Digital Camera Suggestions

[Rich]

It's been a while since we have discussed digital cameras, and a whole new wave of them are out just in time for Christmas. I'm planning on a new one, and have my eye on the Canon S500 ELPH 5.0 megapixel. Does anyone own this camera, and if so how is it working for you?

I currently have a Kodak DX 4330 that takes pretty good pics, but the menu key no longer works, so I can't make any changes to my camera settings. It is about 3 years old and I don't see any advantage to getting it repaired.

Will a person see any quality difference between a 3 mp and a 5 mp camera? I don't enlarge photos, so will it matter?

Any other suggestions?

Thanks.

Rich

[username]

whatever you do, or don't do i guess, don't buy till you've read over the info at dpreview.com.

if you dont enlarge, and if you dont print, then 3MP ought to be fine. but the 5MP camera might be a lot nicer/more fun to use. look at things like how long it takes for the picture to be taken after you press the button, power usage, and optical zoom when you buy something. those are the things that are most visceral to the casual photographer.

[Burnszilla]

Get a Canon. It's all in the lens.

I've owned a Canon G2 and upgraded to a G5. I get compliments on my photos all the time.

I have a friend with the elph and it takes spectacular photos.

I use CNET's reviews: http://reviews.cnet.com/4502-6501_7-0.html?tag=pageNav&orderby=-7eRating&qt=

[SNC1923]

Canon pretty much owns the digital imaging industry right now. What they don't make themselves, the license to other manufacturers. They are hugely profitable and dumping enormous sums back into their research and development. As a result, their products are outstanding. Buy a Canon.

I own one Canon and two Nikons. I like the Nikons (a 995 and a 5700) but the flashes on both cameras are all but worthless. Their passive focusing systems are a bummer, too. The Canon I own is a 2.0 mp, the 995 is a 3.0 mp, and the 5700 is a 5.0 mp.

I can see the difference (but I've been photographing for 25 years) but it's not too apparent. I can make beautiful, sharp 8X10s that people ooh and aah over from the Canon 2.0 megapixel; however, the prints from the other cameras are better to the trained eye.

I agree with the suggestion to check out dpreview.com -- very comprehensive and objective.

One final suggestion: get something that you can attach a wide-angle lens to. Having a zoom is nice (why I bought the 5700, though it's pretty soft at telephoto) but getting in close with a W/A makes all the difference, especially for bike shots!

[Chacifer]

Howdy,

I own the Canon S500 and I'm a big fan. I purchased it for a few reasons:
The camera body is small and easily fits in a jacket pocket but the camera still takes quality pictures at 5.0 megapixels. The media that it uses (flash cards) is widely available and they come in varying sizes; I bought a wicked big memory card so I wouldn't have to worry about running out of space. The batteries are rechargeable, which is good, but it also means that if you run out of batterypower, you can't just buy more AAbatteries at the store. For this reason, I have a spare battery. In terms of functionality, it's easy to use and customizable. You can use it as a point-and-shoot camera, or you can adjust for lighting and tweak other settings. The software that comes with the camera is basic, but still functional. It's no photoshop, but it'll remove Red Eye and let you manipulate photos a bit.

Here's some shots I took with my camera:

http://acw.smugmug.com/photos/10710154-M.jpg

http://acw.smugmug.com/photos/11954167-M.jpg

[BradfordBenn]

Cannon PowerShotS50 works well for me. Same reasons Chacifer posted.

[lkchris]

Get a Canon. It's all in the lens.


Get a Leica. It's all in the lens.

German, too, like BMWs.

[BubbaZanetti]

i have a canon A80 and its been great, i've dropped it a ton and it still works fine, and with the energizer NiMH batteries and charger (20 bucks) i purchased for it, it'll go forever. very good manual features as well. you can check out some pics i took with it in the "boston to seattle the long way" thread in this section of the forum. i'm pretty sure they've upgraded it to the A85 now.........

[knary]

There's some excellent info on these kinds of cameras and others over here (http://www.dgrin.com). It's a forum of photography enthusiasts of all walks, many of whom are fellow riders (the site is run by the same guy that runs advrider.com).

FWIW, I have a Canon S45. I have been very pleased with it over the past 20 months and 8,236 photos (so far).

[kbasa]

I've had my Canon S400 (4MP version of the S500) for a year and a few thousand pictures.

It's easy enough to use and the manual controls let me alter the shots to my liking. I don't have aperture priority or control over exposure speed, but the compensation tools and ability to set film speed work well enough.

I like the form factor because I can take pictures while I'm riding down the road. It's also quite small, which means I can keep it in my pocket and am ready for candid shots.

I used to lug around my Pentax ME Super, but stopped doing so because it was big and was a pain to lug around. From there, I bought a Canon Sureshot that I could carry in my pocket. I immediately started taking more pictures, which makes you a better photographer - practice makes perfect.

Back in 99, I bought a Sony Mavica, which was huge, but got me introduced to digital photography. The Mavica had the same issues as the Pentax, though. Too big to carry around and too much hassle with the floppies it used for storage medium. From there, I bought the S400, and I take pictures constantly. I carry it in my computer bag when I'm on biztravel and on a lanyard around my neck when I'm riding. I can snap pictures all over the place really easily.

A camera is worthless if it's a hassle to use. For me at least.

And the advice about dpreview is well taken. I spent a lot of time there before I bought my Canon.

Here's some pictures I took last weekend in San Diego.

http://kbasa.smugmug.com/photos/11906708-M.jpg

http://kbasa.smugmug.com/photos/11906760-L.jpg

[lorazepam]

I used Fuji film for years, I really liked the color. When they brought out their digital cameras, I gave one a try. It is easy to use and navigate, but a bit larger than the pocket cameras. I like the pictures it takes though.

http://lorazepam.smugmug.com/photos/914637-M.jpg

http://lorazepam.smugmug.com/photos/944142-M.jpg

http://lorazepam.smugmug.com/photos/1028878-M.jpg

[kbasa]

Jeebus, you take a nice picture, Loraz.

[Rich]

I'll have to do some research at dpreview and go from there. My poor $700 Minolta 35 MM isn't getting used much anymore. I'll let you know what I end up with, and how I like it. Thanks again.

[lorazepam]

They are everywhere, Dave. You just have to see them.

http://lorazepam.smugmug.com/photos/1104683-M.jpg

http://lorazepam.smugmug.com/photos/944300-M.jpg

http://lorazepam.smugmug.com/photos/1106946-M.jpg

By the way, smugmug rocks :thumb

[snoone]

I own a design studio where we own 4 or 5 $20,000 digital backs for product photos. These cameras have the ability to capture 40-60 megabyte files so I was always suspect about the quality of consumer digital images.

I had always had hi-end Nikon SLR's until about a year ago when I bought canon's s-400 elph.. I do enlarge to 8 x 10 sometimes and even on the medium quality setting the prints come out sharp. After taking thousands of pictures with this camera I can say that this is one of the easiest to use best products I have ever owned. I liked it so much that I bought my wife the s-410 when that came out.

Knowing what I know now I don't think I would spend the additional $100 for the 5 over the 4. I did however buy the waterproof housing which is another great product. Not only does it protect the camera from liquids, like when I fall in the river fly fishing but since I am so clumsy I keep it in the housing all the time for protection and let it reside in the top of my tank bag.

[Rich]

Knowing what I know now I don't think I would spend the additional $100 for the 5 over the 4.

This is what I am starting to think too, I found a place where I can purchase a Canon A85 4 mp camera for $228. It looks to have all the features I am looking for, one of them being a high speed shutter. For that price I figure I can upgrade every couple of years, instead of buying the high end stuff.

Loraze, your photos are very awesome, you seem to have all this digital stuff down pat. Thanks for sharing the great photos.

[lorazepam]

Thanks for the compliment. Those were taken on auto setting, no retouching at all. A couple are 3MP and some are 6MP. I also have a nikon coolpix 2100 that costs 130 bucks. I carry it on the bike, it is small and takes great pictures. I use the 6 for stuff I want to enlarge. 11x14 work ok with 6MP but it is pushing it.

[paulsibek]

I have a degree in photography and have been shooting and developing since I was 11.

I own 2 Leica's and a Leitz enlarger and owned Nikons and an Olympus.

While my "heart" tells that Leica and Carl Zeiss have the best lenses,these days though I think things are quite different.

As long as the camera has a glass lens and is from a major camera manfacturer, I doubt that there are any major differences. With CAD/CAM the playing field is more level now.

With the naked eye is is difficult to see differences unless the lens is a real piece of crap or it was dropped.

What we used to do at MIT to test a lens was take a photo of a brick wall from about 6-10 ft away and enlarge it to 11 x 14. Look at it with a magnifying glass, corner to corner and you will see any flaws.

Test whatever you buy this way and take the camera back if you are not happy. Even with CAD/CAM a flaw can slip through.

Now-a-days I'd be more concerned with the printer than the lens as that may now be the weakest link.

BTW- I use an Olympus digital with a plastic body (a metal body costs more but may not be needed) and an Epson 870 with Epson ink and paper. Just like I used Kodak film, chemicals and paper. They are designed to work together. I like the Oly point and shoot because they have an integraated sliding lens cover among other things.

I think that another difference that you should consider is the ease of use of the in-camera software. The Oly is difficult, a Kodak is simple.

A lot of what you need is dependant on how you shoot, for example, I am a point and shoot kind of guy. I compose in my head and DO NOT manipulate in the darkroom or Photoshop. Others do. Decide what's best for you.

The ideal size of a photo for viewing is 11 x 14 for film and 11 x 17 digital. Look at photos in galleries or museums. THe affordable desktop printers are all 8 1/2 x 11. So on the 8 1/2 x 11 you get a great quality with 2 MP's (with a 1" border), a little better with a 3 MP. Any more MP's and you get the option to sent it to Kodak or O'Photo to large enlargement and more camera features.

Lastly remember this, the sales person at whatever store you choose knows LESS than the sales person at the best camera shop in your town so if you can afford to buy at a pro shop do it. If you don't want to buy on-line, note that the Best Buys do not carry the latest and greatest, they carry what sells. AND if you want a great deal, get a $500 gift card and buy after Christmas...

Good luck.

[paulsibek]

Note that the photos here are only 72dpi, the capability of the monitor. One mega pixel can do WWW if that's what you want.

[dlearl476]

My experience is pretty much like Kbasa's. I left my old Olympus 600 home a lot because it pretty much took the entire tank bag. I now use the Elph S230 and small is good. And nowdays, small is pretty friggin' amazing. My buddy just bought a 7 megapixel camera the size of my S230. The S500 would be a great moto-cam.

For those of you who aren't hip to Got Apex (http://www.gotapex.com) it's a great "deal hunter". The have links to the Cannon S500 for $399 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=A0293117)
Got Apex is run by a foaf and it's a swell place to shop.

[IndyGT]

I eyed the Nikon Coolpix 5700 as a possible compact substitute for my D100, but quickly became disenchanted because of the annoying shutter lag - the delay between when you push the shutter button and when the shutter release actually occurs.
This seems to be a common problem with nearly all of the consumer point-and-shoot digital cameras.
My D100 fires when you push the shutter button, just like a film camera, but I'm loathe to subject it to the dust and vibration of a three-week motorcycle adventure. The problem with SLRs with interchangeable lenses is that the electrically charged image sensor magnetizes dust to its surface. Every time you change lenses, you expose the sensor to whatever dust is around.
Nikon has a couple of 8 megapixel Coolpix models - the 8700 and 8800 - that look promising if they have overcome the shutter lag problem. That may be the answer for me.

[threeflys]

I currently have a Sony CD-Mavica (only 2.1mp), I love being able to just pop the disk and stick it in a computer. I'm looking at getting a new camera in the next year and really like the digital EOS from Cannon. I never thought about the dust issue, I'll have to check into it. We have a Nikon 5700 at work and while it's a nice camera, it sure is busy! Way to many buttons for what it does!
Chris

[RTRandy]

I use a Sony Cyber Shot - 5 mega pixel. One reason to consider it, is if you own one of their flat screen TV's, their tuners have a slot for their memory stick. You can take the stick out of the camera and watch a slide show on a big screen.
Here's a shot that was set at 2 megapixels up in Glacier. I wish I had set it on 5 that day.

[SNC1923]

I currently have a Sony CD-Mavica (only 2.1mp), I love being able to just pop the disk and stick it in a computer.

I'm a little surprised at the number of people who are using in-camera software to download photos. Buy a card reader. It costs $20 and requires no software. Just insert your flash card (or memory stick or whatever) and it appears as an icon on your desktop (like threeflys's floppy disk). Just click, drag and copy.

Threeflys: buy that bike! Let's go riding!

:wow

[threeflys]

OK, it sounds like we have some pretty eduated people in here when it comes to cameras, so I have another question. My main problem with the current crop of digital cameras is it seems like they don't have a lot of zoom.
What is an acceptable zoom? My goal is to be able to go ride the Blue Ridge Parkway and be able to take some fairly close up pictures of things, I mean taking a picture of a beautiful valley or glacier is great but what about a picture of that bird or moose? I guess what I'm sking is do I really need that Digital EOS with the interchangeable lenses or am I really good with a 5x optical/2x digital zoom? ( or whatever is in the smaller cameras)
Chris

Tom- be patient for me, my wife says I have to wait for this spring!
This is a picture just south of Anchorage,AK using my CD-Mavica

[DarrylRi]

3flies, I've been shooting with an Olympus C700 Ultra Zoom for the last couple years. It's an older model, only 2MP, but it has 10x optical zoom. This is a great feature, and I use it ALL THE TIME when I'm touring. I'm starting to think that one of the 6-8MP cameras is in my future, but I will have a hard time stepping down from the 10x zoom. Olympus has a coupple of newer models, the 765 and 770, which have 4MP and 10x zoom. You might check those out.

[paulsibek]

THe 10x is about as good as you are going to get without going to interchangable lenses. Go to a camera store and try one.

Forget about digital zoom, is is phto-enhancement and not actual zoom.

[lorazepam]

Digital zoom is a waste of time, in my opinion. I have a 6x, and it works well for me.

http://lorazepam.smugmug.com/photos/944140-M.jpg

[Fritzc]

I haven't done it yet, but a friend told me that you can get a converter at K-Mart for about $15 that changes 12V DC to 120V AC for your automobile/cycle? that you can plug your power source into and charge your Digital Camera batteries on the go or even while stopped overnight. Saves getting automotive jacks for each camera or appliance you wihs to use on the road. :dunno

[dancogan]

I haven't done it yet, but a friend told me that you can get a converter at K-Mart for about $15 that changes 12V DC to 120V AC for your automobile/cycle? that you can plug your power source into and charge your Digital Camera batteries on the go or even while stopped overnight. Saves getting automotive jacks for each camera or appliance you wihs to use on the road. :dunno

Fritz,
The problem with the inexpensive 12VDC to 120VAC converters is in how they accomplish the conversion. They use a rather crude method which basically (as I understand it) creates a square sine wave, rather than the rounded sine wave of a true converter. The result of the square sine wave is to produce a form of 120VAC this is not suitable for small chargers, such as in many laptop computers, camera chargers, rechargeable shavers, etc. I have a relatively inexpensive converter that costs under $100 and the directions warn against using to recharge small electronic devices. On the othe hand, the true sine wave converter in my motorhome is fine, but it's massive and costs $$$$$ lots.

[dancogan]

What is an acceptable zoom? My goal is to be able to go ride the Blue Ridge Parkway and be able to take some fairly close up pictures of things, I mean taking a picture of a beautiful valley or glacier is great but what about a picture of that bird or moose?

Threeflys, if you really want close up pictures of things such as birds, you're generally looking at optical magnification of at least 10X lifesize. In 35 mm photography, that means a 500 mm lens, with price tags well above $5,000! The problem with less expensive optics is that at the longer magnifications, such as when extending the zoom range to its fullest extent, the lens is "slower" in the optical sense, meaning it lets in less light. As it gets slower and lets in less light, your ability to hold it by hand is reduced, due to the slower shutter speeds involved. So it's hard to get sharp photos. Even with the really expensive optics, the pros are generally using tripods.
However, it's much easier to get close ups of things that don't move, such as flowers and intimate scenics. Careful technique and a practiced eye and lots of practice will produce some great shots. Most people also tend to overlook the value of the true wide angle shot, with an imposing subject close to the camera in the foreground. :)
By the way, come to this part of Michigan and I'll be glad to show you an area where birds will feed from your hand and the deer can be photographed with simple, inexpensive optics! :wow

[BradfordBenn]

Fritz,
The problem with the inexpensive 12VDC to 120VAC converters is in how they accomplish the conversion. They use a rather crude method which basically (as I understand it) creates a square sine wave, rather than the rounded sine wave of a true converter. The result of the square sine wave is to produce a form of 120VAC this is not suitable for small chargers, such as in many laptop computers, camera chargers, rechargeable shavers, etc. I have a relatively inexpensive converter that costs under $100 and the directions warn against using to recharge small electronic devices. On the othe hand, the true sine wave converter in my motorhome is fine, but it's massive and costs $$$$$ lots.

That is correct the AC is converted to DC by the use of a bridge rectifier in most simple chargers, a group of four diodes that chop the sine wave apart. The square wave that is produced by the inverter (AC->DC converter) can easily overwhelm the "simple" (cheap) circuits in the chargers. It ends up being a series of switches that will overheat and burn up. It is better for both the motorcycle/car that is supplying the 12VDC to just charge directly those inverters are ineffeceint and then you have the ineffeciency of the charger. Typically the ineffeciency is best "seen" by how hot the system would get.