# I need a digital Camera



## Keck (Jan 18, 2006)

I’m about at my end when it comes to not being able to take pics and I would love some recommendations for Digital Cameras (and yes, I am a “Computer Guy”, but not that much of a gadget person).

Here is what I need.

1.	Obviously, a camera that is suited for taking pictures of my tank and specific areas of the tank. I am sure this will require optical zoom, but how much?
2.	What mega pixel size would work? (as in would 4 be enough or will 5 make that much of a difference).
3.	This is primarily for web posting so I don’t see a need of buying a $1,000 Digital SLR. I do want to go cheap as I can without skipping needed features. Im thinking between $100-$200.


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

1) This does not require zoom, but most cameras come with zoom anyway, very useful for other purposes where you can't easily adjust your distance from the subject.

2) 4 will be enough for most purposes. If you want to print them out as big photos or posters more would be better. Also, higher resolution lets you crop pictures, which somewhat works like a zoom/telephoto lens.

3) I would look for optical quality (good lens) rather than fancy numbers and stuff. Look for manufacturers that do good non-digitals as well, preferably Canon, Nikon, Olympus and such, not those who are famous for printers or computers.


----------



## Snailpoo (Jan 13, 2005)

I don't really know much about cameras, so...

This is what I use:

CASIO EXILIM ZOOM EX-Z120 7.2 Megapixel Digital Camera

7.2 Megapixel / 3x Optical Zoom / 2 Inch LCD / Anti-Shake Mode / 8.3MB Internal Memory / SD Memory Card slot / Still and Movie Modes


My reasons for my purchase are:

1. the 7.2 megapixel allows me to take a full tank shot and still allows me to zoom in digitally for a picture of a single button polyp with decent quality. The larger the megapixel the better. 

2. size.

3. the nifty movie function.

4. the "large" LCD

And the price is just over $200 atm.


----------



## cbennett (Oct 20, 2005)

if you are trying to get a good picture of something small that is fairly close to you, you want a "macro" function and not zoom. Zoom is for taking pictures of things that are very far away.


----------



## jhoetzl (Feb 7, 2005)

cbennett said:


> if you are trying to get a good picture of something small that is fairly close to you, you want a "macro" function and not zoom. Zoom is for taking pictures of things that are very far away.


Agreed on the macro, disagree on the use of Zoom for far off objects only.

For anyone with a non SLR or DSLR that wants a better depth of field in a portrait (where you actually want the background in focus) style photo, using only optical (and disable that digital zoom!), zoom in, and back up enough to fill the frame with the subject. Since most P&S Digitals are fairly "slow" (Higher "f" numbers) at the telephoto extent, you will get a better DOF.

On a SLR/DSLR or some more advanced P&S's you can set the aperature manually so this goes out the window...

There are some other uses for zoom on not so far off objects besides this, like scaring a subject if you are too close...


----------



## Stealthy Ninja (Feb 16, 2006)

Just to clear up a common misconception.

*Larger Megapixels are not always better!*

Megapixels DO NOT equal better resolution, it is just the amount of pixels in a picture...in other words more megapixels means you can blow it up larger without seeing the squares of the pixels...

However, if you have a camera with a bad lens, processing chip, firmware it may produce grainy pictures (especially in low light conditions...this is more true with a Video camera actually, but I won't go into that) and when you blow them up, you might have a large picture, but it will have some pixels which are the wrong colour etc. (ie grainy)

So while Megapixels are all nice and all, I'd rather have a camera that can shoot with a higher/more accurate resolution with say 4 MP than a cheaper one that had 7 megapixels.

4 megapixels lets you blow it up pretty large anyway (if you want to make posters regularly you'll need more megapixels BTW...but how many people do that?).

Things to look for:
The chip
The Lens
The resolutions it can take photos in
Megapixels last (if all the above are equal, go for more megapixels)

I'd say go for Canon, they seem to be the best.



jhoetzl said:


> Agreed on the macro, disagree on the use of Zoom for far off objects only.
> 
> ...using only optical (and disable that digital zoom!)...


Zoom = less depth of field (ie harder to focus, less light also = less depth of field) 
Zoom = less stability (especially without a tripod)

So zoom makes macro style shots are nearly impossible.

I agree, no digital zoom. It just increases the size of the pixels which makes the picture a much lower resolution. Digital zoom is just a crappy gimmick.

Just a tip for everyone, we do this with video/film cameras and it works for still cameras too. When you focus on someone or something zoom in as much as you can and focus, then zoom out. When focusing on a person focus on the eyes (or mouth), then when you zoom out again you can be really sure your subject is in focus properly.

Lastly, someone above mentioned movies on a digital camera. I think it is pretty obvious that these movies will be pretty crappy, so just for fun ok?! :hihi:


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

Stealthy Ninja said:


> Just to clear up a common misconception.
> 
> 
> [...]zoom makes macro style shots are nearly impossible.


"Zoom" is really just the ability to change the focal length of the lens from wide angle to telephoto. 

If you look around in the macro lens area, there are very good ones with 105 to 135mm (in 35mm terms). Definitely telephoto lenses. Reason being that in macro photography, you are always very close to the subject which makes things harder for instance when taking macros of fish and insects and such that tend to swim/run/fly away if threatened with a large round shiny object.

Just to clear up common misconceptions.


----------



## Ibn (Nov 19, 2003)

Stealthy Ninja said:


> Just to clear up a common misconception.
> 
> *Larger Megapixels are not always better!*
> 
> ...


Agree with most of the above. The chip on cameras are usually called sensors instead when dealing with digital cameras. Megapixels are not a concern since to notice a difference, you'd have to quadruple the resolution for P&S cameras. With DSLR, there's less of a difference here since the sensor on most P&S cameras are half the size of a DSLR (exception being the Sony R1, which uses the same sensor size as DSLR; it's also priced up there). 

The other thing with the sensor differences has to do with noise (SN ratio). It's pretty close with the sensor size differences in comparing the two. 

Zoom = less depth of field (ie harder to focus, less light also = less depth of field) 

Not totally true. Shooting at a longer focal range does mean less depth of field, but not necessarily less light. Fixed aperture lenses do not vary and lets in the same amount of light. It's indeed harder to focus since to get a decent picture you should be at shutter speeds of 1/focal length. So if you're shooting at 50mm, best be shooting at 1/50 and preferably higher to take improper handholding out of the equation. As long as you're adjusting shutter speeds to be at those levels or above, you shouldn't have any problems. 

Zoom = less stability (especially without a tripod)

For full tank shots or anything static, then I'd use a tripod. For moving targets, forget the tripod for normal every day shooting (there are exceptions here). See comments above for shutter speed. Bump ISO or open the lens up if you need more shutter speed. 

Back to the OP question, I'd definitely take a look at some Canons at that price range. Something along the lines of the Canon A series, such as the A75.


----------



## Keck (Jan 18, 2006)

LOL…slow down guys.

I just need something that will make good pictures for internet pages. Something that is sharp and not blurred or distorted like a lot of cheap digital cameras seem to produce.

I have a Nikon SLR and a bag of lenses, flashes and filters if I need to take a “real” picture. I just don't want to fool with film development for everyday pictures.

Thanks for the suggestions. I like Nikon, but I know squat about their digital cameras. Canons look good for the price.


----------



## ringram (Jan 19, 2005)

Keck, I'm not a good photographer by any means, nor do I understand half of the features most cameras have, but....I'll try to help here. I bought a camera last summer after doing a lot of research before my wife and I went on a vacation (I wanted something to take pics of the fish tank too!), so I ended up getting a 4MP Fuji Finepix S3100 at Walmart(online) for less than $200 ($195 including shipping). It works just fine, although the one thing I don't like is that you can't adjust the shutter speed manually, but that's no big deal b/c I probably wouldn't do it correctly anyway lol. The software is easy to use and works great, it came with a strap, lens cover, pop-up flash(can use or not use) and a pretty big display screen(4" or so). It also has a 10 second timer mode, which is nice to avoid the slight movement from taking a shot, which results in a slightly blurry picture. Here are links to a couple pictrues I've taken with it, just so you can see what it looks like. Ohh, and when I copy the pics onto my comp(.jpg), they're HUGE so I always shrink them down to either 800x600 or 1024x768. Anyway, here it is:

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=104072
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/a...dated-10-26-05-bestpic_10-26.jpg?d=1130392596

-Ryan


----------



## Keck (Jan 18, 2006)

I think I found one, but would like some input before I jump on it.

I was at Target during lunch and they have the following on clearance.

Canon Powershot 4mp
4X Optical Zoom
3.2 Digital Zoom
Price: $149

Here is the catch. They only have the display model left and will sell it to me for $100. However, I only get the camera. No box, manuals, cables, bags or software. They keep in in a glass case so I am sure the camera is ok. I am sure a standard mini-pin USB cable is what it uses. I haven’t checked, but odds are any software and manuals is downloadable from Canon. The bags are usually crap anyway and I have no need for any extra software.

So basically I can get the above camera for $100 with no accessories other than some smudgy fingerprints on the LCD.

What do you think? Is there something of concern I am missing?


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

No cables and software are somewhat of an issue. Like you said, the drivers can be downloaded from their website, or you can borrow a CD from someone who has a Powershot.

I would look at the warranty. If you get none, then it's a very risky deal.

If you can get a complete one with warranty and box and all the stuff for $50 more I'd suggest to do that...


----------



## ianiwane (Sep 7, 2004)

i agree with with not needing the software or usb cable. It is easier to tranfer pictures using a card reader. You can pick one up on the net for about 15 bucks.


----------



## Stealthy Ninja (Feb 16, 2006)

My comments below in bold:


Ibn said:


> Zoom = less depth of field (ie harder to focus, less light also = less depth of field)
> 
> Not totally true. Shooting at a longer focal range does mean less depth of field, but not necessarily less light. Fixed aperture lenses do not vary and lets in the same amount of light. It's indeed harder to focus since to get a decent picture you should be at shutter speeds of 1/focal length. So if you're shooting at 50mm, best be shooting at 1/50 and preferably higher to take improper handholding out of the equation. As long as you're adjusting shutter speeds to be at those levels or above, you shouldn't have any problems.
> 
> ...





Wasserpest said:


> "Zoom" is really just the ability to change the focal length of the lens from wide angle to telephoto.
> 
> If you look around in the macro lens area, there are very good ones with 105 to 135mm (in 35mm terms). Definitely telephoto lenses. Reason being that in macro photography, you are always very close to the subject which makes things harder for instance when taking macros of fish and insects and such that tend to swim/run/fly away if threatened with a large round shiny object.
> 
> Just to clear up common misconceptions.


ok, oK, I get it...what I mean is if you use a normal camera lens on zoom and try to focus on a small object it is "difficult". 

I just want to let you guys know, I am a VIDEOgrapher...so I don't know everything ok?! ha ha :hihi:

In case you other guys are confused, we all basically agree with each other here...


----------



## Keck (Jan 18, 2006)

Well…it is bought. Come to find out they did have all the accessories. Amazing what they found when I politely asked them to check and look for the stuff. 


Look for my post in the photo section. 


Now to learn…

1. Optimal settings for Aquarium Shots 
2. Control Picture Size when posting.

(Working on it I swear)


----------



## Stealthy Ninja (Feb 16, 2006)

Keck said:


> Well…it is bought. Come to find out they did have all the accessories. Amazing what they found when I politely asked them to check and look for the stuff.
> 
> 
> Look for my post in the photo section.
> ...


Photoshop is what you need if you can get it.


----------

