 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Point & Shoot Cameras / August 2005need opinion re first digital camera
Hi all, I've been looking for the last few months for a digital camera in stores and read tons and tons of reviews, and now am confused as to what I should get. I want a camera with at least a 1.8" LCD and a clear viewfinder that is not blurry (to me at least). I mainly want a camera for family indoor shots and scenery when I go somewhere . But many will be indoors, so I want to try to get one with not much red eye, though I notice many seem to have that problem. I look at many reviews and photo samples on Steves site and dresource.com. (I like those two sites the best, but also have been to depreview.com.) I know you can take red eye out with software, but I would prefer if possible to try to get a camera that doesn't have a lot of red eye. I like pictures that turn out clear and sharp. A 3.2 MP is ok for me, as I don't want to pay much more than $250.00 US or under. I am in Canada, but just to give you an idea of price. Here's what I was considering: Canon A75 or A85, but needing 4 batteries kind of puts me off. I would prefer 2 batteries. Canon have recently brought out two new cameras, the A510- 3 MP and the A520 - 4 MP which have two batteries and they take SD memory cards. I was thinking of buying one of them, but the reviews on all the sites I looked at, said they had a lot of red eye, and were not as good as A75 and A85. Kodak CX 7530, is a good price right now, and I like the look of Kodak DX 7440, which is about $100.00 more. Or Olympus D 580, also a good price camera. The samples on dresource.com were good of the Olympus D580, and very little redeye on indoor photo on the site, but said the flash was weak unless taking small groups, but that might not be a big problem for me. Any and all comments or personal experiences with any of these cameras would be much appreciated. Cathy > Hi all, > I've been looking for the last few months for a digital camera in stores > and read tons and tons of reviews, and now am confused as to what I > should get. A guy at work just bought an Olympus C-755 for $250 at Fry's (or maybe he got it through Outpost.com). 4Mp, 10x optical zoom, the flash works fine, and has the capability of taking an aftermarket flash unit, red-eye reduction mode, many preset modes (outdoor, portrait, low light, action, etc.), "manual" mode for adjusting shutter speed, aperture, ISO... delay timer (useful for including one's self in the picture if no one else is around), movie mode, noise reduction, and more. It is my first digital cam and I like it a lot. a bit bulky because of the 10x optical zoom lens, and it take 4 batteries, which you said you didn't like. However, you can get a set of NiMH batteries with charger for like $10 at Wal-Mart (here in California), so I always keep a spare set handy. That price is a steal, IMO. If you want something that fits into your pocket, however, this one is not the way to go. And it only takes xD flash, which is expensive. > > Hi all, > > I've been looking for the last few months for a digital camera in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > something that fits into your pocket, however, this one is not the way > to go. And it only takes xD flash, which is expensive. I'm in Toronto, Canada and have never seen Olympus C-755 advertised here. We don't get all the models you get in the US and many digital cameras here, cost more than in the US, especially when they are newly out. You have more competition so brings the prices down. You also have more variety. But cameras can quite often be found here on sale at good prices. You just have to keep looking. I might see the Olympus model you mention, especially if its new. I didn't want 4 batteries if possible, but I don't rule it out completely. The Canon A75 sells here for a good price so I am considering it. Thanks. Cathy For some more information about the CanonA75 look also in the reactions at "How many pixels" > > > Hi all, > > > I've been looking for the last few months for a digital camera in [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Cathy >But many will be indoors, so I want to try to get one with not much red >eye, though I notice many seem to have that problem. I look at many They all have red-eye problems. There are only three ways around red-eye: 1. Don't use a flash. (This is my preferred method.) 2. Use a flash far enough away from the lens. (You can't usually do this with P&S cameras, unless you use a slave, and that takes a lot of work.) 3. Fix the red-eye after you take the picture. (I've found that a #2 pencil is perfect for coloring out red-eye.) -Joel ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >But many will be indoors, so I want to try to get one with not much red > >eye, though I notice many seem to have that problem. I look at many > > They all have red-eye problems. There are only three ways around red-eye: yes, I know they all have red eye, but some seem to be worse than others in that regard. > 1. Don't use a flash. (This is my preferred method.) > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 3. Fix the red-eye after you take the picture. (I've found that a #2 > pencil is perfect for coloring out red-eye.) It would seem to me that No.2 or 3 is the best choice. I can't see that using a pencil would be too good an option, but thats just my opinion. I want to mainly use a digital camera for getting stills printed and very occasionally to send email attachment. Thanks. Cathy > "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel@exc.com> wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > opinion. I want to mainly use a digital camera for getting stills > printed and very occasionally to send email attachment. Future Shop has HP M407 4.1 Mp for C$199.99 after mail-in rebate - I bought one from Staples at Christmas and am quite satisfied with it. I do most of my photo cropping and brightness/contrast adjustment with Irfanview - free, and easy to use. It even removes red eye. I get my 4x6 prints at Wal-Mart for $0.25 each.  SignatureMartin S. > > "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel@exc.com> wrote... > >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Future Shop has HP M407 4.1 Mp for C$199.99 after mail-in rebate - I > bought one from Staples at Christmas and am quite satisfied with it. Are you in Toronto? Its funny you should mention the HP M407. The HP M307 was the very first digital camera I looked at a few months ago It was at Staples. It was the 3 MP version out just before the M407. Both the M307 and M407 are pretty cheap here in Toronto. Around $199.00 Can. I have never seen them with a rebate, though I guess it was there when you bought yours. I've looked for reviews for both those cameras a few times in the last few months, but only recently saw one for the M407 and it seemed to give mixed opinions. And as I mentioned, I mainly want a digital camera for 4X 6 prints, many being indoors, though some outside as well. How is red eye in the M407 for indoor flash shots? some smaller cameras seem to have weak flashes for indoors unless quite a small room and small group. It seems that the HP M307 and M407 seems to have been largely ignored by camera reviewers as I would have liked to see some screen shots of the photo quality, especially an indoor shot of someone. Because of not being able to see any reviews, I kind of forgot about the M307/M407 till you reminded me about it now. I know there is also M607 and M707, and they are reasonable prices as well, but with the M607, I notice HP went back to a 1.5" LCD which is too small for me. Most are coming out with bigger LCD's now. I also notice that Canon A75 and A85 are getting quite a lot cheaper, though not as cheap as the HP M407. > I do most of my photo cropping and brightness/contrast adjustment with > Irfanview - free, and easy to use. It even removes red eye. I get my > 4x6 prints at Wal-Mart for $0.25 each. Is the .25 cents Canadian or US $ ? :) I have used Irfanview for a long time, mainly for scanning 4X6 photos. Its a very good program. My 35 mm camera doesn' have a red eye problem so never noticed that feature on Irfanview. But your comment about Irfanview gives me more hope not to worry so much about red eye. Any other information you might want to offer on what kind of shots you have taken on the M407 would be appreciated. Did you get the dock with your camera? Is the video any good? Cathy > "MartinS" <me@my.place> wrote... >> > "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel@exc.com> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > Cathy I've also wondered why HP cameras don't seem to get much of a mention. Sorry I can't give you a great deal of help, as I haven't made a whole lot of use of it yet - mostly indoor baby photos. I try to use bright room light and avoid the flash; the flash is quite close to the lens. I didn't buy the dock - I find the USB cable is fine, and I use a separate charger for NiMH batteries. It's compact and takes 2xAAs, but it uses them up fairly quickly. I haven't tried the video feature, as I also have a digital video camera. I bought the 407 because it seemed a good bargain for a 4Mp with 3x optical zoom. I previously bought an HP 318 3 or 4 years ago - C$300 for 2Mp and only 2x digital zoom. The Wal-Mart Canada digital photo service is pretty good; $0.25 for 4x6, $0.99 for 5x7 (even cheaper at Sam's Club). You can upload your photos to the website, or take them into the store on your memory card or a CD-R/RW. BTW, I'm about 100km from Toronto. SignatureMartin S. <snip> > I've also wondered why HP cameras don't seem to get much of a mention. > > Sorry I can't give you a great deal of help, as I haven't made a whole > lot of use of it yet - mostly indoor baby photos. I try to use bright > room light and avoid the flash; the flash is quite close to the lens. Did your baby have red eye? :) I guess with a baby, you don't want to use the flash much. My kids never liked the flash going off. Actually, I don't like it myself. If you have enough light you don't need the flash, but I seem to always need it for indoors. I thought I read that its better not to have the flash too close to the lens. > I didn't buy the dock - I find the USB cable is fine, and I use a > separate charger for NiMH batteries. Thats probably the best way. You don't really need the dock. I use Win 98SE and have a separate partition for Win 2000 Pro. What OS do you use? It's compact and takes 2xAAs, but > it uses them up fairly quickly. I haven't tried the video feature, as I > also have a digital video camera. I bought the 407 because it seemed a > good bargain for a 4Mp with 3x optical zoom. I previously bought an HP > 318 3 or 4 years ago - C$300 for 2Mp and only 2x digital zoom. The HP 307 and M407 are selling in Toronto at around $200.00 Can. so very cheap prices as long as they take good photos of course. If I was getting any of those, I would get the M407 as it is very similar to the M307, only its 4 MP's. So I am swayed back to considering it again. How do the pictures turn out? are they clear and sharp, even the indoor ones? > The Wal-Mart Canada digital photo service is pretty good; $0.25 for > 4x6, $0.99 for 5x7 (even cheaper at Sam's Club). You can upload your > photos to the website, or take them into the store on your memory card > or a CD-R/RW. BTW, I'm about 100km from Toronto. I have a Walmart near me where I sometimes make 4X6 prints from my 35 mm. There is no Sams club near me. Cathy > "MartinS" <me@my.place> wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > need the flash, but I seem to always need it for indoors. I thought > I read that its better not to have the flash too close to the lens. I've had red eye on a couple of closeups (my grandson, BTW). >> I didn't buy the dock - I find the USB cable is fine, and I use a >> separate charger for NiMH batteries. > > Thats probably the best way. You don't really need the dock. I use > Win 98SE and have a separate partition for Win 2000 Pro. What OS do > you use? Recently upgraded to WinXP Pro - much more stable than 98. > It's compact and takes 2xAAs, but >> it uses them up fairly quickly. I haven't tried the video feature, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > again. How do the pictures turn out? are they clear and sharp, even > the indoor ones? Plenty good enough for 4x6, as long as the focus is good to start with. I haven't done any direct comparison with other cameras. >> The Wal-Mart Canada digital photo service is pretty good; $0.25 for >> 4x6, $0.99 for 5x7 (even cheaper at Sam's Club). You can upload [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I have a Walmart near me where I sometimes make 4X6 prints from my > 35 mm. There is no Sams club near me. Good luck! SignatureMartin S. >> "MartinS" <me@my.place> wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> I have a Walmart near me where I sometimes make 4X6 prints from my >> 35 mm. There is no Sams club near me. Slightly off-topic: my wife went to a party and handed out a half-dozen one-time-use cameras. Collected and submitted to Costco for develop/print, they each yielded 27 or 28 images. We requested two each 5x7 prints. Cost per envelope was $6.99 = ~ $ 0.13 per 5x7 print. My intuitive estimate is that about half were "good" party pictures, and that very few were not worth looking at. Not all photography is necessarily high-tech. SignatureFrank ess > >> "MartinS" <me@my.place> wrote... > >> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Not all photography is necessarily high-tech. Frank, that is quite true. A while back, a friend showed me some pics of their new house, mostly taken outside, and the pics were beautiful. Some of the nicest photos I've ever seen. I was amazed at the quality and great colors. I thought she must have taken them with some expensive camera and asked her what kind of camera she had. I thought she was kidding when she said it was a Fuji one time use camera. Cathy >Hi all, >I've been looking for the last few months for a digital camera in stores >and read tons and tons of reviews, and now am confused as to what I >should get. Check out the Pentax Optio line. (I have no connection with Pentax other than being a user since 1970.) Gary J Sibio garysibio@earthlink.net http://home.earthlink.net/~garysibio/ There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't. > >Hi all, > >I've been looking for the last few months for a digital camera in stores [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Check out the Pentax Optio line. (I have no connection with Pentax > other than being a user since 1970.) Thanks. I will check it out. Cathy The Panasonic fx7 is ok for you. Hallo, Stellario (from Italy). > Hi all, > I've been looking for the last few months for a digital camera in stores [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > all the sites I looked at, said they had a lot of red eye, and were not > as good as A75 and A85. The difference in weight and bulk won't be much, but it may be enough to matter to you. And depending on other differences between the two cameras, there may not even be a significant difference at all. I'd be much more concerned with the number of shots you can take -- will an A85 that uses four AAs and a CF card let you take more shots before reloading than an A520 that uses only two AAs and sn SD card? (I don't know the answer, but I'm sure someone here does. Or you can check one of the several good Websites and magazines that do their own reviews.) > Kodak CX 7530, is a good price right now, and I like the look of Kodak > DX 7440, which is about $100.00 more. Is the appearance of the DX 7440 (and any difference in features, of course) worth the extra money to you? I know the way a camera looks shouldn't matter all that much as long as it takes pictures that look good, but it does to me too -- I want a camera that *looks* like serious equipment, even if it isn't any more "serious" than one that looks like a toy. > Or Olympus D 580, also a good price camera. The samples on dresource.com > were good of the Olympus D580, and very little redeye on indoor photo on > the site, but said the flash was weak unless taking small groups, but > that might not be a big problem for me. Redeye is an annoyance, but it's usually easy to fix with software before you begin printing -- except for cats and other creatures with slit-shaped irises. If you don't mind an extra step, just about any camera should work for you. (I photograph my cat using a Canon A20 in "red-eye reduction" flash mode -- works well for me.) > Any and all comments or personal experiences with any of these cameras > would be much appreciated. I'm a longtime fan of the Canon A-series, having begun with an A20 that I still use more often than I care to admit. It's only 2 megapixels; but the controls are right where my fingers expect them to be, it takes lots of sharp photographs on a set of rechargeable AAs, and it doesn't feel like an anchor when I'm carrying it. An ultracompact might might be easier to carry, but I've never found one that was easier to actually use; most are too small for my medium-size hands. Most advanced compacts and DSLRs are capable of taking better pictures, but they're also bigger and heavier -- and I don't need the extra quality for most casual snapshots, which is why I still have the A20 and don't still have the others. Whatever you get, understand that no one camera is ideal and just look for one that come acceptably close to satisfying your criteria. Then go out and enjoy using it, because all the cameras you mentioned are pretty good picture-takers and good values for the money IMHO. SignatureWalter Luffman Medina, TN USA Amateur curmudgeon, equal opportunity annoyer >Here's what I was considering: > >Canon A75 or A85, but needing 4 batteries kind of puts me off. I would >prefer 2 batteries. The A85 is a great camera; the only limitations are the 3X zoom and the 4MP CCD. But for the price (clearance sale item as "last year's model", it's really very good. Don't worry about 4 AA's. Get a MAHA charger and 2300mAH NiMh's. Canon battery life is pretty good. I bought mine as a complement to my DSLR. Here are my first images with it: http://www.conservatory.com/photos/A85/20050426/ So it's not the best camera in the world (nor even the best camera in my bag!) but for the price paid, and for the amount of control it offers, it's just right for me. I greatly prefer CF over SD cards. And more batteries means more battery life. And a little heavier camera is a little easier to hold steady. Cathy, I, too, tend to take mostly indoor portraits. I have played around with my own and friends' Sony's, Kodak's, and Olympus's. The Kodaks (the 7440, for example) gave ridiculous amounts of redeye. The Sony's I've used almost never give me any redeye when I have the redeye reduction feature on. It's great not to have to fix this stuff in software. The Olympus cameras were awful in terms of focus and color. I would highly recommend a Sony in your price range. Any Sony with a Carl-Zeiss lens and 4 mp. Just my two cents, C > Hi all, > I've been looking for the last few months for a digital camera in stores [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Cathy |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.