PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts re point & squirt digital camera



Ed Harrow
04-19-2005, 02:25 PM
My favorite bride is finally really thinking about getting a "simple" digital camera to use in her classroom.

Requirements:

Minimal shutter lag (she'll be taking lots of spontaneous picts).

Must either plug directly to a printer, or have a removable media card that she can use directly with a suitable printer. (Believe it or not, she has no computer in her classroom)

Strong preference for one compatible with standard battery sizes.

Needn't be "artist" quality with respect to photos, but they ought to support being printed 4X6.

Some sort of zoom and "macro" capabilities.

Small. (Smaller than my antique Olympus 460)

Simple.

Other requirements may well be added later, LOL.

Thank you.

rbgarr
04-19-2005, 02:54 PM
I'm looking at getting something with some similar criteria. Does anyone else use Kyocera digital cameras? I'm looking at the 'flip' kind.

Larry P.
04-19-2005, 03:34 PM
Check out some of the kodak models and their printer docks.

paladin
04-19-2005, 04:56 PM
get lotsa batteries but 'tis cheeeper to by rechargable plus one spare and recharger.....these things, any brand, eats batteries...

Katherine
04-19-2005, 04:58 PM
Get one with a good sports / action mode, it'll make spontaneous pictures much easier.

rbgarr
04-19-2005, 05:15 PM
E-mailing pictures with the Kodak software is very annoying (to me at least). It's problematic to just include a pic in an e-mail. The Kodak Galery website kind of makes you go through them. :mad:

dmede
04-19-2005, 05:22 PM
Stick with the companies that know how to make cameras (Nikon and Cannon), Kodak is new to this areana and thier cameras show it. That goes for Polaroid as well. Neither makes very good consumer level cameras.

My pref is Cannon. They have a wide variety of cameras avialbale and are, IMO, the best at product design (ie design layout, buttons, usability etc).

John B
04-19-2005, 06:00 PM
Very happy with my small canon Ixus ( 3.2 mp). canon also has a photo managing software called zoombrowser which was excellent. The later version I got with a newer canon wasn't so hot and really, 'my pictures' on xp now has made all that fairly easy.
Best thing to have IMO. seperate card reader so you download from the card not the camera. camera drivers.. yech. maybe better with later operating systems but I went through hell with win 98.
Good point about the batteries.My camera doesn't meet your criteria on that basis. I have the Canon batteries and .. they have you by the short hairs there although there are alternative suppliers. advantage.... small.small unit overall.I work around it by having 2 batteries. CF card in canon. about 42 x 35 mm so it's fairly large but I'm happy with it.

summary. small camera. point and shoot. have 2 batteries. have 2 CF cards so about 160 shots at highest resolution( probably require a batterry recharge to use all that).

NormMessinger
04-19-2005, 06:42 PM
"Minimal shutter lag (she'll be taking lots of spontaneous picts)."

That pretty much excludes the inexpensive models.

Paul Scheuer
04-19-2005, 09:58 PM
dmede wrote -
Stick with the companies that know how to make cameras (Nikon and Cannon), Kodak is new to this areana and thier cameras show it. I've had my no-nonsense Kodak 35 (made for sale in Europe) since the 60's. Still happy with it.
They seem to have a history with simple cameras.

I'm also happy with my Kodak "Easy Share" 443 digital with docking station/ charger/ unloader.

I don't know about the direct printer versions, but I found that the shutter lag that I thought I had was "pilot error". It has a pre-travel of the shutter release that does all of the auto focus and exposure adjustments before you decide the do the full release. Once I figured it our I get decent action shots without the troublesome lag.

I got the camera because it had a view finder like my 35 and I tend to be an old dog who composes in the view finder, rather than the little TV screen.

I'd say go to Comp USA or a place that sells to the masses and try a few models till you find one that suits.

Meerkat
04-19-2005, 10:33 PM
Casio makes a couple of small, well regarded cameras.

John B
04-19-2005, 11:06 PM
I'll take a photo of my camera for you Ed.

er?
ummmmm.

I'll photocopy my camera for you Ed

[ 04-20-2005, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: John B ]

John B
04-19-2005, 11:08 PM
geez. now I can't see.

L.W. Baxter
04-19-2005, 11:13 PM
geez. now I can't see. Take the lens cap off? :D

John B
04-19-2005, 11:17 PM
Nah its the photocopier mate. blinded by the light. (just like Max Merrit and the Meteors.)

[ 04-20-2005, 12:20 AM: Message edited by: John B ]

L.W. Baxter
04-19-2005, 11:23 PM
Oh, I thought that taking a picture of your camera brought on a moment of existential doubt, which expressed itself psychosomatically by temporary blindness.

Happens to me all the time.

John B
04-19-2005, 11:34 PM
well, I am a bit tired. and I suppose self doubt affects all of us from time to time. But no. its just the flash from the copier. I think I may have some radiation burns as well because one ear has gone bit red.

Here ya go Ed ,straight from the copier.
http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid165/pa8b1864745429a9ee055a078a76dc612/f467df09.jpg

its a good little camera.

[ 04-20-2005, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: John B ]

Nicholas Carey
04-20-2005, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by Ed Harrow:
Minimal shutter lag (she'll be taking lots of spontaneous picts)."minimal shutter lag" pretty much restricts you to [the neither cheap nor simple]

Nikon D70 (~ 100ms shutter lag)
Canon Digital Rebel XT (~ 100ms shutter lag)
Olympus [EVolt] E-300 (37ms shutter lag)

All about $1000–$1200 with body and lens (although a couple weeks back, Fry's Electronics had the Olympus E-300 with two Zuiko (Olympus) lenses for $899. Zuiko is Olympus' top lens trademark, on a par, quality-wise with Carl Zeiss's T-Star, Canon and Nikon)

Ed Harrow
04-20-2005, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by Ed Harrow:
...Other requirements may well be added later, LOL.

...OK folks, SWMTMH has examined your offerings and pronounced them (for the very most part) "Great!"

I need only add that she teaches for a private school with only the barest excuses for an endowment, LOL. In other words, there's no $900 camera in her future. ;)

Thank you!

paladin
04-21-2005, 08:19 AM
stay away from Kodak and HP products....warranty stinks to non existant in reality.......

FG
04-21-2005, 08:30 AM
I got a Pentax Optio 33WR from amphotoworld. Sleaziest place to do buisiness with. But only place I could find one. It is $139 but they'll get you for $20 shipping, and don't buy any waaay overpriced accessory from them. They have a reputation with current models of advertising low prices, then not bothering to send the camera perpetual backorder) unless you buy overpriced accessories. I think they will really send the camera as it is a discontinued model. I am impressed with the camera. great macro, no moving parts outside the body like retractable lense or flash, easy exposure compensation, tough case. and waterproof to 1 meter depth.

John B
04-21-2005, 06:07 PM
My attempt at humour might have made it seem whimsical but I'm serious about the camera.
A couple of other points I thought of.
you can adjust the down time on the menu. IE no review.. so you can take fairly fast shots in sucession.
A low MP by todays standards... 3.2 is pretty cheap now and prints well enough up to 5x7 and can be easily compressed for email. actually that is the one big advantage with that zoombrowser software compared to the XP my pictures MS has nowdays. It compresses multiple images for email and saving to file very fast and simply.

[ 04-21-2005, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: John B ]

Ed Harrow
04-22-2005, 09:08 PM
Well, just so's ya know. Nikon. 5600. If it were mine I'da taken at least 50 picts with it by now. It's still in the box, LOL.

Cute little thing. Does use AA batteries so we added to the NiMH battery inventory to keep it fed.

I'll give commentary as it becomes available.

Joe (SoCal)
04-22-2005, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by Ed Harrow:
My favorite bride is finally really thinking about getting a "simple" digital camera to use in her classroom.

Requirements:

Minimal shutter lag (she'll be taking lots of spontaneous picts).

Must either plug directly to a printer, or have a removable media card that she can use directly with a suitable printer. (Believe it or not, she has no computer in her classroom)

Strong preference for one compatible with standard battery sizes.

Needn't be "artist" quality with respect to photos, but they ought to support being printed 4X6.

Some sort of zoom and "macro" capabilities.

Small. (Smaller than my antique Olympus 460)

Simple.

Other requirements may well be added later, LOL.

Thank you.http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/images/leica/produkte/digitalekameras/digilux2/8.gif

The LEICA DIGILUX 2 at a glance

Fast 7 22.5 mm LEICA DC VARIO SUMMICRON f/2 f/2.4 ASPH. zoom lens (equivalent to a 28 - 90 mm zoom lens on a 35 mm camera)
*

2/3" CCD sensor with 5.0 million pixels
*

Analog photography feeling conveyed by manual setting possibilities directly at the lens
*

Its traditional clear design readily identifies it as a typical Leica
*

Transfer-reflexive 2,5 display with a resolution of 211,000 pixels and outstanding brilliance
*

Electronic viewfinder with 235,000 pixels that covers 100% of the picture being taken
*

fast Autofocus:
- only 500ms/600ms including focusing (with 28 mm/90mm settings)

short shutter release delay:
- only 94ms with manual focusing
*

Extra large picture storage card with 64 MB
*

Interval timing and control via the PC
*

Connections:
USB 2.0 (High Speed); DC IN; AV output with option of PAL or NTSC; Remote release cable
*

Extremely robust and long-lived because of the use of high-grade materials and precision fabrication
*

seafox
04-22-2005, 09:33 PM
joe he only thing you left out was the price

Joe (SoCal)
04-22-2005, 09:36 PM
Intentionally ;)

Check http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

ion barnes
04-22-2005, 11:39 PM
My little Cannon PowerShot S10 2.1 MPx got buried in the snow bank for a week and still works, my 35mm would not have stood up to that. have got some good shots that amazed me. Low light, long distance, shooting almost in to the sun.

John B
04-22-2005, 11:44 PM
I took this un with a 2.1 canon.I still don't know how he blew it up that big.
http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4292079223&idx=59
gee.try again.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid49/p09f355b5ad314e3673e601573d3fcffb/fcb5ced4.jpg
while steering . that poor little camera got a bit of a hammering with spray and general bad handling.

[ 04-23-2005, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: John B ]

NormMessinger
04-23-2005, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by seafox:
joe he only thing you left out was the priceAnd a muddy low contrast picture. Joe should get a Kodak for pictures he wants to share. tongue.gif

[ 04-23-2005, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: NormMessinger ]