need a gift for parents who are still using old film cameras!
What digital camera is best and easy with a reasonable price??
i have a minolta that is pretty good, but not simple to understand...
I saw the Kodak z760 easyshare on sale at wallymart... anyone have this??
THANKS for your input
I've really become a Canon fan myself. One of the Canon Powershots would be perfect, IMO
Film is fine if you just want prints. I find digital time consuming if all you want are prints. Now if you want web images, document images etc. that is another issue. However, I am not sure your parents want to go that much trouble. Bet they just want prints. If you go this route, look for a color printer you can print 4x6 to 8x10s from a memory card or the camera without a computer.
When I shoot color film I generally use kodak processing with a high res cd. I can then do anything I need. Even so, years ago I used to shoot high res black and white and did my own film developing, print processing and mounting/framing as a high end hobby. Now that was time consuming.
Just my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharkman540i
If you're getting the Kodak easyshare to use with the dock/ photo printer, I'd avoid it. The Kodak is way higher per photo to print than some of the other photo printers. We bought our inlaws an Epson picture mate, and it seems to work really well. Just thought I'd throw that in. We have a nicer Kodak camera that works well, and bought the inlaws a $100 dollar Olympus that works fine for what they need.
You cannot immediately see the results of the photo with film. "Oh gee, I cut Aunt Betsie's head off. Guess I should have took another picture."Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell
Also, you only need to print the good pics. I always hated paying for 24 or 36 prints and only 4 or 5 being worthwhile.
As for digital, there are many places where you can get direct to print processing, much easier than film.
Film is dead.
I just bought my gf a canon powershot sd400. Its not bad for the $250 I paid.
Canon IXUS.. i've used tons of point and shoot digicams over the past 5 years and in my opinion Canon make the best... the IXUS is tiny, well built (magnesium alloy), huge 2" screen, super fast, takes stunning photos and can be operated with only 2 buttons (one to turn it on, one to take the shot)
it doesn't get easier than that... plus it's so small it can go into a pocket and not even be noticed
Chris,
I just bought a new digital. Got it the day before Thanksgiving and absolutely love it.
I had an Olympus before that I was less crazy about--the typical problem of the shutter that is too slow and the resolution wasn't great--it was 4.0 megapixals. I bought it to replace a friends camera that I borrowed and lost and found the friends camera--so it is not what I would have chosen.
To get the new one--I had a discussion with my boss who always has the latest and greatest. I am guessing his nikon and big lenses to take bird pictures and his vibration dampner probably cost $10 grand. So he is up on cameras. What he recommended for me was the one he got his wife. I did a search and read on line reviews and came to the same conclusion.
It is a Cannon elph. It is 7 megapixals. The shutter speed is not like an slr but it is good enough to suit me. People that I have let that pictures with it comment on the quickness of the shutter. It has a huge lcd screen which is sort of hard on battery life. I got a second battery and that was a good choice. The quality of the pictures is great. And best of all--IT'S TINY. It is smaller than my wallet. I put in a cloth envelope that some jewelry came in and keep it in the zipper pocket of my purse. I have taken pictures of everything (except my car) for the last two weeks. All the convenience of a camera phone, and quality picures. The base camera was $370 from butterfly photo. They were great. Called to confirm order. I bought and upgraded, high speed memory card (stock one only hold 16 pictures) and an extra battery.
List of readers top favorites and links to buy
Here are some pictures I have taken in the last week. I am taking pictures of what I eat for lunch and where and with whom to amuse myself--just because the camera is in my purse.
Here is how it does with landscape: My office--isn't the color great in this picture?
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...e/myoffice.jpg
Here is how it does at intermediate range: Landscaping at Thursday's lunch spot. More great color and I thought the depth of field turned out decently.
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...ofparadise.jpg
Here is how it does close up: Friday's lunch--food looks better than it tasted but hey I ate outside in 70 degree weather.
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...le/chinese.jpg
This one was taken through glass. Extraordinary desserts--flowers on the food. Today.
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...arydessert.jpg
Here is how it does with people.
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...1meonpatio.jpg
Here is how it does with people in flash conditions: And this picture was taken by the almost blind 92 year old matriarch of our family who always cuts off heads in every picture she takes. If this is not a testimony to ease of use I don't know what is.
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...smypicture.jpg
This shows how small the camera is. Pictures taken with our old camera.
First one is when it is turned off and the lens is retracted. Second one on.
And by the way technically it is called Canon power shot sd550.
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...shotclosed.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c2...ershotopen.jpg
Life of Gayle, brought to you by our friends at Bimmer.info. :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torque
Yeah but doesn't that camera take great pictures? That I have taken all of those in one week for amusement tells you what a great camera it is.
Yes. It seems much better than my Kodak CX7330. Last point and shoot I will ever buy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gayle
I figure this camera will tide me over until digital SLRs get good shutter speeds and get cheap. They are almost there but not quite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Torque
I'll throw in my vote for the Canon A520. I got one a couple of weeks ago after destroying my old Nikon Coolpix 800 (not on purpose). This is not as small and stainless-steely as the Elph (SD series) cameras made by canon- but for the $$$, I think it's a great camera. I got it from buy.com for $174- free shipping AND I got another $30 off for signing up for a buy.com VISA card (I realize many people will not want to get a new credit card, but for me it was worth it to save $30)- so the final delivered price was $144. First thing you will want to buy is a higher capacity SD memory card- since the camera comes with a 16MB card. I got a 256MB card cheap online, and I'm keeping my eyes open for a high speed 1GB card at a decent price.
This camera is simple to use, VERY small- about the size of a pack of cigarettes, or less. It uses 2 AA batteries (I already have about 12 AA NiMH rechargeables from my old camera)- not some special $$$ battery.
I've seen a couple of places where you can get this camera for ~$125, not sure if that deal is still out there. Seems like most retail stores have this camera for $190-200, might be able to catch it on sale somewhere in the next couple of weeks.
I wanted something <$150 that was small and relatively tough. This camera has tons of features, but you can also just keep it on AUTO and point + shoot. The flash is 10000% better than my old Nikon, and the pics it takes are great- no complaints from me at all.
That's my vote and I'm sticking to it.... :)
Bret.
How is the response time for shooting action photos? My son runs, the sony we have is 2-3 seconds behind when shooting. For stills it is fine. The Canon any better ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigmaster
Thanks
That is a good price. I used to be an avid photographer and I wanted a higher resolution digital. How many megapixals in the A520? Show us a couple of pics you have taken with it Bret.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigmaster
Any non-slr camera will have some delay. My Canon Powershot Pro1 has less of a delay than others I have tried.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott C
well since we're sharing ... :D
my favorite subjects -
Click Here for Hi-Res
http://www.guapozx.com/matthew/d/1417-2/100205d.jpg
http://www.guapozx.com/guapozx/d/1719-2/eIMG_0803.jpg
http://www.guapozx.com/guapozx/d/1713-2/eIMG_0746.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guapo
I really like this one. Nice picture! Great composition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott C
Well, the response time for flash pics is pretty slow- but it's better than my old Nikon for daylight pics- I think it would be even faster with a "faster" SD card, the card I have is just your basic SD Card. I have seen lots of decently-priced SD cards with much faster read/write speeds for pretty good prices, but I have yet to spring for one.
Does anyone know, in general, what the delay is between shots on most of these small point + shoot digicams?? I'm ASSUMING it's the read/write speed of the card- but I have been wrong once or twice in my life... :)
Gayle- the A520 is a 4.0MP camera. I'll need to upload some pics to Photobucket before I can show them here. I hate dialup.... But RR Cable is coming to our house sometime around Dec 18th to install broadband!! WOOHOO.
Bret
Show me how you can get large prints that look great with a low cost digital camera? You can with high res film and a low cost "point and shoot film" camera! IMO,Tonal quality is currently better with film.
I have several old SLRs (and about 10 lens) that can take a much better photograph than any digital cameras I have used and I have a new Canon with a 10-1 zoom and image stabilization.
BTW, I see the trend to shoot digital and print conventional. That works pretty good as most people want to hold high quality snapshots with little effort. Not spend hours printing on a low quality inkjet.
"Film is dead" is a rather short sided comment. Dead indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guapo
Well, now you're looking at the other side of the spectrum. Your first point was to the original poster about the ease of use for the average mom and dad snapshot taker. Not likely they'll be making poster sized prints anytime soon. I was simply countering your ease of use argument, that's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell
As for large size prints, 8x10 is easily doable with any decent 5 megapixel on the market today. My 8 mp Canon will do 11 x 17 with crystal clarity when processed as a photo. Any larger than that, and point and shoot 35mm will look grainy as well.
As for tonal quality, I wont argue that, since I'm a novice. But with the ability to post process digital pictures with software on a home PC, it's pretty simple to achieve any effect you could want with a sufficiently decent original. Nevermind the ability to crop and edit the photos at will. Also, with a decent memory card, you can take as many pictures as you can think of on an entire vacation, and not have to lug around extra film.
My mother bought a Nikon point and shoot about 3 years ago. Now she's wishing she had a digital.
I'll rephrase my earlier comment. There may still be a place for film in medium and large format photography, but for the average consumer as a whole, 35mm film is dead ... or at least one foot in the grave.
I'll tell my Dad! He took pictures with my cam while we drove. I'm in the red car.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gayle
fuji f10 for its ease of use and quality of pics under all conditions, low light etc... or the casio ex-z750, Steve's digicams has reviews for both of them
here
and Here.
Both of these were at the top of my list when i was looking for a camera for my wife recently.. In my case both of these had an easy to hold camera body that was still small but large enough for my thickened mechanics hands to hold... The canon sd550 that i had looked at wasn't that easy for me to hold and shoot with , which is a factor for some of us who don't have small dextrous hands. How comfortable a camera was to hold and work the controls was a big consideration to me, something which canon apparently doesn't take into consideration on their entire line of digicams. They need an old guy tester besides all the young people that test products for them.
The large lcd on the fuji and the casio both made it easy for me to see the
pic i was trying to compose. The camera menu is made easy on both of these to use for anybody who's not a gadget freak. simple easy to use menu's that you can set rapidly without fumbling around. Both of these cameras have very fast recovery from shot to shot, and both have over 200 picture taking capabilities on a single charge, the casio has the highest of any camera currently available that i've seen. I ended up buying a nikon because of the zoom capability and general nikon quality but i'm still thinking about buying one of these two for myself. The casio also has a docking station that you leave the camera in to charge or transfer pics, very convenient to use. And casio arguably has the easiest to use menu of any current digital camera. Pic quality is good on all of these , so for me it came down to how comfortable to hold and use for my hands, how easy to change settings , how long a battery charge lasted, how quickly its ready to take a picture from startup and and how long the lag is between pictures.
All things that were nitpicks on my first digitals that i bought 5 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharkman540i
In my humble, "point and shoot" opinion, Canon makes the best. I've always thought that they are a camera company first, so their products reflect that. If you want to point and shoot, they're good for that. If you want to get a little more technical with your photos, you can as well.
I have the SD300, which has served me nicely.
My tips. A Konica Minolta X50 with 250 or 512MB memory stick, only downside a it's in the size of a cig. package it needs light condition while making a movie.
Used it on a beemer meeting in belgium se: http://survey.ltu.se/movies/index.html > EPX_meeting_belgium.
Note could be handled with MC glowes on and while riding.
Note2 my bimmer at > cars > bimmer.
/ Tibbe Lulea Sweden
I don't know why people still chime in about film. The ONLY time film is worth using, is if you're a true enthusiast and you want enlargements made off of 35mm+ negatives. With "Kodak Easyshare" in the title we know he's not an enthusiast. Not to be edgy, but I am not sure when you last used a digital camera... but you simply stick the memory card in the reader, it pops up a dialog, you can resize within windows without any additional software, and you just hit print. I dunno... driving to a store, dropping off a cd or roll, waiting MINIMALLY an hour, or driving back, now that seems like a waste of time ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell
http://e34.digital7.com/Cameras/IMG_2391.JPG
I use canon. Rest of family is Nikon fanatical. Either way, digital is on par with film now a days... if you go the SLR route. But, yeah I would stick to a canon. I think it's fairly evident and safe to say that canon has the most vivid colour right out of the camera. Take gayles pictures into consideration. The greens and yellows are superbly vivid. Those were probably right out of the camera right Gayle? No post-processing?
I vote canon... now its just a matter of finding the model you like. I used to have a PowerShot G5, I've since..um... upgraded.
I get excellent PRINTS from my canon 6.0MP SLR... Large ones too... I've had 12x18" ones done for my portfolio that look incredible. Plus the ability to shoot RAW and do post-processing out the whazoo... that's what I prefer!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon K
Yep. Right out of the camera. I would say yes you have upgraded. Jon--what did the body of your camera cost? I have some fabulous canon lens on a non digital body and figure next year I will get a canon digital body. Thought I would wait til they are another year faster and cheaper.
Jon is rtight... I want a cam for my aging parents that want pics of their garden and house.....
Nothing fancy or complicated!
I personally would not buy an easyshare kodak, but simplicity is crucial or it may not be used!
thanks for all your input, I will have a look at what was mentioned.
Gayle, the "kit" (standard lens + body) was around $900. The body alone would have been cheaper. There are a bunch of new models out since i bought mine. Like the 20D, 350XT, 5D, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gayle