Beginner's Choice of Digital Camera

Page 2 of 3  
wrote:

My Canon software has become quite a bit more intrusive with each subsequent update :-(
HP and Fuji are dreadful. Nikon not too bad.
Just attaching the camera as a USB drive is definitely the preferable route to follow to avoid all of the crapola. It wasn't always an option with the older digital cameras but it's pretty much universal today, thank goodness.
--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 6, 5:18 pm, snipped-for-privacy@malch.com (Malcolm Hoar) wrote:

I bought a Panasonic 6mp online last year for $150 (BestBuy). 6X optical and image stabilization. (keep in-mind 6X sticks-out further) Had a Vivitar before-that ate batteries for breakfast.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No... I'm saying you can hook the camera itself up with the card installed in it, and XP will have no trouble dealing with it. The camera comes with a USB cable, and that is ALL you need. Just plug it in and turn on the camera. XP will take care of everything. The camera maker's software doesn't ever get taken out of the shrink wrap.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Same here. I've never used a camera manufacturer's software to move/copy pics from camera to computer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't either but there are some advantages. Some products incorporate some nifty features including the ability to easily/quickly tag the images as they're transferred.
--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

Agreed. The SD card can be treated as an extra drive and things work quite well. It's when you try to hook up the camera directly to the computer that the camera maker's software comes into play.
Plus, HP (for one) tries to bundle in all sorts of crapware to crop/adjust/color/copy/print/hose down with turtle repellant that the uninitiated may be encouraged to load on the computer (to his detriment).
The consensus is that Canon's software isn't bad at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"HeyBub" wrote

Naw, if I am right and it's the same unit I have, when you plug it in to the USB port, XP thinks it just gained a removable hard-drive. You can just copy stuff over from it.
I know it doesnt have all the fancy features, but this one is an easy beginner type which works well for it's price. I do not work for Canon or anything, just a happy owner. There were some cheaper ones but being camera 'dumb' most were just too hard to figure out. The price was right and the ease was right. It can also do a sort of moving picture video and i think it can trap sound as well but I havent played with that feature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've -got- the software that came with my HP 4215 printer/etc installed. It's not useless, but it has been damned problematical.
I'm still running Win 2000, swore off OS's that report hardware profiles, etc years ago. I figger I'll have to install the vendor's (i.e. Canon) software or a freeware/shareware product (if available).
HP and GE and any cheapo cam vendors are currently not in my sights.
Thx. Peetie
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
check the red tag specials at walmart. I just bought a nikon coolpix L4 for $75.
s

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's a pretty basic camera but that was great deal at $75!
--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ya, my wife wanted one that she could put in her pocket.
s
Gary Player. |

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peetie Wheatstraw wrote:

Following are three URLs of reviews for that exact camera:
http://tinyurl.com/2xzxq4 http://tinyurl.com/22nqbp http://tinyurl.com/28djq8
Happy reading,
Don
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...

Very helpful.
Thanks, Peetie
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Peetie Wheatstraw" wrote

Hey Peetie, did you get my note? I seem the only one who actually has one of them and sent you a rundown on them. Just wondering as you repied to many others but i didnt see any questions to the only one who owns one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Per below? Got it.

Did you unpack it? It is indeed an A560? Even if it's an A550 or whatever, there's some good info here.

Check.
Some say the Canon SD1000 is better. Comes with recharger, etc. Features are -very- similar. Costs maybe $40 more, mostly it's just smaller. I think I'll stick with the A560, but I'll see how it fits in my hand, etc before pucrhasing.

Was news to me. Thanks.

I think 1 gb SD cards are down to $10-$15, no sweat.

Didn't think of that. Guess it makes sense, 'tho.

I can look into that after I've got/fiddled the cam.

Good to know.
I'll just let it eat regular batteries for a couple-3 pairs, whilst I'm getting used to the cam.
Much Thanks, Peetie
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Peetie Wheatstraw" wrote

Ok sorry, I must have missed your reply in the blizzard of spam.

It's the same one. Unpacked it now. Took a bit to find it.

That one may be better. I figured you have the Sears gift card so are limited to what they have. If they have both, try them out?

I see others tell you that you'll need a memory card too. It suprized me when I got mine that we needed to run back next day to get a card. As I was usng it overseas in foriegn ports (am Navy, was stationed in Japan and on the high seas 9 months of the year), I neede to be able to snap away for hours on end and then store the pics.

Yup. Figure that will work for you. You wont often be 3-4 days away from a computer where you can crossload them off so that will work. You have to get the type for that camera but they are common ones.

It takes 2 AA's so the 'recharger' part of the other unit isnt workable here.

Trying to remmember but i think I would get a day's use per set of batteries.

Ok! You won't have any expense in this unit other than batteries and 3 sets will work for a time to let you see how they last for you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I bought a Panasonic Lumix. Two or three weeks ago. A couple thoughts.
Megapixels. More means sharper pictures. Memory space. Mine came with 1 GB, though I can buy 1 GB or 2GB cards with it. GB is giga bytes, which is a thousand megabytes. Or, a million kilobytes.
My new camera will shoot small (about 150 KB) medium, large, or huge pictures. The huge ones about 3.5 mb of storage space on the disk. I shoot low resolution small pictures nearly all the time.
The local stores will make prints for me, from my digital memory card. Just plug it into their machine, touch the screen, and pick up the prints in a couple days. Or, one hour service for more money.
They provided a cable, I can use Windows Explorer to move my pictures onto my hard drive, and then burn them to CD for backup.
In the two week or so I've had the camera, I've taken over a thousand pictures. The camera also takes silent movie clips. It also does closeup, and telephoto. Flash can be turned on or off. I can review the pictures in the small TV screen in the back. I'm thrilled beyond all expectation.
And it was on sale for a hudred bucks. Best C-note I've ever spent in my entire life.
--

Christopher A. Young;
.
.

"Peetie Wheatstraw" < snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I respectfully disagree. Or, at least, that is a misleading simplification of how megapixels work.
Assuming that no cropping of the image is done, and you print the photo no larger than 8x10, 3-4 megapixels is sufficient.
One would have to enlarge a photo to WALL POSTER-size to notice the difference between 4 MP and 7 MP.
There ARE, however, advantages to more megapixels. Viewed on all but the HUGEST computer display or printed to 4x6, there is NO visible difference between the same shot taken by a 4 MP vs 7 MP camera.
More megapixels can also be considered "digital zoom". That is, you can zoom-in to just a portion of the frame and save the photo there. This process is accomplished by "shedding" pixels from outside the crop area.
7.1 megpixels is MORE than enough for the casual snapshooter.

The Canon model queried by the OP comes with a 16 MB (megabyte) card. That is barely large enough to have fun the moment the box is opened before the shutterbug is looking for a bigger card. A 1gb card is plenty. A 2gb might be a little better. They have gotten so cheap lately that buying either one shouldn't "hurt" too badly.

That is probably not a good idea. If the original photo is of a "small" size, both in JPEG compression and "fine-ness", it can never be improved. This is particularly important when one captures The Photo of a Lifetime or some, other special occasion where enlarged prints are a possibility.
Using a computer and basic software, a large-size photo can be easily downsized for emailing or other purposes where a high-resolution photo is not required. If it starts out low-res, there's no making it better.
Disk space has become almost cheap, too. Shoot your photos at the highest resolution and, if the disk fills-up, off-load the files to a spare drive and start over.

The OP's queried camera takes movies up to 60 fps (frames-per-second) with sound (probably monaural).
For B&H's $128 it sounds like a great camera.
--
:)
JR

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I respectfully disagree. Or, at least, that is a misleading simplification of how megapixels work.
CY: OK, lets look at th at.
Assuming that no cropping of the image is done, and you print the photo no larger than 8x10, 3-4 megapixels is sufficient.
CY: The manual that came with mine said that different picture sizes (in terms of kb or mb) relate to different print sizes. I can choose 300 kb, up to 7 mb, I think it is. As I undertand, megapixels relates to the graininess of the image. Graininess is a very old term, from the black and white film days.
One would have to enlarge a photo to WALL POSTER-size to notice the difference between 4 MP and 7 MP.
CY: I'll take you word on that.
There ARE, however, advantages to more megapixels. Viewed on all but the HUGEST computer display or printed to 4x6, there is NO visible difference between the same shot taken by a 4 MP vs 7 MP camera.
CY: You haven't menitoned the KB and MB yet.
More megapixels can also be considered "digital zoom". That is, you can zoom-in to just a portion of the frame and save the photo there. This process is accomplished by "shedding" pixels from outside the crop area.
CY: You havn't mentioned KB and MB yet.
7.1 megpixels is MORE than enough for the casual snapshooter.
CY: That sounds reasonable.

The Canon model queried by the OP comes with a 16 MB (megabyte) card. That is barely large enough to have fun the moment the box is opened before the shutterbug is looking for a bigger card. A 1gb card is plenty. A 2gb might be a little better. They have gotten so cheap lately that buying either one shouldn't "hurt" too badly.
CY: My 2 GB card was $15 on Black Friday. I shoulda bought two of them.

That is probably not a good idea. If the original photo is of a "small" size, both in JPEG compression and "fine-ness", it can never be improved. This is particularly important when one captures The Photo of a Lifetime or some, other special occasion where enlarged prints are a possibility.
CY: I got a couple 8 x 10 from a low KB picture, and it was usable.
Using a computer and basic software, a large-size photo can be easily downsized for emailing or other purposes where a high-resolution photo is not required. If it starts out low-res, there's no making it better.
CY: Agreed. Though, most of the pics I'm taking aren't Florida vacation or something like that.
Disk space has become almost cheap, too. Shoot your photos at the highest resolution and, if the disk fills-up, off-load the files to a spare drive and start over.
CY: Which is fine, when you have the drive space for 7 MB frames. I'm working with a small camera, and a small computer drive. For me, 120 to 150 KB per frame is just fine. I can also email them without overloading the person on the other end.

The OP's queried camera takes movies up to 60 fps (frames-per-second) with sound (probably monaural).
For B&H's $128 it sounds like a great camera.
--
:)
JR



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 09:13:19 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"

I just read this and wanted to comment even if it is totally off topic. My Olympus which I got about 3 years ago suddenly just died. It was a 3MP, and it took excellent pictures. I am not endorsing Olympus though, because I have owned 4 of their dig. cameras and all of them seem to just suddenly die after a few years, and I do keep my cameras in a case and take good care of them. I also do not take very many pictures. I actually would have not bought that last Olympus because of the bad luck I had with their cameras, but got it as a gift.
Anyhow, that 3MP took great pictures as long as the camera was alive.
A couple weeks ago I bought a new HP camera. I also had to buy a new card for it. because my older cards are no longer used (smart media). This new camera is a 6.2MP. I am extremely dissatisfied with this camera, and intend to return it next week. 1. The pictures are all grainy, and just not clear and crisp like the ones I got on my older camera. 2. This camera takes 2 AA batteries. I have gotten at most, 20 pictures from a pair of new alkaline batteries. My Olympus would take hundreds of pictures from 4 AA batteries. (and I tried a different brand of battery). 3. It has no viewfinder. Ya. it has the digital screen, but I've never owned a camera without a viewfinder and taking pictures at arms length is just uncomfortable is not weird.
So I have more than twice the MPs I had on my last camera, and the pictures are terrible in comparison. I hate evereything about this new camera, which is a HP M547. I'm now trying to decide if after I return this one, if I should get another brand, or just buy a used Olympus like the one I had before and hope it lasts awhile. For one thing, it seems that there are hardly any brands that have viewfinders these days. Whoever came up with that assenine idea is really an idiot.
New is not always better !
Gary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.