Digital Cameras (OT) (was Re: The Malvern Hills... Done it!!!)

John Foss wrote:
> Wow, cheap! But if that’s all you can afford, you should save your money
for
> food, or save up for a “real” camera.

Oh, absolutely. My Fujifilm FinePix 2600, at 2 megapixels, is perfect for
my needs. I certainly wouldn’t want to use a 0.1 megapixel camera for
taking pictures of my daughter! But it’s ideal for taking pictures to go on
WWW, or for carrying on bike/yike rides (I like to carry a camera wherever I
go, and a keyring digital camera would be preferable to the cheap 35mm that
I currently carry, even if the picture quality is lower).

My more serious advice to the original questioner, BTW, would be to decide
on the maximum image size he’s likely to want and what sort of zoom he might
like, then look at the available storage media (Compact Flash, Compact Flash
2, Smart Media and the other one) and decide what best suits his needs, then
visit his local PC World to look at the sizes and feel the weights of
various cameras. Once he’s found 2 or 3 cameras that he likes, do a Google
search or look at the archives of rec.photo.digital for reviews.

For an idea of image size, a 2 megapixel image from my camera measures 1600
x 1200 pixels and will print at about 22" x 16" with a resolution of 72
pixels/inch.


Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny )
Recumbent cycle page: http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/
“I don’t think proofreading is adequate. All posts should be waxed and
buffed. Then they should wear little tuxedos.” - Greg Harper on usenet

In my limited and humble opinion, one should buy a digital camera that is a camera first and a digital device second. That is, it should have excellent optics, the digital hoopla can be bought and added later. With that in mind, anything made by Olympus or Nikon is REALLY good. I’ve got an Olympus 1.3 Megapixel camera that takes beautiful pictures and that now one can buy for not too much. Especially the ones without optical zoom which unfortunately is the first feature that you will want. The Nikons are outstanding also but pricey.

The Canons of a few years ago were tiny but took nasty looking photos. The newer ones are much better from what I’ve seen.

Re: Digital Cameras (OT) (was Re: The Malvern Hills… Done it!!!)

In article <ad0o00$1tq$2@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Danny Colyer <danny@jugglersafety.net> wrote:
)
)For an idea of image size, a 2 megapixel image from my camera measures 1600
)x 1200 pixels and will print at about 22" x 16" with a resolution of 72
)pixels/inch.

But 72 pixels/inch is unacceptably poor print resolution. (It’s fine
for web pages). You have to get up around 150 ppi to even get to where it
doesn’t look terrible, and into the neighberhood of 300 ppi to get
photo-quality.

You can do 8x10 blow-ups from a 1600x1200 camera, but they’ll be noticably
different than 8x10 blow-ups from film. 5x7’s should look close to
equivalent.

I use a Fuji FinePix 4900, which is an outstanding camera (since
superseded), very light and compact considering its feature set, but
still fairly bulky compared to the pocket cameras.
-Tom

Re: Digital Cameras (OT) (was Re: The Malvern Hills… Done it!!!)

Tom Holub wrote:
> But 72 pixels/inch is unacceptably poor print resolution. (It’s fine
> for web pages). You have to get up around 150 ppi to even get to where it
> doesn’t look terrible, and into the neighberhood of 300 ppi to get
> photo-quality.

I wondered if someone would tell me what sort of resolution you need for
photo quality :wink:

Still, I can certainly manage an A5 size print good enough to go on the
wall. I haven’t tried any bigger.

Anyway, the camera does me nicely. And anything with higher resolution
would have cost more than I wanted to pay.


Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny )
Recumbent cycle page: http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/
“I don’t think proofreading is adequate. All posts should be waxed and
buffed. Then they should wear little tuxedos.” - Greg Harper on usenet

Re: Digital Cameras (OT) (was Re: The Malvern Hills… Done it!!!)

Anyone interested in digital cameras should take a look at
www.dpreview.com.
They have many in-depth reviews (and I mean IN_DEPTH!), and are
impartial as far as I can see. Terrific site IMHO.

Klaas Bil

Re: Digital Cameras (OT) (was Re: The Malvern Hills… Done it!!!)

John Foss <john_foss@asinet.com> wrote

> All great advice, but you got a little weird here. If you print a digital
> image at 72 pixels/inch or 72dpi, won’t it look terrible? You need at
least
> 150dpi to look decent, and 300 to look really nice (depending on type of
> printer, paper, etc.) 72 would look really rough.

Presumably the difference is 72 pixels along each edge compared with 72
pixels per square inch… 72 pixels per inch is 5184dpi. 150dpi is 12 and a
bit pixels along each edge.

Phil, just me

“Cattle Prods solve most of life’s little problems”

Any camera that can do this, is good quality.
This is a picture I took at Long Beach CA with a Nikon775. (awesome camera)

sunsettower.jpg

Re: Digital Cameras (OT) (was Re: The Malvern Hills… Done it!!!)

“Phil Himsworth” <phil@flippet.neeeet> wrote in message news:<ad3a3m$h00$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>…
> John Foss <john_foss@asinet.com> wrote
>
> > All great advice, but you got a little weird here. If you print a digital
> > image at 72 pixels/inch or 72dpi, won’t it look terrible? You need at
> least
> > 150dpi to look decent, and 300 to look really nice (depending on type of
> > printer, paper, etc.) 72 would look really rough.
>
> Presumably the difference is 72 pixels along each edge compared with 72
> pixels per square inch… 72 pixels per inch is 5184dpi. 150dpi is 12 and a
> bit pixels along each edge.

I don’t think John is a little weird. An inch is a unit of length, the
associated unit of area is square inch. 72 dpi is OK for computer
screens, 300 dpi is OK for printing on paper but 600 dpi is noticeably
better. Yes 600 dpi is 360000 dots per square inch.

Klaas Bil
Echelon-thingy still semi-dead.

Re: Digital Cameras (OT) (was Re: The Malvern Hills… Done it!!!)

Klaas Bil wrote:
> I don’t think John is a little weird.

I think that was John saying I was getting a little weird, for quoting image
size at 72dpi.

The simple reason is that my picture editing software defaults to 72dpi
(when converting the dimensions in pixels to the dimensions in inches) and I
couldn’t be bothered to change it, not being sure what to change it to in
order to be any more meaningful.


Danny Colyer (remove safety to reply) ( http://www.juggler.net/danny )
Recumbent cycle page: http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/recumbents/
“I don’t think proofreading is adequate. All posts should be waxed and
buffed. Then they should wear little tuxedos.” - Greg Harper on usenet

Re: Digital Cameras (OT) (was Re: The Malvern Hills… Done it!!!)

On 29 May 2002 05:55:25 -0700, Klaas Bil <klaas123@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> Anyone interested in digital cameras should take a look at
> www.dpreview.com.

There’s also http://www.imaging-resource.com/ which is very good,
particularly the sets of full-quality standard test shots taken on all the
cameras tehy test available for download.

regards, Ian SMith

|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ |