Digital Cameras

CHeck out

www.dpreview.com

http://www.dp-now.com/

Do not be limited by the memory stick - I guess your computer has USB ports - in which case you can connect in readers for all the memory card types.

Derek

<< >>

Don't go for Sony - memory stick proprietory therefore restrictive go for compact flash or mmc/sd. Checkout Casio smallest & best.Cheapest website you'll find is pixmania.com £100 of Dixons prices quote discount code whatcamera12 and you'll get a further £10 off

After some research the choice is between the Olympus camidia c350 and Sony dcsp52, both 3.2 mp, I like the sony for memory card , any opinions.

After you have checked on DPREVIEW - then try each of the cameras out - how do they feel in your hands. etc.

RE the storage media - the Sony card has not been increased in capacity as rapidly as the CF card.

Derek

<< >>

I have a Sony 3.2Mp (not latest bought 2 years ago but same style). It takes excelent pictures and even at the highest resolution (1200 x 1400 which = 8" x 10" photo size) you can get approxm 40 photos on a 64MB memory stick.

I carry a spare battery and a spare Memory stick with me.

Typically I shoot away then review and edit down to the best shots daily if on holiday.

However all these cameras are probably as good as each other so to some extent it is about what grabs you personally when settling on what make to buy.

GEOFFP

I have a Canon digitul Ixus V3. It is compact easy to use, has some useful manual functions and takes very good pics.

I am very pleased with it.

They also do a newer version called the Ixus 2.

Both are 3.2mpix so I anot to sure what the newer one does diferntly.

I can recomend the V3

Regards

Simon

GeoffP said "even at the highest resolution (1200 x 1400 which = 8" x 10" photo size)"

1200x1400 is more like 4"x6" if you print at typical "photo quality" resolutions (240 to 300dpi). That resolution at 10x8 would be about 150dpi and would be in most people's opinion too low for all but the least critical vieweing. To get good 10x8s you something around 3000x2000 pixels or better.

Although aobviously there is more to the final quality than just pixels.

Matthew

Just for a matter of simplicity, can the pixel count be banned when discussing digital camera quality. It really has very little relevance to the end result.

In simple terms, it could be compared to asking "will a amateur aimed Nikon lens and 100asa film take better pictures than a Nikon pro aimed lens with 200asa film"

Just to put things in context, my Nikon D1 only has 2000 x 1300 pixels and there's still nothing to touch it. (except D1x, D2h)

This is able to produce 18" wide prints that are still very good.

Alex you asked 4 our opinions then ignored them Sony cameras are pants, look at Casio and Pentax. Bit for bit Sony memory sticks are twice the price of other memory media. Compact flash is the best and is used in all the pro cameras

Sony = rubbish

[QUOTE] [/1200x1400 is more like 4"x6" if you print at typical "photo quality" resolutions (240 to 300dpi). That resolution at 10x8 would be about 150dpi and would be in most people's opinion too low for all but the least critical vieweing. To get good 10x8s you something around 3000x2000 pixels or better.
QUOTE]

That's right Matthew I was talking twaddle. I got mixed up I should have said 2048 x 1600. So better than I said originally but not as good as your calculation requires. I was just going by the image size reported when I open this size file in Photoshop. It is not exactly 8 x 10 but close.

I'm contemplating getting a cheapish digi camera for my 5yr old. He really likes taking the ocasional snap with my OMs, but wants the result straight away and a digi cam seems a good way of fostering this early interest in photography. He can see what works, and we can print out the ones he wants to keep.

Amazon have a Kodak something for £78, which seems perfectly adequate.
amazon kodak

And Maplin have a 3mp jobbie for £100.
maplin Trust camera

£100 would be the max I'd spend. The criteria seem to be:
- easy to use (being doting father and all that of course he's very bright, but after all he is only 5)
- reasonably quick operation - he'll lose interest if he has to wait 10sec for it to start up and 10secs between pics.

A zoom seems to me to be irrelevant.

Of course at this level I'm not expecting pics to be stunning quality, although a guy on Amazon had posted some from the Kodak and they seemed perfectly acceptable. I have a tendancy to err towards the kodak as it's a known make.

Is there anything else I should be looking out for and any other cameras anyone could recommend?

thanks Phil

I bought my 5 year old daughter a digital camera last Christmas. www.novatech.co.uk. I got it for £28. good as a toy.

I bought myself a digital this year and after looking at most, settled on a Nikon Coolpix 3100. I was almost tempted by the bigger one, but 3.2 meg is way good enough and the bigger one was too bulky. I nearly went for the Olympus, but its smooth shell made it awkward to use with one hand, while the Nikon has a side grip thingumy. I love it.

quote:

---

I was almost tempted by the bigger one, but 3.2 meg is way good enough

---

I might aswell talk to the wall.

One thing to bear in mind with digital camera's (especially if you want to take action shots) is that they have a significant shutter delay (delay between pressing button and picture actually taking), some of these are over a second.

This was an issue for me (take pictures of wife on horse etc), I ended up buying a fuji 601 as once focused (button half pressed) the shutter delay is very small 0.1 seconds. Another feature useful for this purpose is burst mode. My camera can take 4 max res photos in one second.

Wall talking and Pixel counting - Count.D

The following article explains how less pixels can give a better image than more pixels - just read the section called "Enter the E1"

E1 review

Please do not be put off be the length of the article the relevant section is only a few lines long.

Derek

<< >>