Can anyone recommend a good digital camera?

[Carrie]

Or maybe warn me about one that's not so good?

I think (at last) I am going to have a chance to get better equipment
(thanks to the offer of a loan) which I've been wanting, to do more with
computer graphics/desktop publishing. Right now I'm mainly still learning
and practicing, setting up flyers, business cards, etc. for people (that I
know) "for the practice" (and they buy the supplies)

I know this is a Publisher group, but assume many of you probably have a
good digital camera and have had some, and know about them?

Right now I have a (bought used last year) Epson 750Z, which is better
than the one I had before, but still has limitations and doesn't always work
good (reliably). I have an idea it's not just the megapixels (mine has 1.9)
but the lens quality that matters. I know people who have cameras with more
megapixels (Kodak EasyShare is one) but I think my camera takes better,
clearer pictures.

I'd like to take pictures that can be enlarged- not so much for me, but
I've seen people selling CDs of pictures, and I live in a scenic area (VT)
Also, screensavers, which I can make, but my camera now doesn't enlarge good
on big monitors. Also, I want to print my own notecards, taking advantage of
this being a tourist area. (also selling on ebay).

Not sure about price range, thinking around $500-600. Or maybe a 1-2 year
old more expensive when new camera? But, if a camera is being sold after a
year or so, why?

I can find all kinds of websites that compare cameras, but someone who
actually has or has had one knows more about it. My daughter has a $500 Sony
Mavica that uses little cds and does NOT like it. I thought those where one
of the best. A lot of the time the cds don't work, and she says it's slow
(unless there's something in the huge booklet of directions she missed).
I've seen one on TV a Canon SLR - digital. But, just because something is on
a TV commercial doesn't make it great.

I'd like something with enough megapixels, but also a good lens, as I
said I think this is very important, too. I've had regular 35mm SLRs in the
past and some of them that seemed popular or known name (and cost quite a
lot) didn't seem as good as I thought they would. The best camera I ever had
was an old WW2 Exacta SLR. At one point it broke and I gave it away- later
realized I could have kept the lens and bought a body to put that on.

I just need some leads on what to start looking for, (there are so many
cameras and brands, models, etc!) so if this works out.... I can then get
into computers, printers, scanners, etc. to go with it.

Thanks,
Carrie

 

[John Inzer]

Or maybe warn me about one that's not so good?

I think (at last) I am going to have a chance to get
better equipment (thanks to the offer of a loan) which
I've been wanting, to do more with computer
graphics/desktop publishing. Right now I'm mainly still
learning and practicing, setting up flyers, business
cards, etc. for people (that I know) "for the practice"
(and they buy the supplies)

I know this is a Publisher group, but assume many of you
probably have a good digital camera and have had some,
and know about them?

Right now I have a (bought used last year) Epson 750Z,
which is better than the one I had before, but still has
limitations and doesn't always work good (reliably). I
have an idea it's not just the megapixels (mine has 1.9)
but the lens quality that matters. I know people who have
cameras with more megapixels (Kodak EasyShare is one) but
I think my camera takes better, clearer pictures.

I'd like to take pictures that can be enlarged- not so
much for me, but I've seen people selling CDs of
pictures, and I live in a scenic area (VT) Also,
screensavers, which I can make, but my camera now doesn't
enlarge good on big monitors. Also, I want to print my
own notecards, taking advantage of this being a tourist
area. (also selling on ebay).

Not sure about price range, thinking around $500-600.
Or maybe a 1-2 year old more expensive when new camera?
But, if a camera is being sold after a year or so, why?

I can find all kinds of websites that compare cameras,
but someone who actually has or has had one knows more
about it. My daughter has a $500 Sony Mavica that uses
little cds and does NOT like it. I thought those where
one of the best. A lot of the time the cds don't work,
and she says it's slow (unless there's something in the
huge booklet of directions she missed). I've seen one on
TV a Canon SLR - digital. But, just because something is
on a TV commercial doesn't make it great.

I'd like something with enough megapixels, but also a
good lens, as I said I think this is very important, too.
I've had regular 35mm SLRs in the past and some of them
that seemed popular or known name (and cost quite a lot)
didn't seem as good as I thought they would. The best
camera I ever had was an old WW2 Exacta SLR. At one point
it broke and I gave it away- later realized I could have
kept the lens and bought a body to put that on.

I just need some leads on what to start looking for,
(there are so many cameras and brands, models, etc!) so
if this works out.... I can then get into computers,
printers, scanners, etc. to go with it.

Thanks,
Carrie

=====================================
There are forums at the following site where
owners of various cameras discuss their
features and failures.

http://www.dpreview.com/

 

[DavidF]

And another source:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/default.htm

DavidF

 

[drc023]

First thing to be aware of with any recommendations is the personal bias of
the responders. We'll usually recommend whatever brand we have since that
tends to justify our purchase. That said, my preference in digital cameras
is Olympus. Good value, good lens, loaded with features, relatively easy to
use and a wide selection of models. I have an older C-3000 and currently use
a C-765 (10x optical zoom & 4mp). I also purchased a couple of C-725's for
my daughters. All take excellent pictures. About the only complaint I have
with the cameras is the recovery time between photos which can be a little
slow at times. If you want to spend more money than these models cost, you
can get an Olympus Evolt E300 for around $600. This is an outstanding DSLR
camera and one of these days I hope that one magically appears on my front
porch. Other camera brands that won't disappoint are Canon and Nikon. The
Canon Digital Rebel is one of the hottest DSLR models on the market. They
are a little more pricey than Olympus, but they are worth the money. Fuji
also makes some nice models and even some of the Kodak models are pretty
good.

Be sure and do your homework before making a buying decision. There is so
much information available online that it's mind boggling. Purchase prices
can be all over the place, so be careful where you buy. Ebay has some great
deals if you make sure to check out the vendors but often you can get a
better price from other online sources. You'll also see some cameras sold as
reconditioned with full warranty. Two of my cameras (and several Canon
printers) were listed as reconditioned, but the only difference I've found
with them was the box they came in and a lower cost. Otherwise, it was
impossible to tell if they were new or refurbed. Be sure to spend time
going over the online camera review sites. My favorite is Steve's Digicams
http://www.steves-digicams.com/.

HTH,
Ron

 

[Ed Bennett]

I know this is a Publisher group, but assume many of you probably
have a good digital camera and have had some, and know about them?

I've just bought myself a Kodak Z740 - lots of megapixels and a decent lens.
However, you won't want this for your purposes. It's far too difficult to
get it in focus with the autofocus, and no manual focus option.

You are right that a good lens is just as important as lots of megapixels -
once you get past 3 or 4 megapixels, the lens can become the limiting
factor, so having more pixels won't give you better quality without a
high-quality lens.

A camera that is being sold after 1 - 2 years could quite easily be from a
semi-pro who went pro, or a pro upgrading his equipment, or someone retiring
from photography trying to raise some money. It could also be from someone
trying to get rid of a bad purchase. It's often difficult to tell which is
which.

The larger the megapixellage, the larger the monitor you can screensave them
on without upsizing.

I've heard good words spoken of Canon from a friend of mine who is going
into photography in a big way (he's just bought himself a £900 Canon D-SLR,
is doing an art foundation course to go into a degree in photography, and
was responsible for almost all still photography for our yearbook)

Things to look out for:
- RAW or TIFF file format option (JPEG artifacting is nasty, data storage
is cheap)
- Manual focus option (autofocus isn't reliable)
- External flash mount point if you need one(the Z740, for example, is
missing one)

If you do your homework, you can get far more and better information than I
can give you.

Try discussion groups (Google Groups is your friend), online boards,
consumer review sites, as well as other more traditional sources such as
photography magazines, spec pages, and journalistic review websites.

 

[fb]

Canon or Nikon, no question. Oh and if you're going to be serious about
graphic design/DTP you'll be wanting a Mac running
Photoshop/InDesign/Illustrator. Don't even contemplate putting CS2 on a PC -
it's a headache you just don't want.

Ignore anyone who tries to tell otherwise - serious graphic designers use
Macs, end of story. Why? It's simple - they're far more reliable. No BSODs
(OK, they do have an equivalent - called a kernel panic, but they're rarer
than hen's teeth - I've had one in six months of Mac ownership - had it,
repaired permissions, that was it. Nothing since. Used to have a BSOD at
least once a fortnight).

Whilst I wouldn't say that Macs were indestructible - they're certainly more
robust than PCs - and most stuff you plug in and that's it - no drivers. The
only thing I needed a driver for was my scanner - nothing else. I also
didn't need to configure my network - it just worked as soon as I plugged in
the cable.

Each to their own, but I only managed to get anything serious done when I
switched.

Oh and they don't overheat (well, not to the extent that PeeCees do at
least). Why? There's nothing in 'em. There is one cable from the PSU to the
logic board, that's it; The cables for the hard drives are just 4" long and
the drives just slide in - no screws. The other reason is that the high-end
Power Macs are partially liquid cooled.

The new ones can also handle 16GB RAM (I don't think there's a PeeCee out
there that can take more than 8).

No, I can't use Publisher anymore it's true and, in the beginning, I did miss
it, but it was the perfect excuse to learn how to use InDesign and
Illustrator (quite a steep learning curve it has to be said).

The OP was asking about digital cameras and instead go a freaking
mac-attack diatribe based mostly on outright lies.
Maybe you bought in the mac crap but most people haven't (in case you
didn't notice) including many many graphic artist. If in your little
world mac's rule then ok. But the world is much much bigger than your
tiny brain can obviously comprehend.
BTW, I've CS2 loaded on six different PC's running xp pro sp2 & on xp
pro 64bit edition. I haven't seen a BSOD since the 90's when I still
had WinX loaded.
In case you failed to notice Apple is switching to Intel so the mac crap
attack will obviously need to change (can't wait to hear that one!).

For the OP, I personally recommend the Canon S80.
Happy New Year!
Frank

 

[Ed Bennett]

Canon or Nikon, no question. Oh and if you're going to be serious
about graphic design/DTP you'll be wanting a Mac running
Photoshop/InDesign/Illustrator. Don't even contemplate putting CS2
on a PC - it's a headache you just don't want.

Is that due to Adobe's crippling software activation that randomly
de-activates without reason?

Ignore anyone who tries to tell otherwise - serious graphic designers
use Macs, end of story.

I thought you were better than that. It just shows that you're not prepared
to argue your side, and expect people to accept your opinion without
question. And given your reputation in this group, that's less likely to
happen than a flying pig.

And the reason that *the majority of* (i.e. NOT ALL) graphic designers use
Macs is because it's "always been that way". The Mac was initially better
at running the apps, and switching to Windows would be as much effort as it
would be for me to switch to Mac.

Why? It's simple - they're far more reliable.
No BSODs (OK, they do have an equivalent - called a kernel panic, but
they're rarer than hen's teeth - I've had one in six months of Mac
ownership - had it, repaired permissions, that was it. Nothing since.
Used to have a BSOD at least once a fortnight).

If you leave out badly-configured hardware after a botched PC upgrade
(entirely my fault), I've had a similar rate of BSODs. All of those have
been due to bad drivers - which are entirely beyond the control of Windows.

Whilst I wouldn't say that Macs were indestructible - they're
certainly more robust than PCs - and most stuff you plug in and
that's it - no drivers.

That's just because the Mac supports a far more limited range of hardware
than Windows, and Mac OS (like Windows) includes common drivers out of the
box.

The only thing I needed a driver for was my
scanner - nothing else. I also didn't need to configure my network -
it just worked as soon as I plugged in the cable.

I didn't even need a cable for my network to "just work". Just my network
key.

Each to their own, but I only managed to get anything serious done
when I switched.

Each to their own indeed. All common modern graphic design/DTP suites are
available on both platforms.

Oh and they don't overheat (well, not to the extent that PeeCees do at
least). Why? There's nothing in 'em. There is one cable from the PSU
to the logic board, that's it; The cables for the hard drives are
just 4" long and the drives just slide in - no screws. The other
reason is that the high-end Power Macs are partially liquid cooled.

That's not a reason. All the same components - graphics accelerator,
processor, RAM, drives (the only four components that create heat) must be
in there in there, just in different places. (I've never seen inside a Mac,
so I'm not sure what you're on about). I've only had a PC claim to overheat
when the fan stopped spinning (although the alarm may have just been to say
that the fan had stopped), and when I forgot to use thermal grease to attach
a processor to a heatsink.

The new ones can also handle 16GB RAM (I don't think there's a PeeCee
out there that can take more than 8).

Are there applications optimised to use 16GB of RAM?

64-bit versions of Windows can handle up to a terabyte of RAM, depending on
your version (Windows XP x64 can handle 128GB). I'm not sure what software
is yet available that is optimised to use that, either. Maybe high-end
server databases.

No, I can't use Publisher anymore

Has the Mac converted you to speaking American English?

it's true and, in the beginning, I
did miss it, but it was the perfect excuse to learn how to use
InDesign and Illustrator (quite a steep learning curve it has to be
said).

Good for you.

 

[Carrie]

Now I have some names to start with.

I've heard of Olympus over the years (I know a little about 35mm film
cameras, but never could afford anything too much or to do too much) I think
the Canon Rebel is the one on the TV commercial. Or D- something (I wasn't
paying attention before I knew I might be able to buy one (LOL)

As to mac and pc, I've heard this for years, and think I'll stick with
something I know (pc) - for one thing I'll be putting my current one in the
bedroom for a spare and to sometimes use (I'll have cd burners on both) Not
sure how compatible mac and pc are in this way.

Don't know how soon I'll get a new Photoshop, I have version 6 (in now)
and 7 (I have it in and sometimes it will come up and work if I don't have
anything else running and dump temp files and stuff I don't need).

I'm still really in the learning stages, and starting out. For a long
time I've been frustrated by trying to do things and not having them work or
work good because of limitations.

I'll probably be asking about printers, too. I did this one other time,
but then it was for my "wish list". I seem to be always busy, either
learning and doing things on my own, or for someone else ("for the
practice") I figure if I keep going doing what I can and expanding,
something will come together. Maybe a lot of things. I know it's what I
love to do (photos, computer art, setting things up and printing them, etc)

Do what you love (and let someone else do the housework (LOL)

I'll keep you updated and probably have a ton more questions as I
get into this more. So far I've been mainly reading other's answers and
learning from this.

Thanks for the discussion boards, too. People do have their opinions, but
now I have a few names to start out with.

I agree about reconditioned. I bought my first digital camera that way,
Kodak DC3200 and used it for a year before getting the first Epson (Photo
PC650- then later the 750Z) I just gave the Kodak one to two teenage
grandkids who love it.

~ Carrie

 

[Box134]

Who gives a ship. If you're happy paying inflated prices for proprietary
hardware, go ahead.

The beast part of Macs is they got you out of the XP newsgroups. Just one
left to go.