# Digital camera.... again



## ninoboy (Jan 26, 2004)

I bought one last year but only lasted for a month before I lost it during my business trip. I couldn't recall the type either but cost me over $300.  My wife won't let me buy another expensive one.

Could you all give me the brands and the types those are pretty good and cost less than $200? How many mega-pixel do I need minimum to catch a good tank pictures? 

I searched this board and only came up with someone suggesting the A60 Canon. But that is only 2 MP right? Do I need 4meg.pix?


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

ninoboy said:


> How many mega-pixel do I need minimum to catch a good tank pictures? [...] But that is only 2 MP right? Do I need 4meg.pix?


It is a misconception to think that you "need" lots of MP to take good pictures. Not the case! You really need only 0.5 MPixels! This would give you about 800x600 pixels, just fine for display on other members screens!

Now if you would want to print them, you should go up in your requirements, perhaps to 1 MP for a 4x6.

Okay, okay, there are no 0.5 MP cameras anymore. What I am trying to say is, the more important thing is optical quality. Often you will find a better optical quality with higher pixel counts (and higher prices), but it is NOT correlated.

Friends of mine have 4 MP cameras made by xxxxx (big famous computer and printer makers...) and even though the pixel count is great, the optical quality bites, and sharp macro pics are not really possible.

I found that camera manufacturers with a long history in optics (Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus) produce superior cameras compared with those made by manufacturers of copy machines and computer screens :tongue:


----------



## GDominy (Jul 30, 2002)

I agree with Wasserpest on everything but the minimum requirements for printing.

Basically 2mp is decent for printing photos at 4 x 6 and 5 x 7... however if you want to print any photos in 8 x 10 then you really want a 4mp or higher camera. You "can" do it with a 2mp camera (I have several images I printed from a Canon Powershot A40) but you can see "jaggies" and pixelation (although you can correct some of this with some of the high end photo printers)

I am a huge fan of the canon line and would recomend it to anyone who is just starting out with Digital Photography.

Another thing to consider is that with the higher megapixel cameras you can get away with a lot more as a novice.. If you take a massive full size 4mp image and shrink it.. some of the details you may have "missed" in the original photo are not nearly as noticable... but if you use a lower megapixel camera to take an image in the same size as the reduced image, any mistakes you've made will be a little more obvious.


----------



## ninoboy (Jan 26, 2004)

Aah, now I understand. I always thought that MP is everything for digital camera. Thanks for clearing that up.

I guess I'll just go to Frys and pick a Canon or Olympus laterroud:


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

To me, pixel count is really like an optical zoom. If you take a 4MP image and crop out a 600x400 pixel area, it's like an additional 10x zoom! But again, if the optical quality isn't there, the result will look crappy, and you NEED to shrink it as G said, in order to hide the flaws. 

Regarding printing... aim for at least 150 pixels/inch to avoid "jaggies".

1 MP for up to 4x6
2 MP for up to 6x8
3 MP for up to 8x10
4 MP for up to 10x14

roud:


----------



## oldfarmhouse (May 18, 2004)

If your looking for quality at a cheaper price Olympus makes good cameras. Mega pixels aren't everything but it does help with sharpness. The number one thing to look for as said above is the brand and thats because the lens is what makes the difference. Nikon, Cannon, Olympus, all great lenses. I would buy what you can afford in that order of cameras.


----------



## ninoboy (Jan 26, 2004)

Thanks for the input. I really appreciate itroud:


----------



## cich (Aug 5, 2003)

oldfarmhouse said:


> Mega pixels aren't everything but it does help with sharpness.


 That is VERY true... I "only" have a 2 megapixel camera, but it takes _excellent _shots, up to 1600x1200dpi (sharp, high quality images too).
It's the Canon Powershot A60, by the way. Everyone I've talked to says Canon's the best brand in the market (consumer market), and I agree fully, as I have two of them with NO complaints. And yes, there are cheaper ones, but not _as_ good. Send me a private message if you want any full-resolution sample images from my Powershot(s) A60 or S30. Just trust me on the Canon thing though, if it's quality you want... I've done a lot of shopping around for these two cameras. roud:

--cich


----------



## ninoboy (Jan 26, 2004)

I just bought a Panasonic Lumix LC50 and gonna return it today. I was gonna get the Canon until someone told me that the Panasonic Lumix has a nice lens (Leica). The result you could see in the photo album and it's kind of off-focus. I read the review last night and found out that that camera has problem focusing. 

Anyway, I'm gonna switch it to a Canon SD110. Does anyone have any experience with this one? It has great reviews everywhere and my wife doesn't want the bulky A60 or A75. Any other recommendation? I know my price range strecthed to over $250 now


----------



## putty (Nov 19, 2003)

I have a Canon S50. 5.0 MP. custom white point (which is crucial for taking tank shots), no shutter delay (also important) and really good color rendition. 

Here is an unaltered pic I took of my tank.
http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6047


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

I've had a few Canon models and other brands, right now I have an Olympus C-740 which I chose over the Canon models in the same price range because of the APO lens which is visibly sharper than the Canon models I tested including the S1 IS. My next choice would have been the Fuji S5000 simply because it has a slightly faster lens at full zoom and just has a nicer feel.

All my film equipment is Canon save for some of the bigger lenses which are just plain unaffordable in the Canon brand, but at least in the mid range point and shoot arena, I wouldn't rate them any better than other models overall, it just becomes a matter of what features you want and what you're using them for.


----------



## observant_imp (Jun 30, 2004)

I've been a digital photo buff for a while. I don't think they even sell cameras with fewer megapixels than you'd need nowadays. If you want to shoot your tank, you will want a camera that lets you adjust shutter speed. You need a high shutter speed to get crisp fish shots. Not mandatory, but very nice is high zoom.

I use a olympus C2100 (old). It's only 2 MP, but has a great lens (important). If I had to replace it (and didn't have the bucks for a dream camera) I'd go with the olympus C7XX series. Excellent value for the price.

You can check out some olympus samples at my gallery if you'd like. Note--the images have been reduced and compressed--you actually get better shots. http://www.pbase.com/charriga I do a lot of photo-art. You'll find the most unaltered shots in either the butterfly or aquarium galleries. You can find excellent camera reviews and sample photos at dpreview. (pm me if you want the address)


----------



## cich (Aug 5, 2003)

I have the Canon A60, yes it's "only" 2MP, but it still takes GREAT shots, at plenty high enough resolution.

Sample(updated) was taken with the A60, using "Medium" resolution, and medium sharpness (max sharpness takes more storage space). Just imagine what the photo would be like with the settings maxed... roud:

--cich


----------



## mjprather (Apr 24, 2004)

I love my Canon A70. I also hear that Canon chips reproduce the most accurate colors. I guess any photoshop guru can compensate though. (sorry I cannot find the review to cite it.)

Edit:
I don't have the skilz like cich, so any sample I have would pale in comarison.


----------



## cich (Aug 5, 2003)

Yes, all the people I've talked to say to just get Canon and don't bother with the rest LOL... ALSO, their lenses are said to be very high quality.
______________________________________________________________




mjprather said:


> I don't have the skilz like cich, so any sample I have would pale in comarison.


OK, now I'm blushing really bad...... thankyou so much for what you said!!! 

--cich


----------



## ninoboy (Jan 26, 2004)

Update:

I took home a few cameras (Canon sd110, A70, Panasonic Lumix and Nikon 3200) since the store I bought them from don't charge any restocking fee. I met a prof. photographer there and suggested me to test both Canon and Nikon. He said both brands are excellent but Nikon has a little more advantage when taking Macro and very sharp images. I tested them all and kept one of them. For sure, Panasonic sucks. Couldn't focus at all. I should've trusted the review. SD110 is a good point and shoot camera but not as sharp while taking tank pictures. Canon A70 and Nikon 3200 come very close. Canon has the advantage on point and shoot than Nikon. It basically need no adjustment and gets good pictures. Nikon needs a few adjustment on the menus under certain type of conditions but it has a slight advantage on the sharpness. 

So, I keep the Nikon though just because it's lighter and smaller than Canon.


----------



## cich (Aug 5, 2003)

It's really between those two brands in the film world too. Even professionally. My 35mm is a Nikon, and although it costed me a small fortune (couple hundred more than my A60), I love its performance.

--cich


----------



## glass-gardens.com (Apr 14, 2004)

The main difference in the film world between Nikon and Canon has always been the fact that Nikon has spot metering, Canon has stuck with partial average, I've always considered it to be akin to a Mac vs PC kind of thing. If I had an unlimited budget, my first choice for a digital SLR right now would be a Kodak DCS.


----------



## putty (Nov 19, 2003)

My friend has a Nikon 4500 (not 100 percent sure), and while the macro work is better then mine, his color rendition looks quite washed out when compared to my camera. The Nikon look and feel is a little more industrial, I like that.


----------



## FiberCon (May 22, 2004)

I should be getting my Fuji S7000 in tomorrow, so be on the look out for some shots of my tank in the photo album.  I went with the Fuji because the dpreview.com reviews were really good, the macro on it can focus at a min lenth of half an inch, and it has a fast shutter speed (1/10,000 of a second.) All with in the price range I was looking for ($499).


----------



## FMZ (Jul 13, 2004)

I am in the market for a new camera too...can't decide between A70 and A80

I was wondering how the macro shots looks on both of those camera??

ninoboy how is Nikon 3200 compared to A70 as in macro shots?? Can you post some pics you took with Nikon 3200?? I would really appreaciate it 

Thanks,
FMZ


----------



## FiberCon (May 22, 2004)

dpreview.com is a good site for digital camera information. The reviews ar ok, but I've found the best information from their forum.


----------



## observant_imp (Jun 30, 2004)

I'll second that. The camera forums at dpreview are the best place to see sample shots and get user opinions on different cameras.


----------

