Best Price/quality Compromise on a Digicamera

Joined
Nov 25, 1998
Messages
12,632
I know that, in the words of the immortal Robert H. Heinlein, "There ain't no such thng as a free lunch." (TANSTAAFL) But can anyone suggest a really good compromise between price and quality in a digital camera? The Olympus D-360L and D-460L have been suggested at around $295 and $395, respectively. Are these reasonable buys? My son, the techno-nerd, tells me that I must have something that gives better resolution than 640 x 480 pixels for acceptable definition. Is this so, or is this his technical one-upsmanship speaking?

Any assistance in this would be gratefully accepted.

------------------
Walk in the Light,
Hugh Fuller
 
FullerH,

I have the Olympus D340 and can comment on it. Its pretty good, media is reasonably inexpensive. The D460 or equivalent adds a zoom to the D340 feature set. The 340 I own is a factory refurbished unit that I got for $200. At first, I thought I didn't need a zoom but now I realize that a zoom function helps to frame the shot. Personally, If I I had to buy again would try to buy a Nikon coolpix 990 or perhaps a Canon digital Elph. Your comment that you would need 640 by 480 resolution is conditional on what you would use the images for. For web page graphics you MIGHT get away with 640X480, to replace a fairly good 35mmSLR I would go with the aforementioned Nikon or Canon. A forum member named MAXON is a professional photographer and he might have a more informed opinion. I, myself, have the firm belief that digital won't replace the quality from medium and especially large format film cameras (meaning negatives bigger than 35 mm) for a LONG time.
 
If you can spend the bucks, the Sony Mavica FD-88 or FD-90 is, IMHO, the way to go.....8x optical zoom/16x digital zoom, all the resolution you can use, etc.... The one I have takes the best pictures I've seen. I feel 'you get what you pay for'! This was shot with no flash and a 60w Cool White light bulb, in an old lamp..........
View
 
I have the D-360L from Olympus and am loving it. I haven't used high end cameras, but it is much better than the lower resolution Mavicas we have at work by a wide margin.

I bought a floppy disk adapter and some rechargeable NiMH batteries giving me the convenience and flexibility I needed. (Camera alone doesn't support USB, but adapters are available if that's your choice.)

Mine was purchased locally on sale for $248.88.

The reviews were excellent on this model, and for my purposes, this camera does all I need.

Highly recommended.

Blues

------------------
Live Free or Die

Blues' Knife Pix
 
Hugh,

Let me know if you received my email. I used the address in your profile. If you haven't, just email me and I'll resend the info I had sent you.

Blues

------------------
Live Free or Die

Blues' Knife Pix
 
Things you should look for in a digicam:

Size and portability. Some of the things are huge, larger than a 35mm. You can get a great camera that is about the size of a 35mm. Much smaller than a 35mm. you usually give up telephoto lens and pixel quantity.

Ease of operation; one camera looks like a huge lens with a small camera body added onto the side as an afterthought. Must be a bear to actually use. Recycle time is also important if you want to take pics of sports or things of that nature. Battery life also important; Li ion batteries best, but also most expensive. NiCd's are old fashioned, and lack storage capacity of NiMH.

Memory and speed of memory; here is where the hard drives shine. IBM has announced a one Gig hard drive that is smaller than a paper match packet. Current cameras have a 340 Meg hard drive.

Telephoto lens a must. Only count the optical zoom part, as the digital zoom is the same as cropping the picture; the number of pixels on the desired area is not increased.

Make sure that you get one that downloads via USB port; otherwise it takes forever to download even small pictures.

I would think that 3 to 5 Megapixels is about optimum for general use right now. I started out with 300k pixels, picture quality was definitely low. Using 3.1 Megapixels now with excellent results.

Make sure you can correct for lighting; there will undoubtedly be an auto white correct, but if you can set the camera for fluorescent light, tungsten light, or sunlight, you are much better off. Avoid cameras which make you use filters. Expect some problems with exposure using flash. Newer cameras are better about this, but in general, CCD's don't have the exposure latitude of film.

There is a feature called DPOF (Digital Print Order Format) which is useful. It basically stores the data so that printing it at a professional printer is easy. Further, DCF (Design rule for Camera File system) is similarly useful. It standardizes how the images are stored, so that one DCF camera can display images recorded and stored on a memory card (or hard drive) by another DCF camera; further, DCF printers can handle data from any DCF camera.

Here are some pics; first from my old 300k pixel Sony; a pic of my son and his niece:
View
Note the pic is only about 180k; it hasn't been cropped. There is a certain amount of JPEG compression unless you take pains to bypass it.

Here is a pic of some knives taken with my Casio QV-300EX:
View


You might not be able to tell much difference, as the compressed size of the pics is almost exactly the same. For a look at what the entire pic of the knives looks like, here is the hyperlink (I don't want people to have to download 1.5 Meg everytime they open this thread): http://albums.photopoint.com/j/ViewPhoto?u=306668&a=2279510&p=30470026

Click on the picture after it's open to enlarge to full size.

In the big pic, you can easily read the makers of the knives, and even see the weave in my kid's t-shirt I used as a background. Note that in all the pics the colors are true; in the picture taken by the poster above, I doubt that the knives have a golden color in real life. My camera was set for tungsten light; I used my son's reading desk with two regular 60 watt incandescent lights, and one 150 watt reading lamp bulb. The result is true to life color.

Hope this helps,

The very amateur photographer, Walt




[This message has been edited by Walt Welch (edited 11-11-2000).]
 
Back
Top