I need to replace my dead 35mm camera that I’ve had since 1991. The rewind motor seemed to die about a year ago on this simple Nikon range finder that treated me well. I got 13 years out of an $80 camera!

I’m definitely wanting to going to Digital this time around,


All I have to go on is that a few camera-people I’ve talked to suggest that 3-4 mega pixels should be enough chip.

All I expect to be doing is shooting typical family photos, cars and other stuff like that.

What works for you guys?

I suppose I'll have a look at what like Consumer Report has to say too.

Thanks in advance,

Dave

 

Remember that a higher megapixel camera can always take downgraded shots but a low megapixel camera is never going to upgrade the shot. In other words get at least a 5.5 megapixel if you can. You can set it lower so the pics will not be full 5.5 mp quality but you will always have that option. emember also that the higher the megapixel rating the larger memory stick you will need. Don't use a 32MB card in a high megapixel cam, you'll regret it. Get a 512MB stick and figure that intot eh cost of the camera.

One other thing, if speed betwen pics matters to you make sure you don't get a low end camera. Some of these cams can make you wait 5 or 10 seconds between shots - really frustrating. My current one is a Gateway 5.5 mp (not manufactured anymore) that I got for $150 6 months ago. My ONLY gripe is the excess tiem waiting between shots. If you want instant shooting you will need to look into a digital SLR type cam, those begin at about $1000.

 

Same boat as you were in last year. Loved 35mm but camera died and film/processing were insane. Jumped to digital and have few regrets. Chose the highly rated Kodak DX6490 with transfer dock for around $450. I wanted a "heaftier" camera that would replace the in hand "feel" of a 35mm with a viewfinder. The Kodak fits the bill perfectly and a big plus is you can set it have the 35mm "click" sound when you shoot. It has 10x zoom with incredible optics - Kodak did it right for once and splurged on big time optics - knowing if they didn't get it right this time, they would be left in the dust. With 4 megapixels there is more than enough resolution for family portraits but you can lower the image levels for mundane shots. Get an upgraded memory and shoot over 100+ pictures. Love the camera and software that comes with it. The video mode is remarkable and will record for as long as you have memory available, not just short clips like a lot of cameras. Downside is printing pictures. I keep waiting for prices to come down and just keep piling up the shots on the computer. At least you can email them or print them online through Snapfish or similar outfits for around 0.17 each (4x6) as well as do enlargements, etc. This camera is a bargain for the money. Highly rated by Consumer Reports and for once, I would whole heartedly agree

 

Yeah I have to agree COMPLETELY! My wife and I bought the same Kodak camera last year and the thing is amazing! You actually get 10x optical and 3x digital zoom, so it's more like 30x zoom. The thing comes with a lithium-ion battery, really long cycles between charging. It's incredibly easy to use, ours sits out all the time and I find myself using it all the time. I would also recommend the 512mb card or bigger. I have the 512 card myself and can get 350-400 pictures on it before needing to download to the computer.

Hope this helps.....

 

No need for a very high mega pixel camera unless you plan on making very large photos.

A 3-4 mega pixel camera will serve the masses quite well. Getting a high mega pixel camera with a fixed amount of zoom is okay if all your pictures are upclose, but they stink at a distance of more than 15 ft.

I use a Cannon S1 IS, and you simply cannot take a bad picture with it, and with the image stabilizer, you really have to try to get a blurry pic.

I've taken pictures of moving cars at over 1/2 mi away with out a tripod, and the detail is simply amazing. You can get one of these top ten rated cameras for right around $400 at Best Buy.

 

Cameras are kinda like the computers, it seems people think the more mega pixels you have the better. Really a 3-4 mega pixel is more then enough for everything you would want. Now if you want to blow up a picture to poster or even bigger size then you could talk more pixels. Another thing to look at though is the zoom, you want to try and get as much optical zoom as you can. Shy away from the ones that have little optical zoom but a lot of digital zoom. Also look at the time in between shots and average battery life. Speaking of batteries try and get one that uses regular batteries and not the type that are camera specific. A camera with media cards are great and if your computer or printer has slots for them use that to download the pictures, most cameras use a lot of battery transferring the pictures. I have a Fuji FinePix 3000 that has worked great for a couple years now. Good luck and happy shopping.

 

Whatever you get, consider the type of battery/ies it takes. You'll get the most flexibility out of one that takes AA batteries. Proprietary batteries are a scam to increase a company's profits. Go with Nickel Metal Hydride batteries of at least 2300 miliamp hours. I have a CAsio Qv-R40 and like it; its the size of a credit card + 1/4" in height x about 1 1/4" thick. It doesn't record audio with video but I already have a video camera.

 

I agree on the lower MP recommendations. I have a 6-year old Olympus C2100UZ digicam that is only 2.1MP. I have printed out photos with it before, and have found that you virtually can't tell the difference from a regular photo below 5x7. At 5x7, you can just start to see the pixelation, but how often do you print out 5x7 photos? Heck, I've quit printing them out for the most part. I just dump them all into one folder system (organized by year and special events, like /2004/hooverdam/pic1.jpg, etc.) Then, periodically, I burn them to a CD-RW. When that fills up, I'll burn them to a CD-R (they last a bit longer than a CD-RW). Plus, with 2 computers now, I can keep three copies--one on each harddrive. And, if you're just a point-and-shoot photographer, I wouldn't spend more than about $300. We're talking about disposable technology here.

Remember...pro photographers get that "one amazing shot" by shooting LOTS of photos. A little know-how on composing shots helps, but the bottom line is that they shoot, shoot, shoot.

Jason

 

I've got a Sony 4 Meg and it does movies etc. Real nice camera, cheap, etc. Real happy with it. Lot's of pictures of the munchkin came out nice.

 

While spendiing our monthly $500 at Sam's club (another thread/ another time) my wife and I came across this HP Photosmart 8450 printer. This thing is great! I can print whatever I want off the computer and I can also pull the memory card out of the camera and put it into the printer and print out whatever size photos I want. I can put several different photos on one sheet of paper, or make a sheet of wallet size photos, if I want to. It was only $175 (on sale). So far, this thing has been idiot proof.

 

SONY ya cant go wrong with that.

 

Canon digital elph SD200/300/400/500. Great cameras, superfast, huge screen on a tiny tiny camera, great video mode. Cards are cheap, get 2 512 MB is my advice.

Also agree on the MP's. Getting more than 3 mp is useless unless your are printing 11x17s or something.

 

This has been a great tread. Lot's of help, thanks.

Tom

 

Below is a post I made in a previous thread. It discusses Shutter Lag, which is very important when considering a digital camera (sorry, I was just to lazy to go over it again here):

Digital cameras, specifically ‘point and shoot’ digital cameras, all have this pesky little problem the manufacturers keep to themselves. It is TABOO for them to discuss or quantify in their specifications. What is this problem you ask? Well, it’s called SHUTTER LAG. Simply put, shutter lag is the measurement of time from the point at which you push the little button, to the time your photo is actually taken. Most point and shoot digital cameras are TERRIBLE in this respect, which makes the ‘point and shoot’ term somewhat of an oxymoron. If you are the type of person who likes to catch that perfect shot of little Johnny blow’n out that last candle, FORGET IT! It don’t work.

Shutter lag on most point and shoot digital cameras range between .4 and one second. Again, an eternity if you’re lookin to catch that one all important shot. My advice would be to ‘test drive’ many models. Don’t bother asking the question to your local camera dealer, cuz he don’t know. If he does know, ask him to see the specification to prove it. Pentax to my knowledge, is one of the only manufacterers who publishes shutter lag in their specifications. Good luck and shop wisely.

 

I don't follow the point and shoot market much anymore, but if anyone is looking for some assistance with digital SLR's/lenses/workflow etc etc feel free to give me a shout.