I'm looking for a first digital still camera. My experience with
digital so far is a Sony Digital8 Handycam and a lower end Canon Pro
mini-dv cam but no experience with digital still cams. My immediate
intended purpose is to take pics of some large print items that are
too large to fit on a scanner and want some decent quality for
archiving. My digital camcorder takes stills after a fashion but the
quality is marginal at best.
I get that megapixels is supposed to be an indicator of quality, but
what else is there to consider? Is an older but higher quality for
it's day cam with a lower megapixel spec better than a newer, but low-
end cam with a higher mp spec?
Features I *think* I want are manual focus ability and ability to
do .bmp or .tiff, not just jpeg unless someone convinces me it's not
important. I've got software to convert to .jpg if needed. I don't
have any need for video capabilities.
Like everyone else, I'm looking to get some decent bang for as little
buck as possible. I'm not too proud to go the used on eBay route. I
don't have any plans to do it professionally. It would be great if I
could stay under $150 - $200. I'd be ecstatic if I could stay under
$100.
All input including specific brand/model suggestions are appreciated,
including any "surprisingly good for a cheapo camera" models.
> I'm looking for a first digital still camera. My experience with digital
> so far is a Sony Digital8 Handycam and a lower end Canon Pro mini-dv cam
> but no experience with digital still cams. My immediate intended purpose
> is to take pics of some large print items that are too large to fit on a
> scanner and want some decent quality for archiving. My digital camcorder
> takes stills after a fashion but the quality is marginal at best.
>
> I get that megapixels is supposed to be an indicator of quality, but
> what else is there to consider? Is an older but higher quality for it's
> day cam with a lower megapixel spec better than a newer, but low- end
> cam with a higher mp spec?
More megapixels is not much of a quality indicator - all it indicates is
more pixels. Some folks would tell you that sensor size is more
important. For your purposes, I'd tend to agree - reason: smaller sensor,
more noise - particularly at higher ISO.
>
> Features I *think* I want are manual focus ability and ability to do
> .bmp or .tiff, not just jpeg unless someone convinces me it's not
> important. I've got software to convert to .jpg if needed. I don't have
> any need for video capabilities.
I don't know of any that to bmp. There are many cameras that will do jpeg
and tiff and/or raw - raw would be just as good, though it would take a
little extra processing.
>
> Like everyone else, I'm looking to get some decent bang for as little
> buck as possible. I'm not too proud to go the used on eBay route. I
> don't have any plans to do it professionally. It would be great if I
> could stay under $150 - $200. I'd be ecstatic if I could stay under
> $100.
>
> All input including specific brand/model suggestions are appreciated,
> including any "surprisingly good for a cheapo camera" models.
The Kodak P series does jpeg, tiff and raw. They also have full manual
mode. They do, however, use a smaller sensor. They have also been
discontinued although I recently saw a P850 refurb at Kodak's online
store for $225 - and you certainly would not need the 12x zoom.
There are several places you can search digital cameras according to
specific criteria - several recent posts have listed some.
> I get that megapixels is supposed to be an indicator of quality . . .
The number of megapixels is simply not an indicator of quality. There
are some very good cameras with 10+ megapixels, but there are some not
so good ones too.
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:03:12 -0800 (PST), Doc <docsavage20@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>I'm looking for a first digital still camera.
>Features I *think* I want are manual focus ability
I don't recall ever seeing or hearing about a digital P&S that has
manual focus as an option. That feature is - as far as I know - found
only on digital SLRs.
A digital SLR is much above your stated price range.
What would rule out using a 35mm film SLR? You can have film
developed direct to CD in .jpg format and convert the .jpgs to .psd or
..tiff before making any editing changes.
A used 35mm SLR (film) is well within your price range.
However, you've not given any reason that manual focus should be a
requirement. I don't think that a basic digital P&S, used with a
tripod or copy stand, would cause a problem because of lack of focus
ability. The key is to shoot straight at the page - vertically or
horizontally - from the same distance for each page. The tripod or
copy stand would allow this.
Megapixels should not be a consideration. Just about any new P&S
would be sufficient unless you're going to make billboard-sized
enlargements. Megapixels factor in to how many pictures you can take
on an SD card, but in the job you've described that's not a problem.
You just upload as frequently as needed.
When asking for this type of advice, you need to state what you will
be doing, what features you think you want, and *why* you think those
features will be important to you. A more detailed description of the
project is really necessary to know to give good advice.
> and ability to
>do .bmp or .tiff, not just jpeg unless someone convinces me it's not
>important. I've got software to convert to .jpg if needed. I don't
>have any need for video capabilities.
>
>Like everyone else, I'm looking to get some decent bang for as little
>buck as possible. I'm not too proud to go the used on eBay route. I
>don't have any plans to do it professionally. It would be great if I
>could stay under $150 - $200. I'd be ecstatic if I could stay under
>$100.
>
>All input including specific brand/model suggestions are appreciated,
>including any "surprisingly good for a cheapo camera" models.
>
>Thanks
In article <nit9r35agvh638it8ef7c2tmdmc6ip6c1e@4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I don't recall ever seeing or hearing about a digital P&S that has
> manual focus as an option. That feature is - as far as I know - found
> only on digital SLRs.
On Feb 14, 9:35*pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> What would rule out using a 35mm film SLR? *You can have film
> developed direct to CD in .jpg format and convert the .jpgs to .psd or
> .tiff before making any editing changes.
Time, convenience, long-term expense, ability to hook up directly to
the computer. Though it might be fun to learn something about 35 mm
before it becomes utterly obsolete.
> However, you've not given any reason that manual focus should be a
> requirement. *I don't think that a basic digital P&S, used with a
> tripod or copy stand, would cause a problem because of lack of focus
> ability. * *The key is to shoot straight at the page - vertically or
> horizontally - from the same distance for each page. *The tripod or
> copy stand would allow this.
Well...
> When asking for this type of advice, you need to state what you will
> be doing, A more detailed description of the
> project is really necessary to know to give good advice.
Given the previous, I assume you read in my original post:
"My immediate intended purpose is to take pics of some large print
items that are too large to fit on a scanner and want some decent
quality for archiving."
Don't know how much more detail I can provide. Beyond that, once I
have one I'll probably find other reasons to use it.
> what features you think you want, and *why* you think those
> features will be important to you. *
Well, having no experience with still photography other than 110 and
disposable 35mm, I don't know enough to know what would be useful, and
asking in here is part of the process of research. I want higher data
rate like .tiff because it's higher data rate, for higher quality
archiving. Manual focus because I like the option of having more
control - I find the option useful with video I've done.
Doc <docsavage20@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I get that megapixels is supposed to be an indicator of quality,
Well, not necessarily. Cramming more and more pixels into the same tiny
space doesn't improve the image quality when it comes to noise, in
particular in low-light resp. high-ISO conditions.
On Feb 14, 10:22*pm, Jürgen Exner <jurge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well, not necessarily. Cramming more and more pixels into the same tiny
> space doesn't improve the image quality when it comes to noise, in
> particular in low-light resp. high-ISO conditions.
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:35:38 -0500, tony cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:03:12 -0800 (PST), Doc <docsavage20@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I'm looking for a first digital still camera.
>
>>Features I *think* I want are manual focus ability
>
> I don't recall ever seeing or hearing about a digital P&S that has
> manual focus as an option. That feature is - as far as I know - found
> only on digital SLRs.
My Kodak P850 has full manual settings. Also has ability to save jpeg,
tiff and raw. As far as I can tell it has nearly all the features of a
DSLR except the ability to swap lenses. Not claiming it is of the same
overall quality as a top of the line DSLR - just that it has the
features. It is an EVF P&S with 12x zoom lens.
>
> A digital SLR is much above your stated price range.
>
> What would rule out using a 35mm film SLR? You can have film developed
> direct to CD in .jpg format and convert the .jpgs to .psd or .tiff
> before making any editing changes.
>
> A used 35mm SLR (film) is well within your price range.
>
> However, you've not given any reason that manual focus should be a
> requirement. I don't think that a basic digital P&S, used with a tripod
> or copy stand, would cause a problem because of lack of focus ability.
> The key is to shoot straight at the page - vertically or horizontally -
> from the same distance for each page. The tripod or copy stand would
> allow this.
>
> Megapixels should not be a consideration. Just about any new P&S would
> be sufficient unless you're going to make billboard-sized enlargements.
> Megapixels factor in to how many pictures you can take on an SD card,
> but in the job you've described that's not a problem. You just upload as
> frequently as needed.
>
> When asking for this type of advice, you need to state what you will be
> doing, what features you think you want, and *why* you think those
> features will be important to you. A more detailed description of the
> project is really necessary to know to give good advice.
>
>> and ability to
>>do .bmp or .tiff, not just jpeg unless someone convinces me it's not
>>important. I've got software to convert to .jpg if needed. I don't have
>>any need for video capabilities.
>>
>>Like everyone else, I'm looking to get some decent bang for as little
>>buck as possible. I'm not too proud to go the used on eBay route. I
>>don't have any plans to do it professionally. It would be great if I
>>could stay under $150 - $200. I'd be ecstatic if I could stay under
>>$100.
>>
>>All input including specific brand/model suggestions are appreciated,
>>including any "surprisingly good for a cheapo camera" models.
>>
>>Thanks
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:07:14 -0800, Frank ess <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
>
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <nit9r35agvh638it8ef7c2tmdmc6ip6c1e@4ax.com>, tony cooper
>> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't recall ever seeing or hearing about a digital P&S that has
>>> manual focus as an option. That feature is - as far as I know -
>>> found only on digital SLRs.
>>
>> quite a few p/s cameras have manual focus.
>
> ... in the sense that there is a button or series of moves that allow
> the user to pick a focus range or point rather than leaving it to a
> distance sensor and servo.
>
> In the sense that dSLR users can grip some part of a lens and crank to
> focus, not so often.
There are a few. The Panasonic FZ30/50 comes to mind, and I think Fuji
has some models with focus rings. There are probably others that I'm not
thinking of.
Not the most common feature in the world, but it does exist.
Important considerations besides megapixels? 
Linear Mode
