some general Digital Camera advice

U

UnknownVT

Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
2,575
Here's something I wrote a while back to help anyone intending to get a digicam:
------------------------------------------------------
Digicams are now enough in the mainstream and the prices are reasonable enough to consider getting one.

The usefulness of digicams is that one can shoot and review - and literally see the photo just taken - to allow for modification/self-adjustment to improve on the shot - plus one can shoot as much as one wants without incurring much cost to get the shot one wants.... this has helped me no end in improving my own photography (reasonably "long in the tooth" - "serious" since 1969 - with articles and photos published and exhibited) and I have become far more adventurous and have developed another "style" for digital photos.

The minimum "resolution" to consider should be about 2Mp (2 MegaPixels) - only about a few years ago these were top of the line with prices about $1K - now they are down in the $200's - about the same price as a upper mid-priced 35mm p&s.

The current state of the art for digicams is about the level of a reasonable p&s (Point & Shoot) or good APS.

For a snap shot p&s - most people probably would be OK with a 2Mp digicam for both prints and web/e-mail usage.

Get one with an Optical zoom lens and not just Digital zoom (that merely uses the central area of the imaging sensor to enlarge the photo to give a telephoto effect - with corresponding loss of quality)

Print quality - there are no "absolutes" here -
but a lot of people are happy with a print with resolution of 150ppi or better (that's pixels per inch) - so a 1600x1200 pixel digicam (ie: 2Mp) the maximum sized print one probably would be happy with is about 10x8 - however if you are much more fussy or really want as good as 35mm film (nose to paper) quality one should aim for 300ppi - so you see a 2Mp digicam now only is really capable of 5.3"x4".....

But this is fine since for a snapshot p&s - a lot of people are happy with 6x4 prints with only the occassional 10x8 ........

For web/e-mail usage the photo size should not be too large to be "considerate" - approx 560x420 pixels saved in JPG format is about right (that's just a convenient 35% scaled photo from the full sized 1600x1200).

If you use the net at places like www.pricescan.com (and www.pricegrabber.com) you'll find 2Mp digicams with Optical zooms at prices like these:

2Mp w. Optical zoom
Fuji FinePix 2650 $155.00
Olympus D-520 Zoom $179.99
Fuji FinePix A203 $187.50
Canon PowerShot A40 $207.95
Canon PowerShot S200 $224.95 (Digital ELPH)

But to keep things in context - you can get higher resolution/pixel count at pretty good prices now - eg:

3Mp w. Optical Zoom
Olympus D-550 Zoom $254.99

4Mp w. optical zoom
Kodak DX4900 $270.00
Olympus C-4000 Zoom $309.99

Almost any one on that list is fine........ find one that suits your hands/handling and style.

BUT Beware of possible vendors with UNscrupulous practices at these lowball prices .......
Always check vendor ratings and I always read the NEGATIVE reviews to see if I'd be willing deal with such a vendor.

Once you have invested in a digital camera - there are some not so optional accessories -

(1) Larger memory card -
the memory card supplied with the digicam is normally woefully inadequate (somewhat like the 12-exp rolls of film given away with film cameras). First make sure what is the correct Type of card needed then use this "guideline" - which will give approx 100 photos at the normal (default) JPG photo file size.
1Mp - 32Mb (~$17)
2Mp - 64Mb (~$25)
3-4Mp - 128Mb (~$39)
5-6Mp - 256Mb (~$61)

(2) Rechargable Batteries -
Do NOT use disposable batteries in the digicam - unless you have heavy investments/stocks in a battery company
Use rechargable ones - either the propietary ones for the camera, or if the camera uses a standard size like AA - NiHM batteries rated 1600mAHr or better. Have at least TWO sets, and carry a fully charged spare (set) - there's nothing more frustrating than to run out of power at a crucial moment - which renders your multi-hundred $$$ digicam into no better than a paper weight.

(3) Separate flash memory card reader -
these are relatively cheap (~$22) and connect to your computer to download your photos - without having to use the camera itself for downloads (uses up battery power).

I am by NO stretch of the imagination making any claims that digital has replaced even 35mm film or that the current consumer/affordable state of the art (of 5Mp or even 6Mp) is as good as film.

But a 2Mp (or better) digicam, is likely to give reasonably pleasing results and can help a lot in one's photography.

Try it.
 
Vincent--thanks for the tips. Do you think a macro feature is a necessity for the sort of pics we need for knives, watches, small stuff?
 
Originally posted by JohnG
Do you think a macro feature is a necessity for the sort of pics we need for knives, watches, small stuff?
Click to expand...

Most digicams have a macro feature - some get closer than others - but most are adequate for knives.

Even if the knives don't actually fill the frame - as long as they take up about something like 20% of the area - one can crop and still get a size that's fairly respectable.

Hint - this is a good case where one should use the LCD screen to frame and preview the shot.

However a real cheap way of getting digital images is to invest in a flatbed scanner they can be as cheap as $30 - anything that's 600dpi true optical resolution with at least 36-bit color is going to be much more than adequate -

Although one would think the scans are only for flat paper stuff - they have surprisingly good depth of field - so knives are actually very well produced.

Hope that helped some.
 
Vincent--thanks for the tips. Do you think a macro feature is a necessity for the sort of pics we need for knives, watches, small stuff?
Click to expand...

It really depends on the camera. I started out way back when with a 1.3mp Olympus. For knives the macro was an absolute must. The problem with that was if the knife was to big, like a large bowie, then the camera was to far away and the macro was pretty touchy about distance. But more smaller knives it did a very good job.

My next camera was a 2.1mp Kodak. Same thing, the macro was needed and would do larger knives a bit better than the Olympus, but not much. Also it color balance stinks.

My current camera is a 5mp Olympus C-5050Z. This camera does it all. After much practice with it, I discovered I rarely need to use the macro. For the most part, I can set the knife down and keep the camera a few feet away which makes it far easier to keep from getting unwanted shadows or reflections of yourself on the knife. Then I use its optical zoom to go in on the knife and get a super crisp and clear shot of the knife. The camera also has what they call a "super macro" meant for extreme close-ups which can be a close as 1 inch. With this mode I am able to shoot something such as the word Spyderco as they stamp it on their blades and it will take up the entire computer screen with perfect detail, really amazing.

As for scanners, they can be fairly easy to use, but depth is not a given in them. The one I had (a real cheapy) I got because of the scans James Mattis used to show. Turns out my scanner had no depth and the only thing in focus was only what was actually touching the glass surface. Anything above it (like the blade) was just a blurry mess. So scanners will work, just make sure and check with the people here that use them with good results and find out what they use.
 
@ 5Mp is a fabulous camera - for now.

However let's get things into context.....

For a photo on this (web) forum about 400x300 pixels is probably average and adequate - a 600x450 pixel image would be LARGE here.

A 5Mp digicam would be 2560x1960pixels in its native mode.

So 400x300 is some 2.4% of the picture area.....

Even a large 600x450 is only 5.4% the total picture area.

Now one should have some margin of error for better composition and cropping - but that is.........

Even a 2Mp digicam (1600x1200) has more than enough room to spare -

400x300 is 6.25% of the area
600x450 is 14%

So unless one needs to PRINT the image almost any digicam on the market with at least 2Mp is going to be OK for the web...... with or withOUT "Macro" mode.

For prints one should aim for 300ppi (pixels/inch) for smaller sized prints like 6x4 - a 2Mp can just do 5.3"x4" at 300ppi - so a good adequate Macro mode becomes essential.

A 5Mp would be even better, since it is capable of 8.5"x6.5" prints at 300ppi - so it has 2.6x the area of the 2Mp to play with for 6x4 size - so conversely the macro facility is not quite as critical....

So the general advice is to get a reputable named 2Mp digicam (with macro - which most of them have) with optical zoom - as it is more than adequate for web/e-mail images and still can produce "true photo quality" 6x4 prints - and just acceptable 10x8 prints....... and they are now Cheap enough - wheras 5Mp is still up there at the Bleeding edge and even at lowball discounts a 5Mp is going cost at least $600..... vs. the $200 for a quality 2Mp which probably will fulfill a lot of people's general needs -
including mine
(for now :D :D :D )
 
Just so im not mis-understood, Im not saying a 2.1mp is not good enough for the web. In fact a 1.3 is good enough as well. In my photo album is a damascus Carson f4 that belongs to a friend of mine. I photographed it with the 1.3mp. My main purpose for the post was to attempt to answer his question as to whether a macro was needed or not. I was mainly trying to explain that it really does depend on the camera. Everything else in the post was mainly because I tend to be a wind-bag when I start typing :p
 
there is no misunderstanding.....

In no way was my post meant to be a criticism of you,
or your (great) choice of the Oly C-5050.

In fact I really appreciate the report about its great macro facility.

I hope my post was only making it clear for web/e-mail usage digicams have been adequate for a LONG time - but to get photo quality prints Bigger is better - for now - 5mp will give more margin -
but 2Mp - which are cheap now - are just good enough for most people's usage for both prints and web use.

I'll probably post something on scanners -
so I am also grateful for the input that not all scanners have good depth-of-field.

peace
:)
 
just fyi
2.1mp effective (for the sony f505v) is good enough to give me hiquality 5R shots with no pixellation (developed at a print shop, not printed via computer)
8R, well, that's another story
nice pics, but SOME pixellation
still doable
i imagine 5mp will be great for photos
1.3mp is good enough for superb 640x480 pics
 
I reckon we get carried away with megapixels. I've seen some marveous prints blown up from a 2MP camera. I'm using a 4MP lieca at the moment. What it lacks in resulotion compared to the Nikons etc it more than makes up for in speed, lens clarity and lack of shutter delay. So I have a better chance of getting the shot when it appears. It does have tempermantal exposure metering however which can get a bit tricky.

When I look at photo websites it seems to me that the people who are posting the most impressive shots don't just understand the camera, but understand how to 'photoshop' the image well to achieve the maximum size and clarity from the minimum file size.

All in all I'm crazy about digital, it's rekindled my passion for photography. Love the immediate results, love the low ongoing costs, love not breathing stinky chemicals.
 
I'm of the mindset that it's better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. I made do with a 2Mp camera for years, and now that I have a 5Mp one, I'm thanking my ancestors that I upgraded.

Granted, I do a lot of product photos and print photo's for the shop, but it's a lot easier to make a huge image look better small, than a small image look better when enlarged.

Kevin
 
that's true
but when you're trying to resize a 2xxx by 1xxxx image down to 640x480, it tends to look very squashed
i avoid this by considering my applications
if i KNOW that that picture is going to be resized to a small size suitable for the web, i go for 1024x768, easier to handle
 
Originally posted by DEA
that's true
but when you're trying to resize a 2xxx by 1xxxx image down to 640x480, it tends to look very squashed
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you......

An image will look squash when resized, only if one does not preserve the aspect ratio or proportions.

Resizing is NOT dependent on the scaling factor. ie: getting to 640x480 from 2560x1920 should have the exact same aspect ratio/proportions as going from 1600x1200 or 1048x786

If your "2xxx by 1xxxx" was, say - 2000x1000, then you actually have a 2:1 aspect ratio, so resizing it to 640x480 is actually "squashing" it to 4:3.

Most digicams are 4:3 aspect ratio/proportions - but there are some that have the option of 3:2 - which is the same as 35mm film -
resizing a 3:2 aspect ratio photo to 640x480 will be squashing one of the dimensions of the photo -
it should be resized to 720x480 or 640x427 which preserves the 3:2 aspect ratio.
 
i understand what you mean
but when i say it looks squashed, it's from past experience WHEN maintaining aspect ratio
you can do a little experiment
try to resize a 1024x768 image to say, 100x75
it just looks very crowded
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top