Digital cameras(again)

[ishmael]

Things are changing so fast; MPs up, prices down, but I thought maybe the folks here might have some specific, up to date, recs.

I want something a bit better than a point and shoot. 3-5 MP? Does Olympus make a digital version of their weatherproof 35s?

Being a bit technically challenged, ease of use, both in the field and on the 'puter would be good.

TIA

[Norman Bernstein]

I was a very early adopter to digital camera technology... and am amazed at how much the prices have come down.

From what I can see, there are basically 2 general categories of digital cameras worth buying these days. For $350 or less, you can get 5 megapixel cams with viewfinders and 3X zoom capability... for $450 or more, you can get digital cameras that look more like single lens reflex cameras, with 10X or greater zoom... and for a little more, replaceable lenses.

I think 5 megapixels is just fine for most users; you can blow up to 8 x 10 with relatively little evidence of pixellation. 3 megapixels is fine for snapshots and enlargements up to 4 x 6 or so.

Truthfully, if all you do is casual snapshots of friends and family, and have no pretentions to 'art', the viewfinder cameras with 3X optical zoom are fine.

However, to get really nice portraits, and to flatten the field for nice photos of boats, etc., you need the longer zoom... and the price you pay is 1) more money, 2) bigger camera.

[Popeye]

Kodak makes a 5Mp dig cam w/ 10x optical zoom in the cheaper category http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0007MVZ5A.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[ 02-06-2006, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: popeye ]

[John Gearing]

Just wondering how printing costs compare between digital and film. I like the "semi-instant" aspect of digital but am curious at what the equipment/paper costs per print are for digital v. film.

[Norman Bernstein]

It's gotten a lot better... but I still think that 'home printing' of digital images is pretty lousy. The best of the photo printers are slow, the media is expensive, and the gloss is nowhere near what a true optically-printed photo has.

We use one of the net-based printing services... 'Shutterfly'... although there are many others. You just upload your pics and order prints... and they're mailed to you. The quality of the prints is identical to a good optical print, i.e., very glossy, and very sharp. The prints cost about the same, or less, as what you'd pay to reprint a negative at a good photo shop.

[Garrett Lowell]

We have recently purchased a 6MP Olympus FE-120 for 170 dollars which included shipping. You can get as technical with it as you'd like, or you can go full auto.

Link. (http://www.beachcamera.com/shop/product.aspx?ref=nextag&sku=OMFE120)

[ 02-06-2006, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Garrett Lowell ]

[Popeye]

as a quick aside , my peeve with dig cams .. nose smudges on the LCD view screen , think some clever soul would invent a nose harness or something , or is it just me

[Garrett Lowell]

Many of the latest digicams do away with the viewfinder altogether, causing the LCD to pull double duty.

[Wild Wassa]

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid200/p8c874690387f8fccc989eb30fe805c9d/f0444d38.jpg

An Australian Pelican shot with a seven megapixel Canon Powershot S70. This photo is only 30% of the full image. The camera wasn't overly expensive, Canon say it is fine quality but it is still a toy. The S70 came with a 5 year replacement guarantee.

Museum Point, Lake Barely Sailable on a 3.2 megapixel Canon. This photo is the full image. The camera was only a third of the cost of the Canon Powershot S70 and as you can see not very sharp, compared to the above photo. I burnt this cheap camera out in just over a year, a week after the guarantee ran out. The Canberra Yacht Club at Lotus Bay, is in the bottom of the frame.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid200/p60af4e5e20e27cb0cc8213eb6981c4cf/f063f242.jpg


Warren.

[ 02-06-2006, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

[Another One]

I use a Fujifilm digital camera that looks a bit like my old 35 mm and accomodates the screw-on filters from my old kit. It has a 10x zoom (optical/digital) and generally does me proud with images that don't need blown up more than 8 x 10. The results are good enough to get me into a juried art show last year, and bring me the occasional portrait package. I have issues with indoor lighting and really need to invest in a light kit and some training, but mostly I get by.
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b59/jamihuisjenscott/BabysFirstChristmas.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b59/jamihuisjenscott/AliciaBride.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b59/jamihuisjenscott/shelburne.jpg

So, a related question: What do you think the going rate would be for a semi-professional portrait package? I've been asked to do several for friends and family, and never charged more than expenses. But the word is spreading, and I have no idea how to charge. (My standard is to take about 200 pictures over the course of a couple hours in different outdoor settings, and then provide a complete set of 4 x 6 prints, a CD of the entire shoot, and a photographer's release giving them all rights to future prints.)

Wadaya think?

[BrianW]

ishmael,

Here's an Olympus digital review...

Olympus review (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0509/05092604olympuse500.asp)

...and the camera
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0509/Olympus/e500-angle.jpg

I know a place that will sell you this kit...

Olympus E500 2 lens kit special.
This great kit includes the Olympus 14-45 and the Olympus 40-150 Olympus digital lenses. This all you need kit also includes the battery, charger, cables, CD and 1 year USA/World wide warranty, a 1 gig 52x speed CF card (lifetime warranty), digital camera care kit, 2 UV filters, USB 2.0 card reader and a Pro gadget bag all for only $899.99

...but I haven't comparison shoped for that model.

The store is reliable.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Again NONE BETTER

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

LEICA DIGILUX 2 - The “analog” digital camera.

The new LEICA DIGILUX 2 camera combines the best of two worlds.
In the new LEICA DIGILUX 2, modern digital technology and the proven concepts of traditional analog photography are joined in a harmonious combination: Decisive photographic parameters such as sharpness, aperture, focal length and shutter speeds can be controlled like those on a classic single-lens-reflex camera by means of setting rings on the lens and a shutter speed dial.

To ensure the best pictorial results, the lens, the sensor and the electronics are optimally tailored to one another. The 2/3-inch CCD sensor is very large for its resolution of 5 million pixels. This combination of a high-performance lens and a large surface per picture element produces an extraordinary pictorial quality.

And if you really want to go hog wild

http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/images/leica/produkte/rsystem/dmr/21.gif

The LEICA DIGITAL-MODUL-R:
Type: interchangeable digital module, fully compatible with LEICA R8 and R9, can be exchanged by the photographer her-/himself

Lenses: all Leica R-lenses as well as those earlier LEICAFLEX/SL/SL2-lenses that have been modified by adding the R-cam can be used.

Image Sensor: 3872 x 2576 Pixels (10 MPixel) CCD-Chip, active sensor area 26.4 x 17.6 mm, focal length extension factor 1.37

Sensitivity: ISO 100 up to at ISO 1600

Storage media: SD-card

Data-formats: RAW (DNG), TIFF, 2 JPEG-compression rates

BW-Display shows: Frame counter, ISO, exposure compensation, battery status, self timer, compression rate, resolution, moiré on/off, white balance.

Menue: sharpness, color saturation, contrast, frame number, contrast of color display, brightness of color display, duration of auto review, histogram on/off, power save options, card formatting, warning signals, audio histogram on/off, date, time, user-profils, firmware update, reset.

Interface: IEEE 1394 Firewire

Power supply: proprietary Lithium Ionen rechargeable battery pack.

Color monitor: for image control and menue-controlled settings.

[ 02-06-2006, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

[George Jung]

Just a quick comment on picture printing. I've shyed away from printing my own pictures; the quality isn't as good, it's costly, and the dyes used lack permanence (low life expectancy).

While researching cameras and printing, I happened upon an independent evaluation of various suppliers; Kodakgallery.com was the number one rated service; a distant second was Walmart! Shutterfly and others paled compared to both. If you run your shots through photoshop, or your cameras' software, and then email them to the printer, the cost per print seems to run around 12 cents each; if you take your memory card to the store and print on site, it seems to run around 19 cents ea. this for a 4 X 6 print. If you're looking for a 'deal' on printing, (and flash memory) check out dealmac.com; they run specials frequently.

[BrianW]

Joe,

The second 'camera' you posted is not a camera really...

Ever since the first DSLRs came out people have been asking for a digital back for their film cameras. Canon, Nikon, Minolta and Pentax haven't answered, but finally Leica has. For several years now Leica have been talking about the upcoming digital back for their R8/R9 series cameras (the DMR or Digital Module R). Well, so much for talk, it's finally hitting the streets. A little late, but better late than never!

The DMR has a 10MP CCD sensor (made by Kodak) with a 1.37x focal length multiplier (i.e. it's not full frame, but has a 26.4 x 17.6mm area, slightly smaller than the 1.3x sensor size of the EOS 1D MkII series). ISO equivalent sensitivity is 100 to 800 in full stop steps plus a "push" setting which is equivalent to around ISO 1600, frame rate is 2 frames/sec and it has a 10 frame buffer. Unusually, the sensor has no anti-aliasing filter, though previous Kodak DSLRs also didn't use one. This theoretically improves image sharpness, but often (at least in the case of the Kodak DSLRs) at the cost of some aliasing (false color patterns) in the final images. Images are stored on an SD (Secure Digital) flash memory card.

The cost is $5995 in the US.

dmr_back.jpg (14972 bytes)You asked for it (an interchangeable digital back for a film camera), but is it what you wanted? Well, for owners of Leica R8/R9 SLRs and a bag full of lenses, it probably is. Technologically it's not quite leading edge, but then it was designed several years ago. I don't think it's something that's going to encourage many (any?) people to actually go out and buy an R8/R9 plus lenses in order to use it though. Even if you're a die-hard Leica R lens lover, you can get a Canon 5D for $3300 (saving $2650) or a Canon 1D MkII N for $4000 (saving $1995), buy a Leica R to EOS adapter and you're all set. Plus you get autofocus (with Canon lenses), a faster frame rate, a larger buffer and better battery life thrown in. The usual argument for a digital SLR back was that it could be upgraded when a better sensor came out. This is true, but if it costs more than an entire new integrated digital SLR, that advantage seems to evaporate very quickly.

Field reports so far suggest performance is good, though overall image quality doesn't seem to be significantly better then a $800 8MP Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT using the same lens. It may be a little better, but performance probably lies somewhere between the $800 Digital Rebel XT and the $3300 full frame EOS 5. I'm sure some will debate that and since I haven't personally shot with a DMR, I'll defer to their better judgement...

So overall I think the DMR gets a "B" grade. It's something owners of existing R8/R9 systems can use to "go digital", at a (high) price, but it's not really a viable alternative to integrated DSLRs from Nikon and Canon for anyone who doesn't already own a Leica R system. I guess it was never intended to be, so it does serve its design purpose. Now where's that Leica M digital rangefinder...

Leica make absolutely great stuff, but they're not the answer to every question. Perhaps we should Google up some stats on what the pros actually use?

[dmede]

My 2 cents is to stick with Canon or Nikon (I favor Canon personally). Stay away from the new comers and cheap-o brands.

Both of these companies have very good lens technology, even in their lower end cameras. They also have very good sensor technology and high standards of quality. The numbers you see on the box don't tell the whole story, lots of other stuff goes on in there that makes a big difference, not the least of which is software and QA on the chips. Pay a little more for the higher quality product.

My vote for Canon is due to the reasons above plus their ease of use. I have been a long time Canon user and in every opportunity I have to play with other cameras my main "take-away" is the big difference in the interfaces and how much more intuitive Canon is.

[George Jung]

dmede, agree completely.,
We just purchased a Nikon 7900 last fall (wifes' choice), primarily for compactness, and very good picture quality, in that genre'. This Christmas, bought a Canon A710 for daughter #2; it's a bit larger camera, 5 mp vs my 7.1; but for most photos the quality is every bit as good; some folks feel the Canon is a bit sharper, but of course you can modify those choices in the camera programing. That said, I think the Canon is just a bit nicer, and has a much faster shutter response. If my choice, I'd have gone with one of the digital Elphs.

[Norman Bernstein]

Leica make absolutely great stuff, but they're not the answer to every question. Perhaps we should Google up some stats on what the pros actually use? One professional photographer I know uses a Cannon D20... 6.3Mpixels.

I'm sure the Leica stuff is fantastic, but even successful professionals won't always invest that kind of bucks in equipment. My pro friend had a full suite of Hasselblad gear, dating back to when he shot on roll film, but the digital back for the Hasselblad stuff cost way more than the entire Cannon setup.

As cool as this stuff is, it's massive overkill for anyone but a heavy duty pro or an active amateur with more $$$ than sense, I think. My daughter's Cannon D10 cost her around $1000, and it produces gorgeous images, but they're not that much better than the stuff we're getting out of a $300 Sony 5Mpixel point-and-shoot.

If it were me, I'd go for one of the SLR-styled cams with 10X+ zoom and 5Mpixels... way more than good enough, for around $400+.

[Nicholas Carey]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
[As cool as this stuff is, it's massive overkill for anyone but a heavy duty pro or an active amateur with more $$$ than sense, I think. My daughter's Cannon D10 cost her around $1000, and it produces gorgeous images, but they're not that much better than the stuff we're getting out of a $300 Sony 5Mpixel point-and-shoot.What lots o'megapixels buy you is enlargment and editing capability. While you can get an 8x10 out of a 5 megapixel camera, that's stops being the case if your edit/crop the image so you're only using, say, 30% of the frame.

I think it comes down to your intended uses. If you're going to use your camera like most people, shooting vacation pictures and family snapshots and all you'll ever do is print full-frame images at 4x6 with the occasional 8x10, you'll do fine with a 5 megapixel camera or so.

In looking at digital cameras, the things I'd consider are in roughly descending order of importance are:

1. Glass. Leica and Carl Zeiss T-star lenses are top-drawer. Next comes Canon (L), Nikon's Nikkor nd Olympus' Zuiko glass. After that comes, probably Canon/Nikon/Olympus/Zeiss cheaper consumer lines and then everybody else.

2. Shutter lag. With some digital P+S cameras taking upwards of a second to squeeze off a shot, shutter lag is kind of key unless you only shoot landscapes and still lifes.

3. Image sensor. Wrong or poorly designed image sensors can introduce all sorts of interesting artifacts into the image, especially at high-contrast boundaries like a tree highlighted against the sky. Artifacts include halos, bloom and fringing among others. Here's an example of purple fringing (click to the the quite large, full photo from which it came):

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/articles/Glossary/Optical/images/001001-1330-26-002.jpg (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong1/Samples/Fringing/001001-1330-26.jpg)

More on artifacts at http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/Artifacts_01.htm

3. Megapixels (assuming you've got a good minimum, 4-5 megapixels). I put megapixels last because they don't matter all that much if you didn't get the shot you wanted or if the image quality is poor.

[Donn]

I guess nobody saw the "weatherproof" part of your question, so I'll throw in the Pentax Optio. I've had the 43WR for a bit more than a year, and like it quite a bit. It's ultra-compact, 4MP, 3x physical zoom. It ranges from fully user-controlled to fully automatic, and takes very good pictures.

Mine is water resistant, I believe to JIS class 7. You can use it in the rain, and it's water tight for up to 30 minutes under 3' of water, but you can't shoot under water.

The newest model, the Optio WP is waterproof, to JIS class 8, and can actually take pictures under the surface, but just under the surface. It's 5MP and 3x physical zoom.

[ 02-06-2006, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Donn ]

[dmede]

2 things:

First, my semi-educated guess would be that most professional photographers use Canon and Nikon. Nikon in particular has been the field photographers choice for a long time now. Leica view finders are great street cameras for photojournalists. But the SLRs are probably not much used by pros in the field.

Second, adding to the discussion on mega pixels. Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing with pixels. In most cases the chip size for the camera is fixed so an increase in MPs means that the chip is simply being cut up into more peices, not enlarged. Beacuse each pixel has its own transistor assoicated with it and because that transistor doesn't get any smaller each increase in MPs means less actual sensor space avialable to each pixel and tighter clearences between pixel transisitors. The result is that if you go to high you end up with a sensor over cramed with pixels where each pixel has less area to recive light and there is energy drain between pixes. All of this increases artifacts and other errors while demisnishing the end quality.

This is not usually a problem the average user encounters since the issues may only show up in certain shooting conditions. Software is often used to compensate for these issues as well. But it illustrates the idea that one needs to know whats really going on before simply advocating more more more.

[Bruce Hooke]

Regarding the "side discussion" about printing digital pictures. It is possible and not wildly expensive to make fine art quality digital prints at home. Epson's photo printers seem to be the defacto standard, but HP is making some inroads. I use an Epson 2200. The rated lifespan (before any noticable fading sets in) of prints made on this printer (assuming they are properly stored and displayed) is in the 100 year plus range, assuming you use good quality paper. The 2200 printer was somewhat expensive because I wanted to be able to print 13" x 19" prints, but smaller Epson photo printers are really quite reasonable. The R series printers are good, especially if you prefer high gloss prints. I prefer matt prints and for that the 2200 is better than the R-series, but most "snapshot" photographers probably prefer glossy prints.

I figure my ink costs to be about 1.4 cents/square inch. High quality paper (Epson Enhanced Matt) runs around 30 cents/8-1/2" x 11" sheet, but a lot depends on where you get the paper and how big a package you get it in. However, any way you look at it, the ink is much more expensive than the paper.

That said, if your goal is to get a stack of "snapshot" prints to put in a photo album or show to family and friends then there is much to be said for using a commercial service rather than getting involved with printing your own.

[Norman Bernstein]

That said, if your goal is to get a stack of "snapshot" prints to put in a photo album or show to family and friends then there is much to be said for using a commercial service rather than getting involved with printing your own. I'd tend to agree.

The commercial services are remarkably cheap and quick, and the print you get has the same level of gloss, and the same archival potential, as any print made from a negative.

Although 'home photo printing' has come a long way, I think a side by side comparison would be no contest.

I use Shutterfly, although others claim that some other services are better... but I can't fault the quality of prints I've gotten back... and at 19 cents or less for a 4x6 print, it's more than cheap enough.

One caution: I don't know how the other services work, but Shutterfly archives your files 'forever', so you can get a reprint at any time.... however, they don't allow you to download the same image in full resolution. The moral of the story: archive your images on CDROM or DVD-ROM and don't depend on the printing services if you ever want to get thefull resolution image back.

[Nicholas Carey]

Originally posted by dmede:
2 things:

First, my semi-educated guess would be that most professional photographers use Canon and Nikon. Nikon in particular has been the field photographers choice for a long time now.The pros I know use Canon or Nikon digital SLRs for one simple reason: it leverages their [sizeable] investment they've already made over the years in Canon or Nikon glass. Switching from the system they already use would mean a much higher up-front conversion costs.

WRT "too much much of a good thing" regarding pixels, that's exactly my point with the quality of the image sensor/electronics.

Also, if your interested in quality prints, one should take a look at dye sublimation printers, especially if you're mostly interested in 4x6 prints. Dye sublimation is an archival printing process that produces much better images than does ink jet technology.

You can pickup a 4x6 dye sub printer like the Olympus P-11 for about US $150. If you want to go up to 8x10/A4 prints, your talking closer to US $1000.

[Bruce Hooke]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
Although 'home photo printing' has come a long way, I think a side by side comparison would be no contest.I have made such a side-by-side comparison using traditional prints made by a top-notch photo lab and prints made on my 2200 and I will respectfully disagree. I think what can fairly be said is that the two are not the same -- if you want the EXACT look of traditional print then your best bet is probably a traditional print (but you may have trouble finding places that will still do genuine darkroom prints of color images), but as long as you are willing to consider "quality" in a slightly more open-ended manner I think it is quite safe to say that digital printing has arrived. Based on my research, many professional photographers are making digital prints using printers that are really quite reasonable in price as long as you don't need really large format prints.

[Norman Bernstein]

Based on your cost estimates Bruce, it appears you spend about 40 cents for a 4 x 6 print (1.4 cents per sq inch for ink, 7 cents for paper) which is twice the cost of Shutterfly. Unless instant gratification is a requirment, or the quality is better than a commercial service, it would seem the service bureaus are a better deal.

[Bruce Hooke]

Norman,

Yes, I don't think there's much question but that if you want lots of small prints then a commercial service like Shutterfly makes all sorts of sense, especially once you factor in the time it takes to print pictures at home. Where it makes sense to print at home is when you want to have more control over the process, as I do, and when you are talking about larger "fine art" images. I sell 11 x 14 and 12 x 12 prints for $90 each (unframed), so the actual cost of printing them is neglibile in the overall scheme of things.

[Norman Bernstein]

Ahh, OK, Bruce... that's a decidedly different kettle of fish. If you're doing commercial art (by which, I mean, selling photos for money), then the printing costs are negligible.

Interesting, though, because my commercial photographer friend doesn't do that... he does some touchup and photoediting work on a putr, but sends the files out for final printing. He does mostly 'wedding' and studio portraiture work, so perhaps that's different.

[Bruce Hooke]

Norman,

Wedding and portrait photography are a bit different, among other things because there tend to be a lot more prints involved, so the time cost of doing your own prints is higher. There is also certainly no concensus amongst photographers on the "home" versus "commercial" routes. I should say, as well, that I am just starting to sell my prints so while I have done a lot of research and do know a fair amount about the subject I also have a lot still to learn.

Even for home users, to me a big factor in the decision on home versus commercial printing should be how much control you want over the process. If you like messing with different papers and trying different ideas then printing at home clearly makes sense. On the other hand, if you just want snapshot prints then why bother when you can get them cheaper from places like Shutterfly.

- Bruce

[adampet]

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/images/upload/Fuji-S5100-frontangle.jpg

We bought one of these last year and have been very happy with it. Around $300, 10 X optical, 5 Megapixel. Enough settings to allow for alot of leeway when taking pics. easy enough to use for everyday snaps. Only downside is shutter lag, but it does have a burst mode to capture action. all in all a good deal

[ishmael]

Thanks guys.

Much to chew on. Olympus does make a Stylus with waterproof case that looks pretty nice. Around two and a half bills for a six MP. No viewfinder, which is a drawback. I've always had Olympus cameras, and have been pretty pleased with them. But having only a screen would take a bit of getting used to. It is supposed to be very clear and bright.

[ 02-06-2006, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: ishmael ]

[Nicholas Carey]

If you use Flickr — http://www.flickr.com — you (or your friends/family/etc.) can print through one of their affiliates.

You can have the prints mailed to you, or... you can arrange to have the prints squirted out at theh printer at your local Target store. It's arguably a little cheaper to pick it up at Target ($2.15 for an 8x10 print, plus any applicable sales tax. For mail delivery, the 8x10 print is $1.99 and for a single print, the postage charged is $1.49, bring the total up to $3.48. Shipping doesn't scale with the number of prints, so, for example, ordering 20 8x10 prints brings the postage charge up to a whopping $2.09.

Flickr also allows you to put your picture on a genuine US postal service [barcoded] stamp via their affiliate Zazzle.com -- I've been thinking that could be sort of fun: send your taxes in with a picture of you flying the IRS the, ah, proverbial bird, so to speak :D Or send a letter to your representives in Congress or the White House with a personalized stamp evocative of your opinion on the issue at hand :D :D

[probably a good way to get on the naughty side of the govt's naughty-or-nice ledger, though.]

[Meerkat]

PC World gave Kodak's print service top honors. Shutterfly came in 3rd. Feb issue.

[Nicholas Carey]

One more thing about printing digital images: Crane & Co. (http://www.crane.com/) (the people who make the paper for US currency, as well as other high-end paper and stationery) have just introduced a line of 100% cotton rag photo papers for inkjet and other printers: http://www.crane.com/museo/

[Nicholas Carey]

If you use Flickr — http://www.flickr.com — you (or your friends/family/etc.) can print through one of their affiliates.

You can have the prints mailed to you, or... you can arrange to have the prints squirted out at theh printer at your local Target store. It's arguably a little cheaper to pick it up at Target ($2.15 for an 8x10 print, plus any applicable sales tax. For mail delivery, the 8x10 print is $1.99 and for a single print, the postage charged is $1.49, bring the total up to $3.48. Shipping doesn't scale with the number of prints, so, for example, ordering 20 8x10 prints brings the postage charge up to a whopping $2.09.

Flickr also allows you to put your picture on a genuine US postal service [barcoded] stamp via their affiliate Zazzle.com -- I've been thinking that could be sort of fun: send your taxes in with a picture of you flying the IRS the, ah, proverbial bird, so to speak :D Or send a letter to your representives in Congress or the White House with a personalized stamp evocative of your opinion on the issue at hand :D :D

[probably a good way to get on the naughty side of the govt's naughty-or-nice ledger, though.]

[John Gearing]

Thanks for all the good info on printing! As always, the forum is wealth of knowledge.

Now, another question. Since I am both a fairly old guy and a fairly early adopter of SLR and rangefindere film cameras (by that I mean I've run through quite a bit of film the last 40 years ), I really like the concept behind the controls and layout of the Leica Digilux 2 (and its Panasonic counterpart). What I don't like so much is the price! Can't see spending a minimum of about $1500US for a 5mp camera even if it does operate just like my lovely 35mm. Does anyone know of a less expensive camera than these that operates like a traditional rangefinder? TIA!

[George Jung]

Panasonic Luminex: it's my understanding it has a lense similar (?same?) as a Leica. Not sure what the zoom is on it, but can check comparisons and specifics at www.dpreview.com. (http://www.dpreview.com.) I know I've seen one of their models on sale for around 500 dollars; don't re call the zoom, however.

[Wild Wassa]

Originally posted by John G:
"Does anyone know of a less expensive camera than these that operates like a traditional rangefinder?"

Please see my above post, the S70 is a range finder camera. Donn implied, waterproofing was overlooked by those posting, not with the Canon S70 it isn't. Canon make a specific waterproof housing at only $120AU. I bought the S70 to use when on the water.

If you look at the Pelican photograph, the whites display little flair and hallation, considering the photo was taken in extreme daylight of a bright object and still retained adequate shallow details ... and all taken near water.

One other thing, more megapixels do not just give the ability to crop an image and maintain a certain degree of sharpness over a lesser megapixel image. More megapixels gives a greater tonality and can cope with a larger brightness range, giving more accurate recordings across the range. The brightness range in Oz is extreme on a clear day ... the S70 copes very well thanks to being able to overide, all of Canon's so-called creative parameters.

Warren.

[ 02-07-2006, 03:30 AM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

[formerlyknownasprince]

I've been a Nikon user since my first SLR in the late 70's (I've still got my original 1971 "F" - bought 2nd hand in 1977) and from the "happy snap" perspective, love the D100 (the D200 is out now - but I refused to look at it - in case I liked it). I bought the Nikkor 80-400 vibration reduction zoom last week - but have been busy and only run a dozen or so shots through it so far. This gives the equivalent to a 120-600 mm lens so should be great for soccer and bird shots.

Since I've started with digital - approx 3 years ago - I've changed my mode of viewing. I've found that with a good 'puter screen, I'm less interested in paper prints. At one stage I was viewing on a 50" HD plasma - sort of reminded me of the old slide show days - but couldn't really be bothered these days - so just use a 19" LCD.

What I view on my screen is an image of 1.5mb - compared to this cut down version at 5kb - and that'll do me

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid183/p826f6d7f2c63e3bf6bb50f0e7b0e467b/f29d2e73.jpg

I've just moved into publishing - and our top end product (which shall remain nameless - but has nothing to do with wooden boats unfortunately) is a subscription-only (@ $1400 pa) quarterly - coffee table type publication - all digital. It isn't worth using cheap stuff when doing this.

I know that a craftsman can (if you can convince them to try) produce great stuff with low end tools - but every craftsman I know values good tools. When it comes to digital photography - the craftsmen I know use Nikon and Canon - with the trend towards Canon.

Warren - that camera that ran out of warranty - if you bought it in NSW you have a statutory 2 year warranty - contact the Dept Fair Trading. The concept here is a product of merchantable quality. Write to the retailer and Canon on that basis. Write to the MD (find out his / her name) - betcha get a new camera.

Ian

[Billy Bones]

Originally posted by ishmael:
... Olympus does make a Stylus with waterproof case that looks pretty nice. Around two and a half bills for a six MP. No viewfinder, which is a drawback. I've always had Olympus cameras, and have been pretty pleased with them. But having only a screen would take a bit of getting used to. It is supposed to be very clear and bright.We have several of these which perform well particularly in our climate. The 'puter interface has improved remarkably over the years, as has battery life.

The lack of viewfinder does take getting used to...all of about 30 seconds worth. For one thing you see what the actual picture will look like, not what the viewfinder is looking at, which in closeup photography is never the same thing.

Although not in favor of recommending Sony generally, their newer sophisticated p&s cameras are quite remarkable. My wife bought a half dozen Sony T-33s for work...

http://productimages.sony-europe.com/dsc-t33_n_styled_im.jpg

They are about the size of a pack of cards, the battery is great, a large card will last you for ever, and it is reasonably fast for capturing action when it happens, not several seconds after you push the button.

Both the Olympus and Sony have cheap underwater housings available which really open up new ground for digital cameras, both topside and underwater. I took these with the Sony T33 in a housing recently...

http://www.rkstarr.com/images/ducksquall.jpg

http://www.rkstarr.com/images/pooduckbelly.jpg

The term 'point and shoot' seems to carry a stygma from early days which I'm not sure is warranted any more. There is something grand about being able to take 5.1 mp images in a package that truely fits in your shirt pocket.

Good luck.

[clancy]

What happened to the traditional print sizes all photographers and labs used to adhere to? I remember we had 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20.

Where did 13x19 come from?

[Bruce Hooke]

I'm not sure why, but the paper sizes for digital printing are a little bit different than the paper sizes for darkroom printing. However, before you conclude that the digital folks have lost their heads, keep in mind that the traditional sizes for darkroom prints did not match the dimensions of a typical 35mm negative or slide so there is a distinct lack of logic to those dimensions as well.

Actually, most of the discripencies are at the larger sizes. An 8 1/2" x 11" sheet of paper for digital printing works pretty nicely for making an 8" x 10" print once you factor in the printer's margins. And the smaller sizes can pretty easily be assembled into something close to an 8" x 10" array. Of course to get a full frame image you should be printing 8" x 12" prints, so 8" x 10" doesn't really make much sense...

[Wild Wassa]

Modern minature print sizes originated from the sizes of the original Ambrotypes and Tinype plates.

Ambrotypes and Tintypes would usually be a fraction of a whole-plate glass size.

Tintype sizes (inches):Full-plate
6½" x 8½"

Half-plate
4½" x 5½"

1/4 plate
3 1/8" x 4 1/8", etc, etc, etc.

Larger glass negative tended to be contact printed and size was no limit, or only limited by the contact frame, as photographers coated their own plates and papers with photographic emulsion.

It is all too easy now.

Ian G, the camera has been tossed. The new Canon has a 5 year replacement warranty.

Billy Bones, the top shot is amazing colour and the reflected colour is even more amazing. Your top shot is a top shot.

Warren.

[High C]

Originally posted by Wild Wassa:
...Billy Bones, the top shot is amazing colour and the reflected colour is even more amazing. Your top shot is a top shot.
Indeed, Bravo!

[Meerkat]

http://www.rkstarr.com/images/ducksquall.jpg

Sorry to interrupt with something so crass as, Ahem, boating!: what design is that? Looks a bit like a Welsford Houdini with a gunter rig. Nice!

[ 02-07-2006, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

[Meerkat]

bump

[Billy Bones]

Thanks very much guys. That proves that even blind squirrels find nuts now and then. It was a remarkable day with the squall coming, the sun setting and my daughter smiling. Brand new camera in brand new housing too.

http://www.rkstarr.com/images/redskinskiff.jpg

Is it just me or do cameras take much sharper pictures when they are newer? Or do I just not know how to clean them properly???

http://www.rkstarr.com/images/ducksquall2.jpg

Meer she's my Joel White Pooduck skiff with a few subtle mods, mostly in the rig and rudder/tiller. Boom jaws hike the lug sail a bit, theoretically giving modestly better windward performance, but more importantly the yard is now, quite attractively to my mind, in line with the jib halyard. That was an unexpected bonus.

[Billy Bones]

Bump for meer...

[Meerkat]

Sweet! Thanks Billy! smile.gif

[J_Boat]

Sorry for the wide post, but, I wanted to display
the pics in their real resolution/size to make a point.

I now use an Olympus Stylus 410 which is a 4 mp camera. However, until I broke it (fell on it in a pocket snow skiing), I used a FujiFilm 2.0 mp camera that took these pics.

My Daughter taking a creative approach to chasing red drum on the flats.
http://bellsouthpwp.net/g/o/goBoating/marshgirl.jpg

Coast Guard Cutter on Charleston Harbour.
http://bellsouthpwp.net/g/o/goBoating/on_station.jpg

I am convinced that a fairly modest camera (4 mp or so) will do all the photography anyone except a pro ever needs. And, both my FujiFilm and Olympus are what you'd call a point and shoot. Either of these pics would make a fine 8x10.

[Bruce Hooke]

J_Boat,

While I basically agree with you, if those pictures are the maximum resolution available on your camera then they are a bit low-resolution for an 8x10. The standard I go by is roughly 300 pixels per inch of printed image. By that standard, a image to be printed at 8" x 10" should be 2400 x 3000 pixels, or about 4 times the resolution of the images you posted. However, I am also at least a semi-pro so my standards are somewhat different...

[ishmael]

Thanks again, gents.

Here's the camera I'm leaning toward. Any commments?

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/OS600/OS6A.HTM

[Nicholas Carey]

Originally posted by J_Boat:
[big pictures elided]

…a fairly modest camera (4 mp or so) will do all the photography anyone except a pro ever needs...Either of these pics would make a fine 8x10.But, as I pointed out earlier, only if you print uncropped full-frame images. If you any sort of serious cropping, you'll lose it.

[htom]

Billy Bones, that first Pooduck (going away) is my new background image. Looks scrumptious.

[BrianW]

Looks like a very nice camera for kicking around with...

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/OS600/ZOS6A.JPG

[batory]

http://www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.html

all the camera reviews you need

[ishmael]

Thanks for the reviews, Batory. After reading them I'm now leaning toward the 8 MP Stylus, because both reviews I've read of the 6 speak of softness in the image at higher ISO settings.

Any experience with various mail order camera houses? The price differences are signifigant.

[Billy Bones]

Never had a problem with B & H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/).

[Bruce Hooke]

B&H is definintely reputable (I hate to think how much money I've spent there). Adorama (http://www.adorama.com/) is also pretty decent, but their reputation is not quite as good as B&H's. Porter's Camera (http://www.porters.com/) is, I think, also pretty good, but I haven't ordered much from them in recent years. Frankly, if someone has much better prices than B&H then I'd be inclined to be suspicious. I ordered one fairly expensive item from Camera World (http://www.cameraworld.com/) recently (many places were out of stock on this item) and they came through nicely. Before I placed the order I did some research and Camera World seemed to have a pretty decent reputation.

I have also purchased a variety of used items from KEH (http://www.keh.com/) and been quite satisfied.

If you have in mind a place that is not on this list, let us know what it is and maybe we can comment. There is a certain amount of cross-over between the merchants who sell camera gear and those who sell computer gear when it comes to digital cameras. So, there are a variety of reliable mail-order "computer-oriented" places that might well sell these cameras.

[ishmael]

The best price on the 8 is at Beach Camera, $295 including shipping. No major problems reported in the customer review section.

[Bruce Hooke]

I've never heard of Beach so I can't comment. That price is better than B&H's price of $329.95.

[captain's gig]

smile.gif

[ 02-09-2006, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: captain's gig ]

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by ishmael:
The best price on the 8 is at Beach Camera, $295 including shipping. No major problems reported in the customer review section.Who edits the customer review section? ;)

Beware of "grey market" cameras/electronics. Those are intended for other markets and, if sold in the US, have no US warrantee. A large price differential is one indicator. TANSTAFL.

[Garrett Lowell]

I've used Beach Camera twice now, with excellent service each time, and I called Olympus both times to verify the warranty and the serial number of the cameras I purchased.

[Garrett Lowell]

I've also used eTronics. (http://www.etronics.com/) Though here, I bought two amplifiers and a vacuum cleaner, with the same excellent service, and the same verified warranties.

[Nicholas Carey]

Originally posted by ishmael:
Thanks for the reviews, Batory. After reading them I'm now leaning toward the 8 MP Stylus, because both reviews I've read of the 6 speak of softness in the image at higher ISO settings.

Any experience with various mail order camera houses? The price differences are signifigant.Check the fora at Photo.Net (http://www.photo.net/). Their neighbor-to-neighbor recomendations at http://www.photo.net/neighbor/ are pretty good.

B+H, as noted above is pretty good.

[ 02-09-2006, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Nicholas Carey ]

[Nicholas Carey]

Grrr...lousy mushy keyboard...

[ 02-09-2006, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Nicholas Carey ]

[Meerkat]

OH YES! Don't buy an extended warranty! They are rarely worth the paper they're printed on!

Bundles are rarely good deals either.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Bought my Leica remember that camera :D , At B+H in NYC just got the new catalog in the mail today. Highly recommended place to buy anything photographic.