Other Equipment - Digital Cameras Users Reviews

  • Thread starter Thread starter junplugged
  • Start date Start date
junplugged

junplugged

Taking the slow road
We're all on-line, a lot of us have web sites and email digital pics, so I figure a lot of us have Digital Cameras.

Some of our Digital Cameras share the same media as our DAW's so I figure people here should know a lot about Digital Cameras.

Handy for publicity, cd covers, cd labels, web pages, posting stuff here on HRBBS.

I'll start. I have a Sony Mavica from 1998. It was about $900. Uses standard floppies. 3 1/2 1.44 mb. That's not much memory. It has 3 resolutions/sizes 320 for email mode, 640 for low and 1028 for high. Then there's quality and I always put it on High.

I get 5 shots on a floppy in high res high Q if they contain the most data in them. I get about 24 shots in 640 hi Q. Fewer if I use email mode - email mode just creates a folder/directory off the root of the floppy and in it is COPIES of whatever you shot but they are 320 size.

3x optical no digital zoom. Optical is all that counts anyway, very helpful.

I have a useless cf I got for my mr8. It's 256 mb so I'm now looking for a dig cam that uses cf.

I see a Cannon for $150, the A10. Looks good, but need info.

Anyone have info on models that are current, or any other relevent info? Thanks. -j.
 
Ok, it's not about recording, but I have an HP Photosmart 850.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/hp850.html

4.0 MP
8X Fuji optical zoom (37-300mm)
Shutter speed 16 to 1/2000 seconds
2" color LCD
Video capture
Sound capture
Secure digital media
SLR-like operation
Powered by AA batteies
Automatic USB download

Price $499

Sweet.
 
I have a Sony 5 megapixel camera at work (DSCF707) that is absolutely unbelieveable. It has a 5x optical zoom with X2 digital zoom. I'm not kidding when I say it takes film photo quality pics. Last year it was $990. Now it's $799. I've done a lot of playing around with it and this is what I've come up with. The two most important things for picture quality are quality of the lens (this one has a Carl Zeiss lense) and total pixel size. I've used this camera a lot to figure out what I can "afford" while still getting excellent photo quality. Since very few of us can afford a 5 megapixel camera I shot a series of pics at different resolutions to determine at what point the quality dramatically improves. I don't remember the X by X size (like your computer monitor) but I do know it was at 3.2 megapixels. Forget the digital zoom. You're just blurring the dots. Get the highest optical zoom you can afford. If I had the money right now for photo stuff (versus recording stuff) I would be seriously looking at the Olympus C740UZ. It's a 3.2 megapixel camera with a 10x optical zoom. I forget who makes the glass but Olympus usually has pretty good optics. It's $499. Just my 2 cents worth.

DD
 
For covers and publicity stuff, rent a Mamiya RZ67 with a metered prism viewfinder, and a grid screen, so you can compose to square format if necessary. The rotating back on the RZ67 is very convenient, and the lenses are world class. Try the 110 mm f 2.8 to start.

Or. . . if you like to shoot fast, in 35mm use any Canon EOS with your choice of L series lens. They're all good.

Then, get your film scanned so you can work on it in PS or other editing/web/print publishing program.

Presentation counts for a lot, in music and the visual arts.

MP
 
Wow, those sound like really 'pro' options. Since this is 'home' recording.com, I wonder if folks here are into the home digital category area.

I'm kinda looking for the lower end of stuff. From what I've seen, it's a lot better on the cheap side that when I got my first digi cam 4 years a go or so.

For my $900 I can get as much or better for only $150 !

The trouble is that there are sooo many cameras now, it's hard to figure. Under $300 can get some good stuff it seems.

I shot a roll of 35mm film and I didn't even get 1 shot that was good. I often get 1 or 2 that are good for enlarging, framing, maybe selling. But for web work and lower quality coming from home printers, digital will do.

The other thing about scanning is that I find that that's a whole area to itself. I've scanned high quality stuff that ended up looking like crap.

$10 for developing $5 for film and I get squat x 50 then a scanner that I have to learn to use and interface software w/ a learning curve, and color match the monitor and printer and scanner... been only half way there, too much unless I'm going pro or have no other options.

Thanks for all the commens so far. :)
 
I've got a canon a40 that I think is a great $$/performance balance (at around $225). In general canon makes excellent cameras.
 
Yeah I've got a Canon A40 at home. It takes really good closeup photo's but the flash doesn't have any range at all. Still it was the most bang for the buck considered the price. That damn Sony 5 megapixel camera at work really spoiled me though!!

DD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top