thelawgoddess Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 just wondering if any of you that have either of these can give me some opinions on them. how you like them for outdoor shots and whatnot ... i'm looking to get a digital camera but i'm having a hard time choosing! Quote
iain Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 tell me about it, I was eyeing the olympus stylus digitals that are weatherproof. But then I start reading about shoddy image quality on those stuck-up digital photo sites...then I find out they are all using nikon f5's as their "real" camera, and their lenses cost more than my car. Quote
Gary_Yngve Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 just wondering if any of you that have either of these can give me some opinions on them. how you like them for outdoor shots and whatnot ... i'm looking to get a digital camera but i'm having a hard time choosing! I have an s400 and like it a lot. I really like the 3x zoom and how small it is. Some sample pictures from it are at: http://students.washington.edu/climb/GlacierPeak/ Haven't put it to test in really cold/wet conditions yet though. Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 Those olympus' shoot fine. If I was going to recommend a point and shoot here are a couple of tips- Batteries are drained in every digital camera I have used. So find one that takes double A's as well as the recommended lithium battery. It will be better when away from civilazations like a larger city and you have to replace batteries. 3 megapixel is good enough to make great 8.5x11 inch shots. Get one that creates movies including the sound. If you can get one that does have some assisted shooting features such as landscape, evening, and macro settings do it. They do make a difference. Quote
Peter_Puget Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 (edited) If you can check out the model you are considering and pay attention to the time between pressing the shutter release button and the actual time the shutter moves. I have a Canon and it is great for landscapes or someone walking on a glacier. It is worthless for rock climbing or taking little kids pictures- if the subject is at all active. Absolutely drives me crazy!!!!!!!!!! Edited January 13, 2004 by Peter_Puget Quote
Gary_Yngve Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 The recent Canons are a lot better wrt latency. You can also press the shutter halfway to do lighting/focus ahead of time. But you simply can't beat an SLR camera when it comes to quick response. Quote
jja Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 When I was looking into buying a digital camera, I used this site. I found it very useful. Quote
cracked Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 I was in the same boat until last week. I bought a Canon Powershot S50, 5.0 megapixels, etc, etc. I figured I'd spend a bit more and get good optics, though as Ray says, 3 megapixels or so will do fine. Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 peter pusset, Those factors are related sometimes to the media you buy, battery life as well as the camera make model and design. Most everyone is aware of this who has used 4 or 5 digi cameras or so and it sucks. It's not groundbreaking news and it's not just your Canon. The best solution to capturing an action shot with a digi camera is to hold the shutter button down to half way until the "right moment" then all the way for the shot. Quote
J_Kirby Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 I really like my Olympus Stylus 400. Don't know why those wankers were complaining about image quality as it works great at what it is intended to do. Its got all the features mentioned except sound with video. I don't shoot video with my camera though, so I don't consider that a drawback. At 4 MP and with all the rubber seals and metal case, this was exactly the camera I wanted. It is very small and the case can be slippery when wet as I found out the other day when it took a bit of a ride out of my hands. It bounced squarely off a metal edge on the way to the floor and only suffered a small ding. Needless to say I am happy with the beefy construction. As far as battery consumption goes, this camera takes close to 500 pictures on a single battery charge. It only takes a Li-Ion battery but the battery can be recharged in 2 hours using the included wall charger. Quote
bobbyperu Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 its all about the elph...S4 -everything ya need, nutin ya don't... and sexy like that other S4 -bp Quote
marylou Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 I've been real happy with the s40. The fully manual comes in real handy, and I think the lens is a little more better than on the Elphs. Little more weight too, but you get something for that. I'd respectfully disagree with Ray on the 3mp thing and go with 4. Quote
mothboy88 Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 If zoom is important to you, the Pentax Optio 450 has a 5x optical with a few more bells and whistles than the s400. The trade-off is that its probably about 15-20% bigger. Its about the same price and is also 4 megapixels. Its worked well for me. Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 First of all I never said dont get 4mp. If you had seen any of my photos printed off my 50 dollah printer then you might have an inkling why. Quote
Gary_Yngve Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 If zoom is important to you, the Pentax Optio 450 has a 5x optical with a few more bells and whistle than the s400. The trade-off is that its probably about 15-20% bigger. Its about the same price and is also 4 megapixels. Its worked well for me. Beware that the higher the zoom that you use, the more important it is that you keep the camera still (i.e. use a tripod). In anything other than sunny daylight conditions, the 5x zoom may not be usable without a tripod. Quote
cj001f Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 Beware that the higher the zoom that you use, the more important it is that you keep the camera still (i.e. use a tripod). In anything other than sunny daylight conditions, the 5x zoom may not be usable without a tripod. I'm assuming you mean at the higher zoom powers (i.e. longer focal lengths)? Not shooting slower than 1/focal lenght w/o a tripod. The other thing to consider is most zoom lenses, particularly lower cost, particularly wide range (i.e 5x, 10x)get to be pretty poor quality. Quote
thelawgoddess Posted January 13, 2004 Author Posted January 13, 2004 thanks everybody! whoa, gary; those are great shots! it's nice to be able to see a bunch of pictures from the s400. i was considering the s50 and g2 as well ... until i did more research and read a bunch of reviews. i just think the a80 or the s400 would better suit my needs. they are both 4mp with 3x optical zoom, which i think i plenty on both counts. i believe that of the two the s400 has the faster "boot up" speed - under 3s. not sure about how fast it takes the picture, but like gary said you just get it ready by pressing halfway and it's likely fast enough. cj, i think gary is referring to that with the higher zooms you need to use the slowest shutter speeds for the best results ... and hence the tripod. or something like that? Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 I think both those cameras are fine. Enjoy whatever you get. Dont forget to use the movie options if you have them. They are cool. Quote
Alpine_Tom Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 I got my wife a Canon A70 for Chrismas and she just loves it. The little messing around with it I've done, I find the latency pretty frustrating, but I guess that's a tradeoff of digital. She reports the "pushing the button halfway down to pre-focus" feature doesn't work particularly well. It does take video clips; that seems to me like one way to get past the latency problem. It seemed to me the 3x optical zoom was adequite for most applications (ignore the digital zoom number) and unless you're going to be making huge prints, 3mp is probably fine. And Costco has 256mb memory cards for ridiculously cheap, less than any of the mailorder photo houses. Quote
Cpt.Caveman Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 Note: I took over 270 shots with several movies using my camera recently. I had to buy another card to make the last 80 shots and movies this time. It's pretty rare but I was on the road for 14 days with museums churches pyramids climbing bars and just plain humor sometimes... I always use maximum quality or highest resolution on all shots. In retrospect I recommend starting with a 256 mb card if you shoot a lot and take short movies like I do. Otherwise something smaller in memory could work. I often spend extended periods of time away from areas where you can buy batteries. This is where I take short movies that burns the batteries.. I have rechargables too.. Hence the reason I make my certain recommendations that may or may not apply to all. Quote
Led_Hed Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 Don't go digital. You'll regret it. I did. My $70 Olympus stylus Epic has great glass and with Fuji Velvia (which is the bomb shit as far as slides are concerned-for archival quality, color, reproduction, etc.) I'm able to print 10x14 with amazing results. Just cause it's treandy doesn't mean it's sensible. Quote
cj001f Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 My $70 Olympus stylus Epic has great glass Buy the biggest memory card you can afford. 256MB are cheap now ($60 or so). 512Mb is the way to go though - buy enough memory so you don't have to bring along a spare. Quote
Alpine_Tom Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 One thing I've noticed is that digital pix seem to look better on the web than scanned film photos. I assume it's because scanning from a print causes problems with reflection off the shiny photo paper. Whereas with digital photos, you get that projected slide look, the rich colors and deep shadows. I don't take slides, so I don't know about scanning slides, and my scanner does a crappy job scanning negatives. Quote
Ursa_Eagle Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 Don't listen to the person who says "don't get digital". The advantage of digital is that it doesn't cost $.25 or $.50 every time you click the shutter. The quality really isn't that bad; I had 24 of my 2 MP images blown up to 6x8, and they look spectacular. It's a little frustrating that some of those pictures are only 2.0 MP, but it's a lot easier to get out the digital while climbing than deal with the SLR. My friend has an S400, and that is a *sweet* camera. If I didn't already have a digital, that's definately the one I'd get. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.