I work in commercial real estate appraisal, and we takes LOTS of pictures of buildings. The last of our ancient Sony Mavicas (they record on 3.5" floppies) finally crapped out, and we’re gonna need a new one. We currently have two Canon G2’s, which were quite expensive but take outstanding photos. We need a third camera though, and here’s why I don’t want us to get another G2:
1.) There’s lots of us in the office sharing these camera’s, and the whole CompactFlash system of recording photos blows chunks for what we’re doing. People leave photos on the camera and then other people delete them, I have to remind everyone daily on how to transfer them, it’s all a pain in the ass. 3.5" floppies worked well, but had limited storage space (of course) and drained the camera batteries heavily. So, what we’re looking for is a system that lends itself well to multiple users with multiple computers and limited computer skills. I’m not necessarily ruling out some kind of flash memory system, but it needs to be less of a pain in the ass than a Canon G2.
2.) We spent hundreds and hundreds of dollars on these camera’s, and none of us use any of the fancy doo-dads on them. We’re strictly point and snap. The photos are nice, but their ultimate destination is a Word document that will be printed out on report paper, rather than photo paper. We need something that takes a nice photo on “automatic” mode, and can handle itself in any number of outdoor and indoor situations, but we’re all too stupid to use fancy settings (plus that takes time that we never have). Also, the maximum resolution we’d ever be using would be 1024X768 (or something in that range). Remember, these are going in Word reports.
3.) User friendliness is a must, and the G2’s just don’t have it. It’s too complicated for people who aren’t electronic gizmo inclined. Simplicity is a must throughout the entire process of snapping the photo till inserting it in a Word document.
So, in summary, we’re looking for a good “working” camera. I took a look at the new Mavica’s with their 3" CD system, and that looked promising. Does anyone have this camera and have any opinions on it? Any other suggestions for camera’s that are shared among a sizeable office?
My suggestion would be to buy everyone their own compact flash, label them, and say “If you take out the camera, use your own personal memory card.” That would pretty much eliminate the overwriting pictures problem.
You can also get compactflash readers for your computers, so you don’t have to keep plugging the USB cable into the camera and downloading onto one machine, if that’s a hassle.
The compactflash readers aren’t very expensive. I concur with the idea of giving everyone their own card. It’s the best storage solution for photos, IMO.
As for cameras, I don’t know. You should start by looking at what your needs are. How are the photos used? In print? On a web site? Both? Are you taking interior shots? If so, look for one with good low-light capability.
I have a CDMavica, one that records the pics onto a cd.
These are so cool because you can take the pictures, connect the camera to the computer with the USB cord. Then under my computer, the camera shows up as simply another drive. You can drag and drop the pictures instantly without ever “finalizing” the cd or without taking the cd out of the camera. I have had the same cd in the camera for two years now. The camera uses a infolithium batter which tells you how many more pics can fit on the cd, how much recording time you have left with the battery and the correct date and time. If this camera ever breaks I will get another CDMavica without a doubt.
Re: data storage, your choices boil down to either a compact flash-type (SD, memory sticks etc.) or as Greekigurli said, a SONY Mavica that records onto a CD. I don’t see the compact flash card as being a real problem-as others have aptly suggested. Compact flash is the cheapest of the portible storage solutions. The SONY is a good camera, but it is large and bulky and that may not meet your needs.
I recommend the Canon A70, at $300 it is a bargain and you can just set it to Auto and shoot away. It is very small and uses compact flash and AA batteries. You just have to go to the store and look and feel each camera and see what is right for you and your budget.
Just re-read the OP. If you’re looking for a ‘point and shoot’ camera with minimal manual modes, you might consider one of the new subcompact cameras, like the Canon Powershot S400.
The images this camera can take are almost indistinguishable from the G2. Yet, it fits in the palm of your hand. Still uses CompactFlash, though.
If you don’t need that resolution, you might consider a cheaper camera like a Canon A40. It uses standard AA batteries (buy NiMh recharchables), and with a lower resolution (2mp) you can buy cheaper, smaller compactFlash cards and give one to everyone in the company, or at least keep a pool of them. I’ve got a Canon A10, which is the 1.2Mp version. Here are some pictures of our house to show suitability for real-estate:
Bear in mind that those were with an older, 1.2mp version of the Canon camera, and then were reduced in resolution in Photoshop. The originals look quite a bit nicer.
So an A20-A70 would probably do nicely for you, and they’re in the $200-$300 range.
RE fairly simple (but quality built) cameras the best “deals” I have found that are suitable for real estate use are these Kodak CX4300 refurb units for $ 147.00 each. Easy to use and intuitive to understand.
2: Get everyone their own 6 in 1 multi-media flash reader or put one on the PC people use to upload the pics- about $ 20 each and eliminates camera hookup, synchronizing and transfer hassles. Plus with separate cards and readers once the pics are taken they can relinquish the cameras and let other have them immediately as they do not need the camera for loading or manipulating the pics.
I heartily recommend the Nikon Coolpix range. Good features, good value, easy to use and understand, well-built and rugged and reliable, and the recent ones in the range are nifty, small, neat and compact too. I use the Nikon Coolpix 3500 and it’s just fine. (No commercial interest here, this is a genuine testimonial from a v satisfied user).
Here’s some more of my objections to the whole Compact Flash system:
1.) We tried the external card reader route, and it (allegedly) corrupted the flash card. Apparently, Canon G2’s use a standard File Allocation Table, as opposed to a 32 bit one like we use on our PCs. The tech support guy specifically told me not to use card readers with the camera. How much of this is true I don’t know, but that’s what Canon told me. We lost an entire “roll” of pictures this way, the files were irretriveable at least to the best of my capability.
2.) Buying everyone their own flash card is a good idea. This takes care of the “Jack deleted my pictures which I left on the camera from last month and didn’t bother to download” problem. Unfortunately it doesn’t address the “how do I transfer these things from the camera to my report again?” problem. I work with some extremely bright folks, but they are NOT computer people. Putting a floppy into a drive and copying pictures they understand… USB cables and accessing flash memory is Greek to them, and Canon’s “ZoomBrowser” software only makes it more confusing. What I need is a method of transfering photos that works based on telepathy, but until that happens I’ll take the most user-friendly method available.
Sam Stone, very nice! My only problem goes back to me hating Canon ZoomBrowser, which I presume all Canon cameras use. But if we decide against the new Mavica’s, that one looks like what we want, considering the price and the quality. Ultimately, what we’re looking for is something that takes a nice photo at low-ish resolutions. When it’s all said and done, every single photo goes into a Microsoft Word document and the final product is printed on non-photo paper with a color laser printer. Massive photos in high-resolution not only mean giant *.doc files, but the detail gets lost anyway when it’s printed out. I never ever take photos at higher than 1024X768 resolution, and frequently it’s set at 640X480 (the lowest it’ll go). These photos are then put in a 3X3 table in the addendum… we aren’t getting anywhere near using all 4 of our megapixels!
Other than the weight and bulk of the new Sony Mavicas (with the 3" CD recording), does anyone else have any gripes with them? One important feature to us is battery life, and it seems to me that a mechanical CD buring system would require more juice than a flash-based system.
