Beginner's Choice of Digital Camera

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

Reply to
Peetie Wheatstraw
Loading thread data ...

"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.

Reply to
Cshenk

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.

Reply to
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

Reply to
garytrent

Hmmm, Higher MP tends to have noise problems. I must have a VF for acurate framing. For my family picture taking 6MP is plenty. And mine has built-in 12X zoom and OIS.

Reply to
Tony Hwang

Thanks for the field report on Olympus. My panasonic did over 100 pictures on a set of AA cells, I am now using Duracell NiMH 2650 cells. Very pleased with them.

Hope the Panasonic continues for a lot of years. For whatever reason, going from viewfinder to screen on the back wasn't a concern for me.

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

I bought a Nikon Cook Pix. It is mediocre at best. The main feature that I like is it fits in my shirt pocket.

Most marketers are selling megapixels and using crappy lenses. The unknowing public knows that more MP is better, but they don't know why or have any clue as to lens quality. I see many people viewing through he screen and not the viewfinder. Holding the camera a foot away, inducing a lot of shake, and wonder why the photo is blurry. Eliminating the viewfinder makes for a smaller camera and saves money. Good enough for a shot of the kids opening their gifts on Christmas morning, but far short of that 16 x 20 portrait you want.

If you want good quality, don't mind the size, get a DSLR for $800 and up. When I want to take serious photos, I get out my Olympus OM-2

Reply to
Edwin Pawlowski

I got sears.com to match bestbuy's $140 for the Canon A560. With 1 gb sd card and tax, 'twere $160 against my sears gift cards.

Picked it up last nite. Seems to be a good solid little cam. Lots to learn, 'tho.

This was a very helpful thread. Much thanks to all respondents.

Cheers, Peetie

Reply to
Peetie Wheatstraw

I own and love my DSLR but it's absolutely not necessary in order to capture good pics.

Take a look at Wilson Tsoi's work with a crappy Canon point-'n-shoot:

formatting link
and then weap ;-)

Reply to
Malcolm Hoar

He proves that the most important piece of photo equipment is the human eye and brain. Great stuff.

Reply to
Edwin Pawlowski

HomeOwnersHub website 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.