Digital Cameras

Camera, Lens, Video & Software

Moderator: HAZ - Moderators

Linked Guides none
Linked Areas none
Post Reply
User avatar
pixelfrog
Scary NRA Militia Type
Posts: 143
Joined: Apr 11 2002 10:00 am
City, State: Chandler, AZ
Contact:

Digital Cameras

Post by pixelfrog » Nov 26 2002 12:00 pm

Hi All,

I'm finally gonna get a digital camera, :D :D but not quite sure what kind yet. Can anyone recommend a good hiking/backpacking digital camera that can take the trail and is 3 megapixels? Also I will want to boost the memory up quite a bit.

Thanks in Advance!

Paul

User avatar
tracker
Exploring Kokopelli
Posts: 64
Joined: Sep 23 2002 9:31 am
City, State: Chandler, AZ

Post by tracker » Nov 26 2002 12:03 pm

I'm going to get a digital camera this week. I was thinking of getting the Olympus D-380 Its only 2.1 megapixels, but its small and has a 5x zoom.
"My pack weighs less than a hotel room, simple........."

User avatar
GTG_AZH
AZH Group Coordinator
Posts: 271
Joined: Feb 03 2002 11:45 am
City, State: Peoria, AZ - Originally from Rocket City USA

Camera

Post by GTG_AZH » Nov 26 2002 12:22 pm

I use a Kodak DC5000
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/ ... 6615.jhtml
It's discontinued and recently recalled, but you can still find them out there. The recall was for an electrical shock hazzard when removing batteries.
It's only 2.0 MP, but it's weatherproof and dustproof. It's got an external rubber guard and an internal antishock mechanism, so you can drop the thing almost without worry. It's given me almost no problems except for a slow write speed occasionally, and that may be due to memory quality. It also uses standard AA batteries, so you can use standard rechargables instead of having to buy extra expensive proprietary batteries.

My $.02

GTG
The boy from Rocket City USA
'Alright now look over here and smile! and pretend like you're having a good time!'

User avatar
kurthzone
Exploring Kokopelli
Posts: 147
Joined: Mar 31 2002 11:11 am
City, State: Peoria, AZ
Contact:

Post by kurthzone » Nov 26 2002 12:42 pm

This is the one I'm getting. I like the price and resolution (3.1 MP). It also is Windows or Mac friendly; plugs right into my i-book.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/digital/ ... 3700.jhtml
Blessings, Stan

User avatar
Cakewalk
Exploring Kokopelli
Posts: 263
Joined: Feb 03 2002 11:26 pm
City, State: Glendale, AZ

Post by Cakewalk » Nov 26 2002 1:11 pm

I use a Kodak dx3500 2.2 megapixels 32 megs ram

Nice entry level camera and under $200 bucks

Im very happy with it so far
< Insert Witty Remark here >

User avatar
Rodney
Creative Wolfopelli
Posts: 216
Joined: Jul 06 2002 1:43 am
City, State: Indian-a
Contact:

Post by Rodney » Nov 26 2002 1:18 pm

I just got the Nikon Coolpix 5700 about a week ago. So far, it's holding pretty true to all the reviews.
If anyone is interested, I will be selling my Olympus D620L digital. It's only a 1.4 MP but, seems to take pretty good pictures. You can look at any of my trail pics...they were all taken with the Olympus. PM me if your interested and I'll give you specifics.

You can see one here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... o&n=507846

User avatar
BoyNhisDog
Footloose Adventurer
Posts: 256
Joined: Feb 03 2002 2:09 pm
City, State: Tucson, AZ

Post by BoyNhisDog » Nov 26 2002 3:44 pm

I am a Canon fan. I have used the tiny S100 which is way out of date and now I use a G2. I have packed it on extreme dayhikes and a four day backpack. It has four megapixels, the more the better. The lens resolultion if very good. They have a G3 out now but if you can find a good deal on the G2 it will do you very well. All cameras come with far to small memory cards. I upped mine from 32mb to two 156mb cards.

The Nikon 5700 is in the same class with a lens that is the G2s equal.

The big problem is that last months digital model may not be the currant model so reading reviews is a good way to get a feel for what is currant. dpreview.com is a good place to start.

The newer ones are getting faster and better. Focus on lens quality. You can see resolution charts on dpreview that will really help out.

Once you get it, there will be a big learning curve with the camera and the software but it is well worth it.

Good luck
Last edited by BoyNhisDog on Nov 26 2002 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Glen

User avatar
dirkwingrove
Exploring Kokopelli
Posts: 4
Joined: Oct 20 2002 12:51 am
City, State: Phoenix, AZ

Post by dirkwingrove » Nov 26 2002 3:48 pm

I also use the Kodak DC5000. Very tough....great for packing. Never had problem one with it.

User avatar
pixelfrog
Scary NRA Militia Type
Posts: 143
Joined: Apr 11 2002 10:00 am
City, State: Chandler, AZ
Contact:

Post by pixelfrog » Nov 26 2002 3:48 pm

Thanks for the recommendations all! Can't wait to get one of these puppies and try it out. :D

Paul

User avatar
Randy
Shalako Anciano
Posts: 142
Joined: Feb 13 2002 5:13 pm
City, State: Scottsdale, AZ

kamera

Post by Randy » Nov 26 2002 5:30 pm

Paul I have the Canon G2 that Glen recoomended to me. It is a very nice camera and boy is he right.... I slid off the road on the learning curve.

Mucho different than my old film SLR. -R

User avatar
tempe8
Exploring Kokopelli
Posts: 42
Joined: Feb 04 2002 8:41 pm
City, State: Tempe, AZ

Cannon Elph

Post by tempe8 » Nov 26 2002 5:47 pm

I've got a Cannon Elph S200 that suits me very well. It's the really small metal bodied camera that fits in a shirt pocket. The main reason I got it was because of its size and that I'd mostly be doing point and shoot pictures. It's so nice to drop it in your pocket and not hardly know it's there! It always seems like a hassle to lug a big camera and a special carrying case when you're travelling. The only draw back is a rather weak optical zoom of 2X. I would have liked something higher, but that's the price for size I guess. BTW, mine is a 2mp, but they've got a 3mp version out now. Also, check out this review website, they've got a lot of good reviews based on what you're looking for:
http://www.pcphotoreview.com/Cameras/PSC_3784crx.aspx

--
Kevin

User avatar
BoyNhisDog
Footloose Adventurer
Posts: 256
Joined: Feb 03 2002 2:09 pm
City, State: Tucson, AZ

Post by BoyNhisDog » Nov 26 2002 6:12 pm

Randy, anything I can do for you just let me know. I did some research on a few issues and have some very good solutions. Any specific problems I may be able to help you clear them up and I have some quick software routines that make a good photo really pop.

PM me if you need anything.
Glen

User avatar
Nighthiker
Exploring Kokopelli
Posts: 1434
Joined: Feb 03 2002 6:59 am
City, State: Payson

Post by Nighthiker » Nov 26 2002 7:03 pm

I still trying to take a self portrait with my 35 SLR, I have great shots of my legs, chest, hat and my shadow.

User avatar
lattys
Exploring Kokopelli
Posts: 9
Joined: Jul 29 2002 6:55 pm
City, State: Ahwatukee, AZ

Post by lattys » Nov 26 2002 8:40 pm

I just bought the Kodak dx4330. It is 3.2 megapixel and takes great pictures. I have been playing with it for the last 2 weeks and have taken some long range pictures and some very close pictures. It is a little picky on action shots, but all others have turned out perfect. It also takes short film clips, not video camera quality, but handy for on the fly short video clips. It also downloads very easily. The one drawback might be that you have to buy the docking station separately if you want the rechargeable batteries and the 1-touch download. I think it is very much worth the extra cost, about $80. The camera takes either the rechargeable battery or 2 AA's. From what I have seen, 2 AA's won't last very long. But like I said, I just got it a couple weeks ago and am still playing with it. I intend to start posting some pictures shortly, but if you would like to see a couple of examples just let me know.

User avatar
joebartels
teva joe
Posts: 6971
Joined: Nov 20 1996 12:00 pm
City, State: Phoenix, AZ

Post by joebartels » Nov 26 2002 9:16 pm

When it comes to digitals don't get overly concerned with Mega pixels

2.1 is plenty unless you have a lens good enough to handle more
many of the 4 & 5 mega pixel cameras out there don't even use the full amount
they can't, they simply don't have the lens for it
not to mention your monitor is likely set at 1024 x 768 which isn't even 0.8 mega pixels
Okay so maybe you own a $3,000 color laser printer with true 2400x2400 res, okay now that's 5.7

I first used a Ricoh 5000, used it for a year or two and resold it for nearly 50%

Then I got the Sony 505
Outstanding camera. Used it a year and resold for $350

At that time which was a year ago I upgraded to the 707
I love it!
The battery only needs charging approx every 500 photos, that's about 5 trips for me
whisper quite drive
2 sec from turn-on to shoot
one inch macros
hologram laser focus
infinite movie capture

only drawback is Sony dropped the firewire port and went back to USB. So the camera can't be used as a movie camera when hooked up to the laptop. I only really used that feature once anyhow
Hike Arizona it ROCKS!

User avatar
scottmackey
Exploring Kokopelli
Posts: 51
Joined: Oct 10 2002 2:27 pm
City, State: Tempe, AZ

Post by scottmackey » Nov 26 2002 11:18 pm

I've got an old(er) Canon S100 that my folks got me for high school graduation. Anyways it's a GREAT camera, although it's the only one I've ever owned. It's 2.1 megapixels and is the smallest digital camera I've ever seen, it's a bit heavy but very well constructed.

My only recommendation to you would be to get a camera that accepts AA-sized batteries. That way you can use rechargables but if you're on vacation and don't have the ability to charge you can stick in some normal Energizers. My father has an Olympus 3.something megapixel camera that he really enjoys, my apologies because I don't know the model number.

Anyways, good luck in finding something!

User avatar
BoyNhisDog
Footloose Adventurer
Posts: 256
Joined: Feb 03 2002 2:09 pm
City, State: Tucson, AZ

Post by BoyNhisDog » Nov 27 2002 6:00 am

teva wrote:When it comes to digitals don't get overly concerned with Mega pixels

2.1 is plenty unless you have a lens good enough to handle more
many of the 4 & 5 mega pixel cameras out there don't even use the full amount
they can't, they simply don't have the lens for it
not to mention your monitor is likely set at 1024 x 768 which isn't even 0.8 mega pixels
True to a certain extent Joe. I usually end up cropping my photos and the extra pixels come in real handy for this. The more the crop, the more the pixels are appreciated. There is a huge difference in the 2mp to the 4mp in the two cameras that I have used. The lens does make a huge difference in resolution which is another issue. Wheather they use every one of the megapixels or they can't, they certainly use a large portion of them and when you are editing the photos, I have found it useful in Photoshop. I always size down my photos for the web but not for printing. When you are printing there is no comparison between a 2mp photo and a 4mp photo. The 4mp will blow the other away. You can make your enlargement much larger too without the pixelization that you get with the 2mp.
Glen

User avatar
BoyNhisDog
Footloose Adventurer
Posts: 256
Joined: Feb 03 2002 2:09 pm
City, State: Tucson, AZ

Post by BoyNhisDog » Nov 27 2002 6:59 am

Just to add, my 2megpixel uses 1,920,000 of it's 2.1 advertised pixels and my 4megapixel uses 3,871,488 of it's 4megapixels.

I used to think along the lines of how much is necessary to post of photo on the web but after a lot of work with the images, I would always take more megapixels if the lens quality was good. You can always select to shoot at 2mp in the menu anyway if you desire. Again if you are going to crop or print any of your photos, that's where the extra pixels will really stand out.
Glen

User avatar
tracker
Exploring Kokopelli
Posts: 64
Joined: Sep 23 2002 9:31 am
City, State: Chandler, AZ

Post by tracker » Nov 27 2002 8:24 am

After seeing the reviews on the Kodak DX3500 I decided to buy it over the Olympus D-380. The menu is much simpler and it is so easy to use. (so far.. I only bought it last night) :lol:
"My pack weighs less than a hotel room, simple........."

User avatar
olesma
Grand Canyon Warbler
Posts: 606
Joined: Feb 09 2002 1:02 pm
City, State: Mesa, AZ

Post by olesma » Nov 27 2002 2:48 pm

Not that it makes a huge difference - but also take a look at CNET.com. They have a pretty good review section for digital cameras and if you go in and look at the actual models they have reviewed you can also see some user reviews and comments.

Take it with a grain of salt however as CNET has a reputation for pimping one product over another because they get more advertising revenue from somebody. I have heard people say they don't do that anymore - but they were pretty blatant about it in the mid 90's.
'Weird is a relative, not an absolute.' - A. Einstein

Post Reply

Return to “Photography”


cron