My work digital, a Kodak 280, has apparently grown legs and while unattended leapt out of the back seat of my car and climbed over and out the rear window I (foolishly) left open in a desperate bid for it’s freedom.
Having entered the insurance claim I am now in the market for a new digital camera… probably in the 500 - 800 range. Anyone using a digital they like and could recommend?
The Kodak was nice (tho’ battery hogs) and I may just replace the 280 if technology bang/buck ratios have not changed appreciably in the last 6 months.
PC Magazine had a review of digital cameras in a recent issue. You can do a search of their reviews at http://www.pcmag.com and maybe find something of value.
If you go just above your price range, to about $1000, the Olympus C-3030 and Nikon 990 seem to be about the best of the new 3 megapixel cameras. But, depending on what features you need (like the 340 meg IBM microdrive) there are several others that make a lot of sense, too.
In the 2 megapixel range, there’s the Olympus C-2020 and the Nikon 950, the predecessors to the two mentioned above. These will run anywhere from $500 to $700, but again there are other very good cameras on the market in that range as well.
All digital cameras are battery hogs, it has little to do with the individual model you buy. Forget alkelines, even though some cameras ship with them. Get some rechargable NiMH batteries and a good charger (the Maha MH-C204F gets very good reviews) and they’ll last 10 times longer.
I have a Panasonic PV-SD4090 that I really like. It’s reasonably versatile, has good battery life (all day at an IFGS game on one lithium-ion battery charge), and above all has fantastic storage capacity. It uses the LS-120 superdisk drive, giving it a storage capacity of 120M. This lets you store up to ~450 1280x960 images (its highest resolution stills). You can also use regular floppies like the Sony Mavicas if you run out of superdisks. The superdisks cost about $5-$7 each, while equivalent solid-state media costs $250-$290.
That said, here are the cons:
All disk drive cameras are inherently slower than solid-state memory cameras (Mem.Stick, Flash ROM, etc.) because data must be physically written to the disk. Superdisks are somewhat faster than regular floppies, but you still can’t take rapid-fire high-res stills with them.
You can take up to 10 seconds of 0.1 second interval mpegs at a time (about 100 rapid-fire frames), but you sacrifice size and resolution; a disk can store ~80 of these mpegs.
The PV-SD4090 is only 1.3 megapixel, so it’s not great for taking really big-frame high-res shots, either.
I find that it works very well for documenting things at work. You can snap pictures all day, and it just hooks up to a USB port as an external floppy for file transfers–this DOES NOT WORK on NT 4.0 (which doesn’t support USB), but it should work on W98 and W2K.
I’d say they are all pretty good. All 3-megapixel cameras use the same CCD anyway, though some makers use better lenses and/or better electronics than others. Nikon and Olympus seem to be most popular with “real photographer” type people who want the highest image quality and control. Their controls work very much like film cameras. Sony has a more computer-like interface, but their image quality is just as good, especially those with Zeiss lenses. I’m not too sure about Kodak since they’re not as big here in Japan, but my impression is that they tend to emphasize ease of use and bright, impressive colors. Not necessarily accurate colors, but pleasing colors.
I’m personally very happy with my Nikon 900, which is now 3 models behind the latest model. If I were to replace it, I would consider Nikon 950, Nikon 990, Olympus 3030, Sony DSC-F505V and Sony DSC-S70. If you want something more compact than these, check out the Fuji MX-2700, Canon S20 and the amazingly compact Canon S100 (also known as IXY Digital, Digital Elph, and Digital IXUS).
Both the Nikon 950 and the Olympus series mentioned by scr4 are excellent. Some of the Sonys are good too, but stay away from the Mavicas. By storing the images on floppys they lose image quality due to the high degree of compression required.
The Nikon 950 or 990 are the macro champs. If you need that feature.
100% on the battery issue too. Get a set or two of NiMH and the Maha 204 charger from Thomas Distributing.
We just got a digital camera at work, and ended up with the Nikon 990. It has a lot of nice features (a lot of meta data for the images, a histogram, lots of manual settings). It does tend to suck down batteries fast, and we had a problem with their reader software on Win2k.
We were also looking at the Sony DSC-S70, which was a little cheaper, but didn’t have all the features that the Nikon did.
From what I heard about the Olympus 3030, its a great camera, but overpriced. It should be more in line with the Sony and Nikon (~$800 and $900 respectively, IIRC).
We use a Mavica FD81 and an FD91 in our lab and we are generally happy with the results. We like them because of the floppy since we use them in the field and essentially have unlimited storage available. The photos are mostly used in Powerpoint presentations and are small enough not to hog up too much space.
I have a Sony Mavica (older model from about 3 years ago) that we replaced with another Sony (the Cybershot).
It’s nice for what I use it for (mostly like a regular camera) plus has the ability to do short MPEGs (30 sec, IIRC). Another advantage is that it uses a memory stick, so it’s very small. OTOH, I also use a Sony Vaio computer, so the memory stick just sticks right into my computer with no problems.
FWIW, if you’re using it for work, I would get the Mavica because of the higher res, the zoom, and being able to just use floppies rather that some other memory source.
I just ordered the new Mavica 95 – its currently on backorder <grumble grumble grumble>. I have played with the Mavica 85 and 88. Both were fine cameras. I really like the ability to safe pictures to a floppy…