mine from Harris Technology for $739 (doesn't include the $50 case tho ).

blah thats nothing, i got my D60 wholesale plus discount at $5500...now a updated model D300 is $1849 .. oh well never mind though!

 

[brampta]

Does anyone rate Olympus MJU 300 or 400??

I have a MJU still which I just adore - it takes amazing photographs and was thinking about complimenting it with a digi

 

[_espoir]

muj 300 or 400 is a very fine camera! i've been impressed with the results of it....

olympus from Feb 1st to March 31s are doing cash back offers up to $50 on their cameras.

 

[Effes]

http://www.shortcourses.com/choosing/contents.htm

 

[Port01]

Originally posted by Deej
I can get a Canon S50 which is the one just above the IXUS 400 in their range, key diff i guess is it's 5 mega pixels instead of 4. Price on ebay fluctuates of course but roughly is about $950, rec retail is around $1199 although i think teds has it for $1150, all inc gst.

Is this a good purchase good quality camera?

I bought my mom an S50 for her birthday, and I have an IXUS 400.

Main reason I have the IXUS is size, the S50 is a bit too big for pocket size.

Both take excellent pictures though. The S50 has a lot more features, and is probably a little harder to use. Basically I'd say the 400 is a cutdown S50 simply for convenience and size. That is why I bought it.

If you want to use either to their potential you'll probably need to fork out about 70-80 beans for a spare battery, because they don't last all that long if you are on a trip or something, or camping etc. 2 batteries normally gives you enough hours to not be a nazi about going through the ones you have to save power. Thats the major problem with custom batteries. You'll also probably need to fork out for a larger memory card. Both come with a 32 standard but if you are taking the best pictures you wont fit very many. A 256 is about minimum if you want to take plenty of high quality shots.

Coupla things to think about.

 

[nut]

Originally posted by Yianni
Sounds like a good idea, in theory.

I'm sure profit margins are eroded by the ongoing costs of hiring Private Investigators to follow you around to enforce this though...

No,NO. If you got the Camera in Horsham, it would cost you nothing. But you would be on a plan, say a $40 plan. you now recieve $40 dollars worth of printing and burning from the store you got the the camera. If you dont use your $40 credit at the store that you got it than you lose it.

Just like a phone.

24 months x $40 = $960 you will end up paying, for that you get a Camera and $960 dollars worth of printing etc. from the shop you got the camera. It's a good deaL I think.
Just that I probably haven't spent $960 on photo delopement in my life.