[Guest]

So I'm looking to purchase a new Kodak Digital Camera...Kodak because I have the easy share printing dock from my wifes camera from a few years back...

There are a few models I am looking at...all close to the same price at local retailer...

Z1285...12 MP with only 5X Zoom $199
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier. … cale=en_US


Z712....7.1 MP with 12X Zoom and Quick Shutter click-to-capture speed (0.26 sec.) $199
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier. … cale=en_US

and
V1003....10.1MP and only $129.....
http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier. … cale=en_US


So I really like the quick shutter, but the smaller chassis would be nice, I think, although the larger camera could be hung around neck for easier access...Is it worth losing a quick shutter for action shots (kids, Ralfan, Sports, etc...) for the 12MP and whimpy zoom?  At Tweetsie this year on the run-bys, I could only get one shot off before it was passed, that really bugged me...My Dad's SLR Nikon is 6.1MP and it's photos are remarkable compared to our current 4.0.....I'm not a photographer, so any opnions are appreciated!

Thanks...gonna buy something before the end of week!

cale

 

[Semper Vaporo]

Personally, I'd go for which ever camera has the shortest delay between photos. There is nothing worse that missing a great shot because you just took one and it takes 30 seconds for it to be processed so you can take another one. The next criteria is how long it takes to actually take the photo after you press the button; some can take 2 to 5 seconds to actually register the image due to some of the automatic functions taking too long. I was taking photos of a garden train and kept getting images of the cars AFTER the locomotive.

 

[Joe Bartolini]

Cale

Last March after some research and a little thought I decided on a few parameters I wanted in an inexpensive point-n-shoot digital camera: uses rechargeable & regular AA batteries. generic SD memory cards, price, >6MP, and as much optical zoom as possible. Then I spent some time on Flickr's Camera Finder pages http://www.flickr.com/cameras/ . For me Camera Finder was a great filtering tool. The number of users, member's reviews and usage charts were great. Since all this was around 12 months ago I have no ideal of which camera I would buy today. Back then I purchased a Canon PowerShot A710is I will be passing the 710 down to my daughter and will most likely purchase a similar camera for my own use. Also shop online for best buy once your have chosen a model. At the time, Amazon had the best price.

For what it is worth: the Canon 710 is easy to use (For home use gadgets I avoid reading reading manuals and usually instruct my 2 kids to read the manuals and to explain to me how to use the gadget.) For the 710, I just set it to auto, aim and shoot. Using the flash does slows everything down.

 

[markoles]

For what its worth,

We recently got the V1003.  MB had extra rewards points and wanted a smaller camera than our DX6490.

While I am still getting used to the smaller V1003, it is a lot easier than the older DX6490.  Picture quality is not as good, but that's to be expected.  The bigger camera only has 4MP, and we also had lots of times where it wouldn't focus as fast as we needed.  So far, the V1003 has not had any problems focusing.  The movies seem to be better as well on the V1003, but that probably because it is newer.

As for recharging, the V1003 has a cable to plug in to the wall.  This recharges the batteries without removing them.  This is also different from the older DX6490 who's batteries have to be removed, and charged on a separate charger.  Not always convinient, but we had a spare battery from a previous Kodak so it was never really a problem. 

Overall, I would say that while I would rate the older camera as better for taking photos that were 'arty', the newer V1003 is just about perfect for getting all the action of a 4 month old and his friends, ranging from 1 year on down to two months. 

Mark

 

[Art]

I have found that in many cameras the speed by which they are able to take a picture has to do with the autofocus. Read if you camera allows continuous focusing or just upon the pressing of the shutter 1/2 the way down. My Cannons are so fast that you think you are using film and my Nikons are so slow unless setup correct that you think you are Matthew Brady taking pics in the Civil War. I also check the speed of the card you are using to capture the data and find it is easy to think that all are created equal but many are not. It costs a bit more to get a card that stores the data quickly but it sure helps. The cache on the camera makes this even easier to accomplish so it is worth looking into.

I really got fed up trying to take train pics with the slower shutter of the Nikon until another railfan showed me how to set it up. The Cannon doesn't have this problem at all and never did.

Art

 

[Semper Vaporo]

Posted By Art on 03/19/2008 3:44 AM
I have found that in many cameras the speed by which they are able to take a picture has to do with the autofocus. Read if you camera allows continuous focusing or just upon the pressing of the shutter 1/2 the way down. My Cannons are so fast that you think you are using film and my Nikons are so slow unless setup correct that you think you are Matthew Brady taking pics in the Civil War. I also check the speed of the card you are using to capture the data and find it is easy to think that all are created equal but many are not. It costs a bit more to get a card that stores the data quickly but it sure helps. The cache on the camera makes this even easier to accomplish so it is worth looking into.

I really got fed up trying to take train pics with the slower shutter of the Nikon until another railfan showed me how to set it up. The Cannon doesn't have this problem at all and never did.

Art


I knew that I can somewhat affect the camera's speed at taking photos by some of the settings on the camera.

The things I have found that can affect the speed of saving the image are: Number of pixels (Resolution), Quality, and Sharpness.  They affect the file size and that affects how fast the file can be written to the memory.  High Rez, High Quality and Super Sharp are slower than VGA Rez, Low Quality, Soft/Blurry settings.

Other settings require computer processing of the image and that takes time to perform, like: Metering, White balance, Simulated ISO film speed, Highlight, Effects, Face tracking, anti-shake, etc.  Some occur while the shutter release is down (you are pressing the button) and some occur during the storing process.

The more things the camera is doing automatically the slower the operation... makes sense to me.


But then you mentioned the data card (or memory chip) has an affect and I didn't believe you... I thought they were all the same clock speed, or if there was any difference at all it would be that a large capacity chip would be slower than a small capacity one.

I have three memory chips; a 32MB that I got (many years ago) when I bought a Panasonic MiniDV (digital video) camera that can take still photos that it stores on a memory chip.  I don't remember what I paid for the chip, but I remember I was hard pressed to pay for the camera and it too. I did not use the photo function of the video camera very often because the images are very grainy and the camera is terribly slow when taking the photos. A couple of years later I decided to get a larger chip just for a trip to the Midwest Old Settler's and Thresher's Reunion and found a 128MB at about $40.00.  I didn't really notice a difference in speed, because the camera had been so terribly slow, I didn't use it much. It was better to take a video and capture single scenes from that using my computer.

Now I have purchased a small digital photo camera (that can take movies!) and at the time I noticed a 2GB chip on sale for $20.00 and could not pass up the quantity at the price and I could keep the other two chips with the video camera.

All the chips are by SanDisk so I assumed they would be similar in operation, reliability, etc.

I just now took several photos of the same thing in my living room using each of the chips and was so surprized by the differences I had to repeat the experiment just to verify that it wasn't some change in lighting or my own immagination...

The built-in memory took an average of 6 seconds to store a photo, but it will only hold 3 images.

The 32MB chip took an average of 25 seconds to store a photo.

The 128MB chip took an average of 10 seconds to store a photo.

The 2GB chip took an average of 3 seconds to store a photo!!!!!!!

ASTOUNDING!

If your camera seems slow, you might want to go buy a new memory chip!

 

[Guest]

Just ordered me a Fujifilm S700...$179.95...seemed to fit the bill pretty well, unfortunately Local Circuit City was outta stock, shipping should place it here in a few days (First of Next Week). Brother in Law has the S5000, older model of the S700 and he loves it. Considered the S8000, but for the bux-had to pass! Another baby coming in July!



S700



Thanks for all the replies, it went a long way to help with the choice!

cale



Hey Charles...The "New" SD UltraII cards seem to work faster for me (2 gig) in my older Kodak

The S700 is working nicely for me...I wish it were a Tad faster, but for less than 180, I ain't complaining!

cale

 

[Paradise]

Posted By Semper Vaporo on 03/18/2008 3:51 PM
Personally, I'd go for which ever camera has the shortest delay between photos. There is nothing worse that missing a great shot because you just took one and it takes 30 seconds for it to be processed so you can take another one. The next criteria is how long it takes to actually take the photo after you press the button; some can take 2 to 5 seconds to actually register the image due to some of the automatic functions taking too long. I was taking photos of a garden train and kept getting images of the cars AFTER the locomotive.


That's why I shoot slow narrow gauge with my digital.
 Then I can run along ahead of the loco to keep in front of it while the camera catches up for the next shot ! /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/w00t.gif

 

[ohioriverrailway]

I thought I'd revive this to see what folks are using for their digital stills and movies. I have a Kodak Z1275 that's a piece of crap and want to replace it. So, what's anyone have that they like -- under the $200 range -- and what do you have that you wish you didn't?? And I'm paarticularly interested in the file format of the movies. The group's collective widsom would be appreciated.

 

[Semper Vaporo]

I have a Radio Shack "Optimus 8.0 Mega Pixels" (Cat No. 16-489).

It ain't bad, but it is a bit slow doing most things most of the time. I probably could do better with it, if I would remember to change the automatic settings to the situation I am in when taking photos or videos. Presently it takes very fine photos if I can compose the shot in my own sweet time, but when taking "action" photos I tend to get the aftermath instead of what I was expecting (Grandson's soccer games come to mind where I got lots of photos of everybody walking away from the great plays!).

Videos are 640x480 .AVI format. I put a 4GB SD memory card in it and I can get about 2000 photos or 45 to 60 miinutes of video (or some combination thereof).

Batteries don't last very long, especially if I do much zooming in and out or any flash photography (and the flash ain't nuttin' to brag about!). It takes two AA Penlights and I use rechargables. I always carry two four-packs in my pockets (trying desparately to keep track of which ones are used and which are fresh!) The batteries also tend to rejuvenate if left to sit for a while and can be used for a few more photos if need be.

The biggest complaint I have is that it doesn't take photos of what I "see"! That may sound silly, but I have been taking photos of the flood aftermath here in C.R. and the photos do not show the piles of debris that I see. (Similar to the old adage that "Photos just don't do it justice!") I was at the Midwest Old Settler's and Thresher's Reunion last month where there were hundreds of steam tractors and gas engines to delight the eye, but the photos of the vehicles all parked together just don't look like what I see with my eyes. I am told this has to do with the "format" of the camera. I first ran into this strange phenomonon when I tried to duplicate old photos of old buildings as they are today. I could not duplicate the images. It was easy to see that the photos were of the same building but the proportions (or "something") is just not right. When I discussed this with a knowledgable professional photographer he said it was because the old camera that took the original photo had a different "format" than what my newer (a 35mm Pentax K1000) camera was.

Maybe, I am used to the 35mm "format" and this new digital camera would do better at duplicating the old photos I was trying to do several years ago.

Anyway, the videos that this camera takes are better than the ones I was getting from my mini-DV Panasonic video camera and the photos are MUCH better than the stills that one would take.

I am pleased with the camera, but need to spend much more time learning how to quickly find the settings that are best for the situation at hand (and then remembering to set them as well as recognize when I need to!)

 

[CCSII]

Great independant website for digital reviews. Look at his "reviews" for the latest and at his "camera dataabase" for most all older cameras. His ten page reviews are in depth for sure but go to the last page of the review for his conclusions and recommendations. I have bought five digital cameras with the help of the sight and he has been on the mark each time.
http://www.dpreview.com/

 

[Curmudgeon]

Just remember:

The "Industry Standard" for things that plug into the socket change faster than VHS and BETA.
Anyone who tells you this is the "new standard" and it won't change may be related to someone we all know.

 

[Semper Vaporo]

That is a nice site.

But it represents one of the problems I, and I suspect many others, have. I think I saw about 21 different manufacturers of cameras, and each one has maybe 30 to 40 different models to choose from, some possibly no longer available and others that were introduced last month but are now totally obsolete.

There were up to 2 or 3 hundred "User reviews" for some of the cameras and they ranged from: "This is a piece of junk!" to "This is the most wonderful camera ever produced!" all for the same brand/model, thus subjecting the reader (me) to having to try to average the comments on each brand/model to make any kind of compareson with the other thousand or so brand/models.

I feel like I am trying to go "in" the only "out" door at a huge rock concert that has just finished and someone told the crowd that there free pot in the parking lot. Remember that old "Bose" speaker advertisement where the fellow is sitting in an easychair and his hair is sticking straight back and tie is blowing back over his shoulder?... evokes a similar vision of what I am experiencing.

Oh dear! Um, I am not complaining or blaming you, CCSII, I am merely expressing my own frustration with the whole situation. I do appreciate your providing the link... it is a good web site!

I do have a question for you though... You say you have purchased 5 digital cameras with the help of the site, but that beggars the question... what was wrong with the first 4 that the site possibly mislead you on? /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/unsure.gif If your house were on fire and you only had time to save one of them, which one would it be? (or would you let them all burn and use the insurance money to get an entirely different one... or maybe buy a Live Steam locomotive instead? :tongue

IF there were fewer brand/models, it would be much easier to make comparesons and possibly select ONE camera to purchase. I, personally, only see the need for just one camera in my life, (not to say that others do not justifiably feel differently about it) so I want one that will, simply, take pictures... but do so with the minimum of fuss yet create perfection in the resultant image (I ain't askin' fer much, now am I? /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/w00t.gif /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/hehe.gif /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif )

I wonder if the manufacturer's have not "shot themselves in the foot" by providing so many models that are so similar as to drive away folk like me that are totally bewildered by the plethora of brands/models? I cannot figure out what is best for my dollar so I spend the dollar on something else entirely.

 

[CCSII]

First off - I ignore the "user" reviews. The main reviews are all detailed and reviewed from the same set of parameters (color accuracy, digital noise and so-forth.) I avoid cameras that are too old to find (difficult to do as models change every year.) I have stuck to canon cameras simply because the better ones consistently get "higly recommended" ratings. I also look carefully and compare the test shots as they are of the same subject matter and allow close scrutiny. You have to do some filtering on your own before you jump in. Do you want point and shoot? Very small, lots of dials and gegaws? Best daylight photos? Fast Flash recarge time? Great low light shots? Cheap Price?You can't get them all but when you narrow down what you are looking for you are really looking at ten or fifteen possibilities.
Secondly - Who said the sight mislead my about my cameras? As a matter of fact I said the reviews were right on the mark each time! The first Canon I bought was an A70 - 3 meg pixels 3x zoom - the last one was a Canon 720is - 8 million pixels 6x zoom image stabilization. The 720is wasn't available when I got the A70 and though the 720is is a better camera by far from the A70... it cost less. The key is that time passed and just like my 24" iMac compared to my first Apple ][ is like comparing my red wagon I had as a child to my beloved 230SL - the times they change.
I have purchase two very technical cameras for myself, four years apart (I love depth of field, bracketing, Macro, theatre photography which needs low light ability, etc.) I bought two cameras for my wife three years apart who doesn't want to be bothered with histograms, she just wants nice well exposed photos with a good range telephoto and now image stabilization! I bought one camera for my eleven year old neice (her first digital, she doesn't need much telephoto but that flash has to work all of the time!)
Go to the Camera Database menu and choose Canon. Look at the first twelve or fifteen cameras. It is obvious that some are photographers dial twiddlers, some go in the backpack of a college student who wants party pics, some are for 11 year old girls. You want "our full review" and many won't have that but that is what you are looking for. Read the last page of the full review and you will get the long and the short of it.
You say you want one camera that will simply take pictures, with minimal fuss yet, and here is the sticking point, create perfection in the resultant image. What image, the one you post on the web that is 640 pixels wide? The one you take with Flash ot you grandson's first Birthday? The one you get printed at 17" x 11" to frame for your wall? The one that stops the action of the valve gear on an engine blowing past you at full throttle? The one you take close up of your pride and joy operating 1:20.3 donkey engine?
If I were to order the "perfect meal" that doesn't say much. Fourth of July backyard, 25th anniversary, Thanksgiving and so on.
At the risk of further muddying the waters here is a second site:
http://www.dcresource.com/
It has been around a long time and has good consistent reviews. Click on "buyer's guide at the top of the page. Jeff lists about fifteen of his favorite cameras in several categories. While remembering that cameras are heavily discounted, look at the cameras in each category (you may begine to see why I stuck with Canon.) It is easy to eliminate the "not simple ones." check out his reviews for the remainder in his least expensive category. If I were to recommend a simple camera (not point and shoot but mostley automatic) I would recommend the Canon (remember I am a Canon person) the Canon A590is. Click on check prices and you will find you could get it on the web (from Abe's Cameras) for about $135 with free shipping. Notice in the brief review on that page it points out strengths and weaknesses.
Good luck and I share your frustrations with the number of models out there!
Charley

 

[CCSII]

Sorry. Quick Reply took out my double carriage returns.

 

[Semper Vaporo]

Posted By CCSII on 09/07/2008 5:27 PM

Secondly - Who said the sight mislead my about my cameras?





Sorry 'bout that! /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/blush.gif That was the first thing that went through my mind when you said the site had recommended the last 5 cameras you purchased... I imagined that it recommended camera A, which you bought and decided you didn't like it, so the site recommended camera B and again you bought it and didn't like it, etc. etc. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/hehe.gif I realize that you may have either purchased for special purpose, or for someone else, or for next-generation improvements, it just read funny the first time.

My brother has purchased many cameras over the last few years, sometimes for specific features and sometimes just to have the latest and greatest (while still on a limited budget!) and he bewilders me with his reasonings. He wanted to know why I bought the one I did, and the only reason was that I had the cash in my pocket (figuratively) when I stumbled upon it on "clearance" while I was shopping for something else.

I used to have a similar problem with calculators... then with computers, but now that I am retired and on a "fixed income" I am pretty much stuck with what I have now. "New" is only purchased when "Old" is no longer working and I have to select something that will fit my "generalist" usage nature... whether calculator, computer, camera or hammer, screwdriver, or shoes, and it must be something that will fit my needs for a long time, even if those needs then have to be curtailed due to budget restrictions.

I have been looking to update my PC for several years now. I go to a web site and pick a computer I can afford, then upgrade it with a better processor, more memory, a bigger hard-drive, certain peripheral interfaces and pretty soon I can't afford it anymore and continue using the old one. If I were really into photography, I bet I would be in the same boat all over again! /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/cry.gif

Again, thanks for the web links. Also, thank you for expressing some of the reasoning behind your purchases... those things are of more use to me than the "its a good/bad camera" type reviews.

 

[CCSII]

Glad if I was any help, that was my intention. Good Luck!

Charley

 

[GrizzlyFlatsFan]

Another good web site to check is Steve's at http://www.steves-digicams.com

You could also go into a 'real' camera store and tell them what you are looking for and what you want to do. This is NOT going to Best Buy or Sears, etc. and looking for help. You would most likely end up paying more than you would get over the 'net, however, a real person would tell you how to set up the camera and show you how to operate it. That could save you a lot of time. You would be paying a little more for the camera, but getting knowledge and help for the difference.

 

[Bill4373]

I have a Fuji E900 with a 1GB card. At .3M setting, I can take 7995 shots; at 9M, just 228 shots. It does require a half-shutter to auto focus. I may have missed some shots but I really like the camera. Don't remember where I bought it... on line someplace.