Maximum PC

I was recently at a wedding show, wife was a model there. I brought my digital camera in to take some pics during the show. Damn does that camera suck ass, lol. For the last 3 years or so that ive had it, its worked great for around the house, beach and takin pics of the kid. After this wedding thing, i was about to throw it in the trash.

Wife would come walking down stage, id take a pic and by time it was ready to take another pic, she had already posed, turned, and walked back down the aisle. Plus i had no zoom except the crappy digital thing, which just made things blurrier. I decided after lookin at those pics, its time to get a new camera. I was watching a photographer there takin pics. He could snap them as fast as his finger could push the button it seemed. Thats what i want in a camera, no more waiting, no more blurry shots. Here are the two finalists. Anyone use either of these and have good/bad feedback on them?

Right now i have an HP 315. Nice for simple point and shoot, but im looking for something a touch better, nothing professional, im not rich. Need to get ebay up and running again for that to happen, lol

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductde ... 030&DEPA=7

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductde ... 011&DEPA=7

I've got to ask.....

Was your slow photography using the burst mode? Did you even know you had one? I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but most people don't realize their digicams have this feature.


If you're gonna plunk down the cash for a fairly decent digital camera, the 700 for the Cyber Shot, go to photo.net for reviews of the cameras you're interested in.

I find it ot be a great resource. As for your choices, the F717 is a great camera - and pretty neat looking. Oh... and don't get your cameras from Newegg. As great as it is for computer equipment, cameras can be had elsewhere for a much better price. Especially those focused on camera equipment.

But hell, it's at Sears for $500.

From not knowing anything about these two cameras, I would agree with the previous statement based completely on the fact that the lenses look bigger in the 717 which will allow for more light to be focused onto the CCD. I am currently looking for a digital camera that will allow me to take night/indoor shots with out the flash, and the lense size is the first thing that I look for.

Thanks for the info Klarion, didnt even think to search around for better deals. Im always so used to newegg being the best. $100 cheaper is a big difference, and i might even be able to run over to the store and get it. As for burst mode, i dont think i have ever seen that feature on my camera. Ill pull the old manual out and look, but i dont think it has it. I think its just slow writing to the CF card. Once i take a picture, its about 5 seconds before its ready to take another one. Besides, its time for a new one...thanks again.

Well, a friend bought your first option and after him I bought this one ( http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDe ... 016&depa=7 )

He regrets when he saw my camera.

Here's a review of the the dimage g600.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_rev ... _g600.html Right now the page is down, try to see it in 2 days.

GALLO

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control ... 908&is=USA
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDe ... 001&depa=1

Nuff Said

that sony is 499 at outpost

Get something you can adjust shutter speed.

I hate paying for film, and i like being able to take 100 pictures and not worry about cost. Then i can go home and sort thru them for free, and then print them out at home on my lexmark or take them down to the store and print them out. Either way, digital for me...much more convenient.

Alright, but don't blame me if your images look digifyed.

Seriously, the only way to beat the quality of film is to buy a Digital SLR. I'd rather have the quality than the convienece thank you.

Anyway, if you look on www.bhphotovideo.com, you'll see that you can get 36exp film for about $2.50 a roll. Don't get your negs processed, just get tthem developed, should cost about $2-3 a roll.

Lets see, that's about $5 for 36 pictures, or about $0.14 a pic. You've already spent $500 on the camera, lens and scanner, so in order to justify the cost of a $1,000 DSLR you would need to take 3,571 photos.

And don't give me that "well I take 100 photos a day with digital" baloney. Most people who go digital get too damn trigger happy, then take 1000 photos a month and end up with about 50 keepers. Where-as I'll take about 4 rolls a month and end up with about the same keepers.

Can you do this with a cheap digicam?


Notice the completely out of focus background, I highly doubt you can do that with any consumer digi-cam. It's just one of the many reasons I swtiched back to film.

Dan O.

Im sure film cameras do a much better job, but for me and the wife, digital is so much easier to use and manage. I prolly take 40-50 pictures when we go out and do stuff, and your definitely right, maybe 10-15 keepers. But again, there is no cost in this. We hardly ever print pics out unless they are for a frame on the wall. That is a nice pic ya got there though, ill try and find something comparable that i did with my digital, lol...ive already been lookin and cant find anything.

Yeah, I've been a photo hobbiest for a couple years now. I'm very picky when it comes to my photos.

One reason I'm so critical of my photos and other peoples photos is that I've learned a good deal about what makes a good image, and somehow I've trained my eye to spot defects.

Most cheap digicams produce photos that I find uncomfortable to look at. For one thing, they are a lot more contrasty due to a short dynamic range. IE, the point where a dark object becomes black is a lot sooner than film, where it would be a dark grey, same for highlights.

Also, I've grown a distaste for all-in-focus photos, except of course landscapes. Portraits in my opinion should only have the subject in focus, and I rarely see that in consumer level digital camera images.

One more thing that really bothers me is the fact that so many digital users are using really old cameras, like year 2000 or something, and they have horrible color, contrast, and are full of artifacts. I saw one of these on the cover of a magazine the other day and it made me cringe.

I used to like digital, until I had my film scanned. Yeah, 8mp images from a cheap scanner really opened my eyes to the world of film. As soon as I get my first paycheck I plan on buying that Minolta Scan Dual IV, as it gives 18 megapixels of 48bit color.

I've invested quite heavily in photo equiment, though a lot less than a pro. I have a professional version of Vuescan, a professional scanning software, and a home version of Neat Image, which reduces grain and scanner noise (my 8yr old scanner needs Neat Image badly )

I do own the Maxxum 5, and it's a wonderfull camera. Have you ever used an SLR? It's an experience that many Digital users find quite enjoyable.

My father took two cameras to Europe with him this spring. He took his $250 Digicam and my $250 SLR w/lens. He really liked the way the SLR handled better, the instant shutter release, the bright viewfinder, and the general feel of it. There was no use in comparing the photos when he got back. The digital images just could not compete with the film SLR, or even my mother's little Canon Sureshot.

I'll have to post a comparison for you.

Edit: Here's two photos that were taken on the same day in the same location.
Minolta Maxxum 5, Fuji Superia Xtra ISO 400 film, Minolta Scan Dual (the original)

Olympus D580Z


Dan O.