OT- which digital camera to buy? anyone using a Kodak easyshare z760?

[SharkmanBMW]

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

[Guapo]

I've really become a Canon fan myself. One of the Canon Powershots would be perfect, IMO

[Gayle]

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 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?


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.


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.

[Gayle]

This one was taken through glass. Extraordinary desserts--flowers on the food. Today.


Here is how it does with people.


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.

[Gayle]

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.

[Russell]

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.

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

[Guapo]

what's wrong with film?

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."

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.

[Russell]

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.

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."

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.

[Guapo]

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.

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.

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.

[Jon K]

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.

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



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!