Recommend a digital camera under $300

[astro]

*Originally posted by partly_warmer *
**waterj2, your point is well taken. I’d respond this way:

1. 6 out of 10 people don’t own an 8 x 10.
2. 9 out 10 people don’t understand enough about composition, lighting, film to replicate the 8 x 10 they dream about, that comes from a professional photographer.
3. 9 out of 10 people just want to see a recognizable image of their friends/loved ones.
4. Only somebody who’s more interested in the technology than the art cares how many megapixels a camera has (boy, what a HUGE bunch of hype the Japanese marketing types landed on us with that!) or what kind of batteries it has.

Again, I say, one photography course at the local junior college will improve someone’s photography more than a $500 camera. And it’s cheaper. **

I’m puzzled by your comments. You may be the super maven regarding film based photography, but quite frankly your dismissive comments make you sound like you know relatively little about the technology of digital photography.

Beyond the quality of the lens, as a rule, the megapixel density of the CCD does make a difference and is absolutely critical to the quality of the picture, with (other things being equal) higher megapixel counts generally yielding crisper pictures with enhanced detail and sharper images. Beginning at around 3 to 4 megapixels and up you can usually get near 35 MM picture quality based on printing out the results on a good high resolution, photo quality printer.

The type of batteries used make a huge difference in the real world usuability of the camera with respect how long they will last in the high stress environment of a power hungry digital camera. These things gobble battery power. Rechargable NIMH batteries are the most cost effective and longest lasting batteries under stress of digital photography although some new titanium and lithium disposable formulations may last longer prior to exhaustion. A fully charged set of NIMH batteries will usually cycle faster and give me more shots than a fresh set of alkalines.

The “8X10” standard the digital crowd is referring to is not a camera format or an 8x10 film glossy, but the size that you can output on a high resolution color printer and still have decent resolution and detail in the picture.

No one disagrees that composition is key to a good picture but pixel density specs are not irrelevant for most people and are very visible with respect to output . You may be analogizing from the film world where a decent 150 35mm brand X will have the same output resolution on film as a 1,500 Nikon and the pics will not look substantially better on the Nikon unless some one knows what they are doing with it. Digital is different. A 6 meg 8x10 printout and a 2 or 3 meg 8x10 printout of the same shot will be visibly different.
Check this site out for more info.

http://www.dpreview.com/

[SPOOFE]

If you can’t take a good picture with a $50 camera, you can’t take one with a $500 camera, either.

Yes, but that difference in price means the difference between “a good picture that you can E-mail to your friends, and nothing more” and “a good picture that you can E-mail to your friends and print out a damn good, clear-as-hell physical copy”. To wit: Compare a 640x480 resolution to a 2048x1536 resolution. Which do you think will be clearer, when plastered onto an 8"x10" piece of glossy paper?

And, yes, the price does make it easier to take a picture. One of the nicer features in cameras is image stabilization. More expensive cameras will also have more sensitive sensors, so the lens doesn’t have to be open as long (I compared pictures taken with my $800 Sony Cybershot, and my friend’s $300 Mavica, and ALL of his were invariably much blurrier).

All that extra price doesn’t just go to packing more megapixels into that sucker.

[Kayeby]

The two cameras that I have experience with are the Kodak DC215 and the Fuji MX-1200, both of which can be purchased for well under $200 on eBay. IIRC, they are 1.3 megapixel cameras. I’ve used them to take photos for eBay auctions and have been more than satisfied.

I much prefer the picture quality of the MX-1200 (IMO the colour is much more accurate) but the DC215 has superior zoom (2x or 3x optical, I’m not sure which one) and better flash. The MX-1200 struggles a little under low-light conditions - I took it skiing this week and the flash is a little weak, but admittedly the conditions were extremely harsh. I was looking at the Fuji Finepix 2800 because I love the look of it, but since I needed a no frills camera that could take good pictures, I went with the MX-1200.

[partly_warmer]

*Originally posted by astro *
**I’m puzzled by your comments…
Beyond the quality of the lens, as a rule, the megapixel density of the CCD does make a difference and is absolutely critical to the quality of the picture, with (other things being equal) higher megapixel counts generally yielding crisper pictures with enhanced detail and sharper images…
The type of batteries used make a huge difference in the real world usuability of the camera with respect how long they will last in the high stress environment of a power hungry digital camera…
The “8X10” standard the digital crowd is referring to is not a camera format or an 8x10 film glossy, but the size that you can output on a high resolution color printer and still have decent resolution and detail in the picture.

No one disagrees that composition is key to a good picture but pixel density specs are not irrelevant for most people and are very visible with respect to output…A 6 meg 8x10 printout and a 2 or 3 meg 8x10 printout of the same shot will be visibly different. **

I’ll amplify why I answered the OP: “Buy from Consumer Reports.” The “more resolution is better” argument makes a lot of intuitive sense, and the counterarguments don’t appeal to people’s vanity: “Are you really going to make use of the extra resolution?” “Do you know how to use an image editing program?” “Do you have a medium quality color printer?” “Do you know how to create test strips?” “Are you willing to pay $1 a sheet to get quality photographs?” “Do you have a high end computer that easily processes 1/2+ MB files?”

The answer for most people is no, to many, if not all of these questions.

Supposing you’re one of those people who answers yes to the questions. Then you’ve got a different dilemma, which is that if you want the highest quality work (for example for weddings), you would use the best you can get your hands on. That’s either a VERY expensive digital camera, or a moderate film camera.

So, for most people, for most purposes, any reasonable digital camera can take their pictures.

If better resolution is critical to digital photography, doesn’t that mean that the Japanese have been selling us lousy digital cameras for years, and claiming the pictures are great, when they’re not? Two years from now they’ll have more improvements that will make the camera one buys today look shoddy. (At least there will be some GREAT features the salesperson can demo.)

My discount house Polaroid digital takes 640 x 480, I’ve taken several pictures with it (retouched, I confess) that I was very please with. In contrast, I was just sent a picture this morning in the mail, file size 340 KB. I could easily have taken a more appealing picture with the Polaroid (file size 61 KB). I could have blown it out of the water with my Nikon F3 and Speedlight. It’s not just a matter of composition.

Image stabilization, preview mode, and low light capabilities are all very useful. It’s not hard to imagine SPOOFE getting much better pictures with a camera that costs two or three times as much. (I just took a look at reviews of the Cyber Shots, they look like very nice equipment.)

But most people would be better off spending the money on a photography class. Not just to learn composition, but to find out how to use the hardware and software.

[irae]

“Buy a flute, and you own a flute. Buy a camera, and you’re a photographer.” - Innumerable Photographers Tired of Discussions of Gear Purchases

I think getting a basic education in photography is absolutely the best investment you can make. Then again, there are lots of ways to do that. I’ve been taking photography classes since I was 8 years old, beginning with a pinhole class at the Smithsonian. There have been times when my interest waned, in large part because I have an aversion to running my film to the lab. The learning curve on digital is, for many people, exceptionally steep due to the instant feedback. There’s no need to takes someone’s word that aperture effects depth of field - you can see it right after it happens. Combined with a little book learnin’, it’s not necessarily inferior to learning in a traditional class setting.

That said, I get the feeling that I’ve gone as far as I can with this approach, and I’m enrolling in a photography class this winter.

The “more resolution is better” argument makes a lot of intuitive sense, and the counterarguments don’t appeal to people’s vanity: “Are you really going to make use of the extra resolution?” “Do you know how to use an image editing program?” “Do you have a medium quality color printer?” “Do you know how to create test strips?” “Are you willing to pay $1 a sheet to get quality photographs?” “Do you have a high end computer that easily processes 1/2+ MB files?”

“Are you going to make use of the extra resolution?”
Maybe not, but wouldn’t it disappoint if you captured a once-in-a-lifetime image at 640 X 480?

“Do you know how to make test strips?”
With a properly calibrated monitor, this isn’t necessary.

“… $1 a sheet…”
No. I run more expensive proprietary paper and ink, and print at A4 for about half that (okay, not counting the initial cost of the printer).

*“Do you have a high end computer that easily processes 1/2+ MB files?” *
I run a 1995 P166, 64 MB RAM and just finished post-processing an 18" X 26" poster for a local dance school. The final file size was 83 MB. Thank gawd I have my nervous tics and personal grooming habits to keep me occupied while waiting for operations to finish.

I do agree that the ability (or desire to learn) to use image processing software is going to determine whether a person gets his money’s worth out of digital photography. If you can’t at least rotate and resize images, you’ll be getting no joy.

Besides, we all know that real photographers don’t talk about cameras - they talk about tripods.

[Finagle]

*Originally posted by partly_warmer *
**

I’ll amplify why I answered the OP: “Buy from Consumer Reports.” The “more resolution is better” argument makes a lot of intuitive sense, and the counterarguments don’t appeal to people’s vanity: “Are you really going to make use of the extra resolution?” “Do you know how to use an image editing program?” “Do you have a medium quality color printer?” “Do you know how to create test strips?” “Are you willing to pay $1 a sheet to get quality photographs?” “Do you have a high end computer that easily processes 1/2+ MB files?”

The answer for most people is no, to many, if not all of these questions.

Supposing you’re one of those people who answers yes to the questions. Then you’ve got a different dilemma, which is that if you want the highest quality work (for example for weddings), you would use the best you can get your hands on. That’s either a VERY expensive digital camera, or a moderate film camera.

So, for most people, for most purposes, any reasonable digital camera can take their pictures.

If better resolution is critical to digital photography, doesn’t that mean that the Japanese have been selling us lousy digital cameras for years, and claiming the pictures are great, when they’re not? Two years from now they’ll have more improvements that will make the camera one buys today look shoddy. (At least there will be some GREAT features the salesperson can demo.)

My discount house Polaroid digital takes 640 x 480, I’ve taken several pictures with it (retouched, I confess) that I was very please with. In contrast, I was just sent a picture this morning in the mail, file size 340 KB. I could easily have taken a more appealing picture with the Polaroid (file size 61 KB). I could have blown it out of the water with my Nikon F3 and Speedlight. It’s not just a matter of composition.

Image stabilization, preview mode, and low light capabilities are all very useful. It’s not hard to imagine SPOOFE getting much better pictures with a camera that costs two or three times as much. (I just took a look at reviews of the Cyber Shots, they look like very nice equipment.)

But most people would be better off spending the money on a photography class. Not just to learn composition, but to find out how to use the hardware and software. **

Partly_warmer – I think you’re getting colder here.

Suppose someone is a beginner who initially won’t use the resolution and who doesn’t know how to use an image-editing camera. That doesn’t mean they won’t eventually learn how. It certainly makes sense to get a camera that you can grow with. Increased resolution means that you can crop the picture to correct composition without sacrificing quality. Most cameras, incidentally, come with image-processing programs that are easy to use – you don’t have to be a Photoshop maven to crop and touchup a digital photo.

As for your somewhat incomprehensible concerns about computers powerful enough to handle 1/2+ MB files and your implication that 340KB is a large file, I must tell you with some sorrow that technology has passed you by. No computer made in the past 3-4 years is going to have any trouble processing jpg files of that size, and in these days of dirt-cheap 50 gigabyte hard drives and CD-writers, storage is simply not an issue.

As for spending money on a class to learn about the hardware and software rather than buying a better camera, that’s just silly. One of the major benefits of the digital camera is that it costs you nothing but time to experiment. There are no film development costs, and, given a camera with an LCD display, you get instant feedback on composition, and to a lesser degree, focus, exposure, and camera shake.

As for for the claim that any digital camera will suit a given photographer – yet another dubious claim. That pretty much ignores ergonomic and aesthetic factors. Anyone buying a digital camera should check it out first to see if they are happy with the menu system, the speed with which the camera starts up, the autofocus delay, the rate at which the camera zooms and so on. Is the form factor of the camera right for their intended use? Some cameras are compact, idea for putting in a pocket (I think the Fuji might fall into this category.) Some allow you to put on filters and adjunct lenses. Some of the Nikons have incredible macro facility.
Finally, partly_warmer’s statement: "If you can’t take a good picture with a $50 camera, you can’t take one with a $500 camera, either. Buying cameras with better “stats” or more features is a con job, for 99% of buyers. " is simply wrong. (I’d be more emphatic here, but this isn’t the Pit.) You can’t do a good job with a crappy tool. Photography may be “art” but it’s also craftsmanship. And any craftsman knows that you don’t cheap out on tools.

P.S. I had an early fixed-focus digital camera that took 480 x 640 pictures. Were the pictures well-composed? Yup. I’m a very good photographer with 30 odds years of experience. Were they any good? Nope. They’re embarassing to look at now.

[Boo_Boo_Foo]

Finagle, may I ask you a warm, friendly question please?

I’m about to become a daddy for the first time soon, and obviously photography becomes somewhat more compelling as you get closer to parenthood.

In my time I’ve taken some lovely black and white “narrow focal length” arty photographs, which happens to be my favourite form of the medium.

How are the digital products stacking up in this particular aspect of the game?

[Finagle]

Interesting question, Boo Boo. There are some digital cameras that support B&W as an “artistic” mode, and you can always post-process color into black and white. But I haven’t seen any results so I can’t speak authoritatively. My gut feeling is that most people who shoot B&W for artistic purposes are supercritical about the results and are very sensitive to grain. The limited resolution of digital pictures might prove to be a sticking point here.

I think the bigger problem might be your monitor and your printer. In B&W you really depend on subtle tonal variations to convey information. Will a monitor be able to convey enough levels of gray to satisfy you? The photo printers are optimized for color and often have trouble with large dark areas. (Apparently at least one model of Epson printer actually has a “light gray” ink to help with gray areas.)

As far as “narrow focal length”, you can certainly set up most cameras for aperture priority mode. Your choices of lenses are more limited unless you go really high end and buy a digital SLR. One aspect of digital photography that I speculate might make a difference is the relatively small size of the CCD element (the light-sensing part of the camera). This results in a greater depth of field at any given aperture. A search through Dejanews (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=EAdi7.8094%24y13.1068132%40typhoon.san.rr.com&rnum=5&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26q%3Ddigital%2Bcameras%2Bdepth%2Bof%2Bfocus) indicates that a consumer digicam had to be opened nearly five stops to get the comparable depth of field as a 35 mm camera with the same composition.

To sum it up, you can get pretty decent BW photos with a digital camera.   Will they pass muster as art photos?   That's up to you :-).  I suggest doing a search on the web for black and white digital photography.   I found a few galleries and the results looked very good but not spectacular to me (on a laptop LCD display).

[pulykamell]

*Originally posted by Finagle *
**Finally, partly_warmer’s statement: "If you can’t take a good picture with a $50 camera, you can’t take one with a $500 camera, either. Buying cameras with better “stats” or more features is a con job, for 99% of buyers. " is simply wrong. (I’d be more emphatic here, but this isn’t the Pit.) You can’t do a good job with a crappy tool. Photography may be “art” but it’s also craftsmanship. And any craftsman knows that you don’t cheap out on tools.
**

Although I pretty much agree with all the other points you’ve made (really, what computer can’t handle 1-2 Meg files? Plus everyone I know with digital cameras usually does shell out for the expensive photo-quality paper.)

I think partly_warmer has a valid point here. Listen, you give me a Pentax K1000 or a Nikon F5 and as long as I’m not dealing with sports, I guarantee you I’ll get just as good results from both cameras. I own an F5, an F90 and an FM2. As everybody knows, what you don’t skimp on are lenses. If you cannot take a good picture on a cheap camera, then a more expensive camera is not going to help you, unless your problem is focusing. Then, okay.
I mean, take a look at the popularity of Leicas. Superb lenses. Rangefinder focusing, no auto nothing. No super-snazzy features. Yet some of the world’s best photographers swear by this camera. It ain’t the features that sell this camera. It’s the good glass, and the photographer’s ability to master the basics.

Of course this isn’t cheaping out on tools. Leicas aren’t exactly cheap. But bells & whistles should not be confused with the most important aspects of photography: great optics and great photographers who pay attention to light, moments, and composition.