I am planning to purchase a 3.0 digital camera and was hoping someone with expertise in this field could give me some insight as to what I need to look for. Any assistance would be most welcome.

Thanks for you help

Depends on what you are looking for. I used an Olympus 700 until it died at 13 months old (no extended warranty, was going to cost 2/3 of the cost of a new camera to fix it. It's in the closet if anyone needs parts...) Anyway, I woould have replaced it with an Olympus C-740 or C-750 , but they were not yet in the country. These are generally very nice cameras, with a 10x optical zoom. Very easy to use, produced great pictures.

Looking for a new camera with similar specs, the camera shop showed me a Panasonic Lumix FZ1 . While only a 2 megapixel camera, it caught my attention for 3 reasons: it has a 12x optical zoom; the lens is a high quality Leica lens with included image stabilization; it is very reasonably priced - about $400 now. My biggest dislike is the proprietary battery - extras are about $55 a pop.

Just recently, Panasonic has upgraded this camera to a FZ10 model . The upgrade now has 4 megapixels; the capability to have an exterior flash; a lot more manual control capability. It will be about $600. Not sure if this one is in the country yet. Based on my experience with the FZ-1, I would definitely look at this camera.

All these cameras are lightweight, well built ones. I don't think you could go wrong with any. Right now I tend to favor the Panasonic for the 12x xoom (equivalent to 35 - 420 on a 35mm lens) and for the built in image stabilization (very nice at the long lengths.)

Dave

I have two digital cameras. My first one is an Olympus D-460 Zoom, 1.2 megapixel. My second is an Olympus C-4000 Zoom, 4.0 megapixel. The D-460 is around four years old and still works fine. The C-4000 is a year old and going strong.

Whatever digital camera you purchase, get the most megapixels you can. The more megapixels will give you the versatility to produce better and larger prints. The other important factor is memory size. The Olympus cameras use a Smart Media Card. They come with a 16MB which doesn't store too many pics. I have two 64MB cards for mine. Using the HQ setting, I get about 93 pics on a card. That usually covers most day trips with no problems.

I've been taking a little time to play with the camera taking shots in the SHQ mode and TIFF mode. The TIFF mode filled the 64MB card in about 6 shots. I'm not quite sure how many pics I can put on the card in the SHQ mode.

You should also consider rechargeable batteries. Digital cameras can easily burn through a set of batteries in a day if you shoot a lot. Also purchase the A/C Adapter for downloading to your computer and erasing the card when you're done. That will preserve your battery life.

Bob

Here is a site that I have used to compare cameras. I am not sure how up to date it is at this point:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.html

Another site for general questions (which I think I got from someone here on the forums):

http://www.shortcourses.com/

Here is another good site to compare cameras:

http://www.dpreview.com

Bob's mention that you should get a camera with a lot of megapixels is appropriate IF you intend to print out a lot of large pictures. A 2-3 megapixel camera will give you good 4x6 and 5x7, and acceptable 8x10 pictures. FWIW, new Olympus cameras are moving to the new xD cards, even smaller than the SD cards the Panasonic uses. Because they are the newest version of storage, you may find that xD's are a little more expensive, as SDs are in some areas. The "starter" memory cards shipped with cameras are pretty much a joke. They are so small that there is little reason for the manufacturer to include them. In fact, they are so small you could not buy one that size from the manufacturer.

Another site useful for looking at info on lots of cameras is http://www.dcviews.com/.

The digital zoom sizes seem to be increasing by leaps and bounds. So it seems that if you get one with a high digital zoom you don't need to purchase a telephoto lens?

And unless you want to print more than smaller sized prints you'd be better advised to go for more digital zoom than megapixels???

Or will more megapixels also increase the quality of smaller prints?

My camera has a built in rechargeable battery which will last a whole weekend so that's a great feature. I got it 2 years ago this coming Christmas and today I could purchase two comparable, or better, cameras for what it cost then!

NO!

YES!

Beware on the zoom specification. Look at the OPTICAL ZOOM number. This is the "true" telephoto specification. Optical is the actual magnification. Digital zoom is esentially taking the picture and cropping from the full size. You lose quality when you move to digital zoom. Some cameras more than others, but it can be very handy if you just need a "record" shot of a far off lighthouse.

If you'd like true long range magnification, look for a camera with either a threaded lens or an optional threaded lens adapter and optional telephoto and/or wide angle lenses. My Nikon Coolpix 995 that I bought from JC has a 4x optical zoom (35mm equiv. 38-152mm) and I can add a 3x telephoto on front (so I can go out to 456mm). For even farther off subjects, I can throw it up to 4x digital zoom (sort of like 1824mm, but not really).

The more megapixel the better as you increase the size of the picture you print. See this chart from B&H Photo.

So to summarize: Optical zoom good. Lots of pixels good. Digital zoom okay, but optical most important.

In the for whatever it's worth department, I have to disagree with B&H's table as regards the 6 Mpixel giving a "photo quality" 11x14. Photo quality IS 300 dpi when you're talking about a print done on professional quality equipment. For 11x14 that translates to 4200 x 3300 pixels, which is about a third larger than you get with 6 Mpixels (3032 x 2008 pixels). Printing the entire 3032 x 2008 pixel frame gives you 216 dpi (long dimension) x 182 dpi (short dimension) which will give a very good print, but not photo quality in the strict sense of the word.

Saying that you can get an "excellent" 16x20 (6000 x 4800 pixels) with a 6 Mpixel camera is an even bigger stretch. At 16 x 20 you're down to roughly 150 dpi. You'll get a decent print, but it will likely fall short of "excellent" under any scrutiny at all. Granted, if you're looking at it from normal viewing distance that's different than looking at the surface of the print with a loupe.

Something to consider...

Gary

Terry is buying me a new digital camera for Xmas... of course I am picking it out :rolleyes: Would you look at this one that I am considering and let me know what you think of it. Good, Bad or Indifferent. Thanks
hp photosmart 945
Ruthie

When I posted earlier, I posted only the optical zoom capabilities of the cameras. I turn off the digital zoom, as it really isn't worth a whole lot IMO. I would disregard any mention of digital zoom in any camera ad. In the case of Ruthie's HP 945, it claims 56x zoom, but 7x is digital. The camera has an optical 8x, which isn't too bad. 5+ megapixels, so should get nice printed pics at sizes the average person would use (we will include Gary as an other-than-average person). Also nice that it uses AA batteries.

Other things you will need to buy will be a useable size SD card (128 or 256 mb) - these are available on sale at a number of places this weekend. You will also need to get some rechargeable NiMH batteries and a charger. I would get at least 2 sets of batteries, I have a charger unit made by Rayovac that is very fast - charges batteries in an hour (watch closely, many take "overnight" to charge - about 16-17 hours). This charger also came with a power cord to use in the car so you can recharge a set of batteries while traveling. It cost about $30 and is available at places like Wal-Mart. It is sometimes packaged with the car cord, sometimes with a couple of batteries -- go for the version that has the car cord.

All the cameras I listed, and the HP Ruthie is looking at, have a fairly small size which I like. Not all the capabilities of the SLR variations that are coming down price wize, but vary handy to carry with you.

I really appreciate all the advice all of you have given me. There are so many cameras out there that a novice like me does not understand all the differences. Originaly I was looking for a camera in the 3.0 range that would make nice 5x7 pictures, plus have the ability to take pictures of lighthouses from a distance. Your replies have been a great help.
Thanks

Ooops, sorry I made a mistake when I said "digital zoom". I meant to say "optical zoom". I knew what I meant but said it backwards. For some reason I can't keep those two straight without looking at a camera's specs!

So I think what I said still goes. If I can get a new camera whose optical zoom meets or exceeds my current optical plus telephoto lens, having threads would be a further bonus.

And since I don't plan to print exceptionally large prints I'm leaning towards more optical zoom, with perhaps a mid level megapixel number.
Hey, I've only got 1.3 now!!!

Bodie, another item to consider is price. It could be very easy to let yourself become enticed with a high end camera. There are many cameras out there that will do what you want without having to spend $$$$. And whatever camera you buy will be obsolete before you know it. By the time you get you camera and use it for a while you will know if you want more camera. But with the improvements in the past couple of years it should be easier to find one now that will suit your needs.

When it comes to doing prints, Dave, I'm clearly "other than average." For that matter, I don't shoot with a digital at all because of the nature of the photography that I do -- the digitals don't have the image capture rates to keep up with my film camera bodies, which will run at up to 8 frames/sec until I run out of film. Digitals, even at the high end, still fall considerably short of the digital resolution that I'd need to have available to be enticed away from my film cameras. The other thing that digitals don't, and for that matter, can't offer, is reciprocity failure as a creative element. Granted, I'm 9 std deviations out from the "average photographer" and digitals are great for most people out there. I recommend them to anyone wanting to do photography. They're also a great way to learn composition, etc., at minimal cost...

Gary

One feature I made a lot of use of lately is the digital equivalent of the motor drive. The ability to take still photos at the rate of about 3-4 a second as long as you are holding down the button.

I was taking photos of the speakers at the "Own A Lighthouse" conference and with the 'hesitation' inherent with digital cameras, you can't really capture the image you are expecting to.

By shooting 6-8 frames of a person making their presentation, I was almost assured of getting a decent shot of them talking, without having their eyes closed or their mouth in some screwed up position.

I know, Gary, a motorized 35mm would have accomplished it, perhaps better... but you wouldn't know what you got until the film/slides came back from processing.

I'll try to post a few of these speaker shots if I have the time while I'm waiting here at the DFW airport for a change in planes and connected through a WiFi...


Cullen Chambers


Dick Moehle

For each of these images, I probably shot 30-40 shots and picked the most expressive ones.

Cheating again, John?????

There's an adage out there, Mombo...

The difference between an amateur and professional photographer is the size of the garbage can!

John's just exercising his digital prerogative to do the same

Being able to shoot a series of frames with a digital is fine, John, provided that you don't need out the wazoo digital resolution in each frame, in which case you need to resort to film because the digitals can't write the stuff to memory fast enough to keep up for more than a few frames. I tried shooting waves once with my wife's CoolPix 950 and gave up quickly. Between the resolution and the shutter lag it as a bust as far as I was concerned. Newer digital cameras, of coure, have less of a problem in these areas, but I'm frequently after a wave seqeunce that may consist of from 9-12 frames at 4 frames/sec from which I'll cull out 3 images to print at 8x10 to generate a triptych. For the moment, I'm stayin' with film...



Sorry about the width of this one for those of you with small monitors...

Gary

Taking a combination of what Gary said (suggesting digital to people) and the comment that John made about shooting a boatload of shots is very true. At the resolution and compression ratio I use in my Panasonic, I can fit about 300 pictures on a 128 mb SD card. Why not take a bunch of very close shots? Don't like 'em, toss 'em. (However, being a pack rat, I tend to keep more than I should, as long as they are acceptable shots.)

For shooting things like lighthouses, I would say that the more optical zoom you can get the better - remember, you can't always get close to a light you want to photograph. Having a threaded lens barrel that would allow an aftermarket wide angle adapter would be nice, as most digital cameras only go to about 35mm on the wide end of their scale.

Hey John! I saw Cullen and Dick at the first North American Lighthouse Festival in Mackinaw City (the ones I sent you those pics of back in 1999). Dick frequently escorts the lighthouse boat tours put on by Shepler's Ferry over the summer. Great guys. I envy you attending this most recent conference!

Points well taken, Gary...

I'm certainly NOT out to convert YOU to digital. LOL. And wouldn't want to. Your images demonstrate what high-end film photography in the hands of a pro can create.

I'm 'preaching to the choir members' -- someone who has or wants a digital camera and is looking for advice on features to look for.

Another feature is the ability to set the 'ASA' of the image. Being able to move the ASA from standard (100) to 200, 400 or even 800 means you could move the shutter speed from 1/15 to as fast as 1/125th.

Of course with higher speed film an image taken at ASA 800 setting will be 'grainier' and may have more 'noise'. You can change the ASA 'on the fly' and for only a few frames before resetting it back to 100.

You can also change the color temperature from outdoors to tungsten to strobe to flourescent from image to image.

Most digital cameras that DO have these adjustment features probably also have an 'automatic' setting which makes the camera the equivalent of a 'point and shoot'. So if your camera skills are a bit rusty -- or you'd like to learn more, you can start out with the 'Auto' settings and then experiment to your heart's content without paying a dime for a roll of film or for processing.

I haven't shot a picture on film since before the 2001 Baltimore Reunion.

I understand where you're coming from completely, John...and you're right, you won't convert me from film to digital, but thanks for the compliment on what I manage to do with my film cameras! I'm just trying to keep things in perspective. Digital cameras may offer one of the largest training advantages that photography has ever seen. You can photograph with wild abandon, try new composition ideas, hopefully learn from your mistakes, erase the crummy shots, keep the good ones and go again... all for the few cents it costs you to recharge the batteries! All of those are great attributes. The other points that you mentioned are good ones too, John... The ability to shift iso settings and back is a whole lot cheaper than my "solution" to the problem... i.e. a second Nikon F5 body with a different film loaded!