Digital Camera Recommendations?

[Off_White]

I'm hemming and hawing on this spendy piece of gear. A search showed that the last time this came up was last February, which is a long time ago in the tech world. I've liked the Sony MVC-1000 precisely beause it feels like using a film camera, with a good viewfinder, an awesome 10x optical zoom, and a substantial shape (and the writing to cd storage is appealing too) but I fear from a climbing standpoint its the equivalent of hauling my old Olympus OM-1 along, which takes great shots but is large and heavy. For climbing purposes, it would seem that something small, with a modest zoom capability, and a quick press-the-button to record-the-shot lag (with a quick decent burst mode too) would suit the purpose of taking more pictures. I'm not looking to get published, just to have more images to look at in my doddering old age. What have others used and liked or hated about them?

[allison]

I'm about to buy one too. The camera is going to be purchased in Asia, so I may not get a model that is available here....so I'm not looking for a specific one. Instead I am making a list of parameters.

 

So far I have

 

4 MP

compact and lightweight

good battry life

good macro

 

Need feedback. Specific models are helpful but what you do and don't like is more important.

[Gary_Yngve]

quote:

---

Originally posted by allison:

I'm about to buy one too. The camera is going to be purchased in Asia, so I may not get a model that is available here....so I'm not looking for a specific one. Instead I am making a list of parameters.

 

So far I have

 

4 MP

compact and lightweight

good battry life

good macro

 

Need feedback. Specific models are helpful but what you do and don't like is more important.

---

I'm looking for one too... my old one has been MIA for a month

 

The Canon G3 looks kinda cool.

[DavidW]

I've had 4 digital cameras in the last three years. After lots of research I'd have to say that even more than with film cameras you have to be able to articulate exactly what you intend to do with it.

 

If your main viewing is going to be on a computer screen then many of the higher rez cameras probably arent necessary. if you intend to use your printer and make nice prints then it gets a bit more complicated.

 

My first camera was a .78 megapixel unit and that was definately not enough horsepower..... i sold it to a friend. Yes.... he's still my friend but his daughter uses it more than he does.

 

Then I jumped to the canon powershots after reading reviews for a few months. I found the 2.1 megapixel canon to be really really cool and pretty small. Then I got a 3.3 megapixel canon from ebay and was sad to find that the improvement over the 2.1 megapixel camera to be extremely minimal. I sold that one to a girlfriend for about $150

 

These days I have a canon powershot S110 digital elph and I am totally happy. It is exactly the same size as a box pack of cigarettes, is fairly effecient with battery power and takes AVi movies with sound.

 

It actually has the highest quality glass of any camera I have ever owned and I had an Olympus OM1 and other pentax and canon film camera's.

 

sounds like you have one of the Mavica cameras that uses a floppy...... the pics mine takes are about 2.5 megabytes each so only half of one pic would fit on a floppy.

 

one thing thats true with any digital camera is that they sell them with very very small memory cards and the cameras are pretty much useless at highest rez without buying bigger cards. and if youre not going to use it at highes rez then why bother? I can get about 40 pics at highest rez with a 64 megabyte card and a 2.1 mp camera. when i go somewhere for a week or more I take two cards and borrow Mattp's 256 megabyte card too!

 

some of my friends with higher rez camera's are envious of mine...... the movie function is cooler. the panorama feature (which i knew nothing about prior to purchase) is almost my favorite feature and the camera is made of metal not plastic. my only complaint is that the zoom feature is minimal........ only 2x optical (dont even pay attention to digital zoom figures... you can do that on your computer and its very low quality)

 

all of these cameras are power hogs..... so i wouldnt consider owning anything other than one with a rechargeable battery system.

 

you can PM me for more info if ya want. I personally will never return to film cameras. Likewise after alot of research I'm not going to buy another camera until they make something 4.5 megapixel or greater in exactly the same size as mine.

[russ]

I'm about the lay down my cash on a digital camera as well. The important features for me are size (reasonably small), adequate optical zoom (at least x3), adequate resolution (3-4 megapixal) and reasonable battery life.

 

I've finally settled on the Minolta F100. I have an Canon Elph APS format, so looked hard at the digital Elph's (Powershot S330). Decided I wanted both x3 optical zoom and 4 megapixel. Here's a good website for researching digital cameras.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?cameras=minolta_dimagef100&method=sidebyside

[savaiusini]

Here's what I use: Sony DSC-S85

I've been using the S85 for almost a year now. I've been thoroughly impressed with it thus far. At first, I was scared to take such an expensive, 'delicate' item with me in the mountains, but I quickly got over it. The S85 is built very rugged in my opinion. The greatest thing about it is the fact that is has manual overrides on EVERYTHING...even focus! You might think that a camera with so many manual features might be tricky to figure out. If you know a few basic camera principles (shutter speed, aperture, etc.) the camera is really quite easy to use. In fact most of the functions have thier own button, so you don't have to fumble around with confusing menus.

4.1MP is certainly overkill for viewing on a computer, but I do find myself printing a few shots from each trip. This is where a higher res camera excels. My only complaint is that it doesn't take normal batteries. While the InfoLithium battery seems to last just fine for 4-day trips/~300 shots, I'd be hesitant about having it be my only camera on month-long expeditions.

[freeclimb9]

SiPix Blink. $40.

[ChrisT]

I recently bought the Nikon Coolpix 885:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp885/

 

I have the black one. I like it for the following reasons:

 

1. really small and lightweight

2. rechargable battery

3. USB plugs right into my iMac...easy peasy

 

and it takes really great shots!

 

Downside: The lens cap is a bit of a pain.

[bobinc]

I have the Nikon 2500. It's 2.0 MP and seems to do okay, but the resolution isn't as good as I thought it would be. This is probably due to my lack of understanding on how it works (hope so) but that will be easy to figure out.

 

The lens stores inside the body and the thing is very compact. With a 64 MB card, you can keep track of a lot of trips!

[Alex]

I have a Fuji FinePix 2800 with 6x optical zoom and 128mb card. It also takes "movies" with sound. It is fairly compact and light and I take it climbing. It has macro, the zoom is nice, it takes 4AAs.

 

I recommend this camera, but you wont need the 128 MB card, 64 would be fine. You can see some of the photos (reduced) it takes here:

 

http://www.mountainwerks.org/alexk/climb/TRIceCliff.htm

[icegirl]

Another vote for the Sony DSC-S85. I've been very happy with it..

[Jim]

The primary limitation of digital cameras, if you're looking for good photos, is the lens. The optics are just not up to those of film cameras, until recently. Nikon has recently introduced a DX series that uses Nikon 35mm lenses!! Big improvement, but pricey. If you're just looking for point-and-shoot quality though the there's so me good suggestions above.

[Dean_Lowery]

I'm going to step up to the Canon G-3 from my Canon S-100. Overall I've been happy with the small size and ruggedness of the s-100 along with the fact that it takes decent 2.1mp pics but I stumbled on the review of this one, the G-3

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/G3/G3A.HTM

and I'm waiting for it to be available in three weeks. A friend of mine uses the G-2 and his pictures are outstanding.

[cj001f]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim:

The primary limitation of digital cameras, if you're looking for good photos, is the lens. The optics are just not up to those of film cameras, until recently. Nikon has recently introduced a DX series that uses Nikon 35mm lenses!! Big improvement, but pricey. If you're just looking for point-and-shoot quality though the there's so me good suggestions above.

---

yes and no - most of the current DC optics are as good as conventional P/S camera optics - i.e. molded with maybe some touch up grinding, which is usually up to what most people(unfortunately) expect from a camera - however, if you want to take good pictures, good quality lens are the only way to go.

 

What makes a much bigger difference for DC buyers than the glass is the software setup the camera uses - it can make a big difference in the the quality of image saved, and time between shots. Several of the new Kodaks will allow for user download of software upgrades (a big plus since for alot of cameras only the CCD & the softare change between models) Worth a thought.

 

Carl

[russ]

Just forked over the cash for a Minolta F100 . I'm playing with the settings - which seem pretty straight forward.

 

Question for you folks who have used ditigals: what size (2272x1704 to 640x4980)and quality (super fine, fine, std, econ)do you normally set your camera at on a climb when you don't want to mess with it - just pull out, shoot, tuck it away, and go?

 

My inclination is to go with 'fine', 2272x1704. but wonder if just going with 'standard' is adequate? Obviously you never know when the perfect shot opportunity is going to come up.

[Peter_Puget]

Whats about making prints. Any technologies to avoid or go after and how much is needed to buy a decent printer. How long do prints last?

 

PP

[remlec]

I've been holding out on this item since I haven't gotten answers I like. Maybe one of you has a better grasp. No problems on low altitude climbs in summer but specs and salesmen say they need to be +0 degrees and none have been moisture friendly. If I can hardly keep my headlamp battteries warm enough to light and my watch face looks like a bath tub will I get a digi camera to hold up?

[Dean_Lowery]

Russ stated:

quote:

---

My inclination is to go with 'fine', 2272x1704. but wonder if just going with 'standard' is adequate? Obviously you never know when the perfect shot opportunity is going to come up.

---

You hit it right on the head IMO with the first thought, going with the 2272x1704 size. You can always reduce the pic to a smaller size with no penalty but it doesn't work as well going the other way. My biggest mistake when I first got my digital camera was to always go with smaller size. When I got a great pic, I was dismayed to find I couldn't make it larger. So if you are going to have to choose between settings, choose the larger one and carry plenty of MB.

(can't lurk around here all the time )

[CraigA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by russ:

Question for you folks who have used ditigals: what size (2272x1704 to 640x4980)and quality (super fine, fine, std, econ)do you normally set your camera at on a climb when you don't want to mess with it - just pull out, shoot, tuck it away, and go?

 

My inclination is to go with 'fine', 2272x1704. but wonder if just going with 'standard' is adequate? Obviously you never know when the perfect shot opportunity is going to come up.

---

The best thing to do is take a bunch of pictures around your house/neighborhood, taking two or three frames of each shot and only changing the res setup for each. Then you can go to your computer, download them, and evaluate what you did and did not get. This should give you the answer to your question. Unfortunately it takes a little time, but then when your out in the field the real payoff comes: You will know exactly what your going to get.

 

Have fun,

 

Craig

[allison]

Doing my research, and OMFG there is a lot of information to wade through.

[allthumbs]

I recommend a brownie.

 

[ 10-16-2002, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: trask ]

[russ]

I recommend a brownie.

 

[ 10-16-2002, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: trask ]

 

A little heavy handed with that editing function don't ya think.

[gregm]

you might check out the canon s-30 or s-40. it is basically a g2 in a compact case with a smaller lens. it is still not as small as a lot of compacts but you have all the manual controls you could possibly want. it is not set up for external flash or add on lenses, but you can buy third party adapters.

 

whatever you get, the movie mode is basically a gimmick but turns out to be a lot of fun.

[iceaxe23]

as for output...I shoot pro (weddings and senior portraits) and use The canon d30 and Olympus E-10 and have a pro lab do my printing, but walgreens and walmart just got new Fuji Frontier printers and they can make great prints on real photo paper in an hour (4x6 up to 8x10). I tested it out. You can even upload them to them on the internet and get them mailed to your house. I have printed some at my pro lab up to 16x20 and I can't tell them from medium format. If you have photoshop you can resample the file size and go very big in the prints. I have not shot film in some time. I do have a question for those of you who have used compact flash cards on the mountains...how good do they work in the cold?? thanks all

[troubleski]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gregm:

you might check out the canon s-30 or s-40. it is basically a g2 in a compact case with a smaller lens. it is still not as small as a lot of compacts but you have all the manual controls you could possibly want. it is not set up for external flash or add on lenses, but you can buy third party adapters.

 

whatever you get, the movie mode is basically a gimmick but turns out to be a lot of fun.

---

I stumbled on a waterproof case for the s30 and s40 the other day. They claim that it will let you take pictures to a depth of 100ft. (that is a long time to be holding your breath if you ask me) It costs an extra couple hundred, but if you do any water sports, or like to climb in the pouring rain, might be worth looking into. I think sony has a underwater case for some of its cameras too... but for which models exactly escape me.