Digital Camera

[PaInTbAlLeR476]

Well, my parents have decided to buy me a digital camera, and this is the one my dad wants me to get http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Kodak/kodak_dx6490.asp what do you guys think of it? I dont know much about digi cams, but basicaly want goooooood zoom for on the feild shots, i dont plan on buying better lens or anything. So how does she look?

[Muzikman]

I personally do not like the Kodak cameras. I would look at comparable Canon and Nikons. The camera I would get in that price range would be the Canon G5.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_g5.asp

Now I don't have a Kodak camera to compare...but here are some pics I took with a few different digital cameras I have.

Canon Digital Elph s330
http://pittsburgh-music.com/jbeam/images/Everglades01_a.jpg

http://pittsburgh-music.com/jbeam/images/FlamingoPoint_Everglades_a.jpg

http://pittsburgh-music.com/jbeam/images/Flower_a.jpg

Sony D770
http://pittsburgh-music.com/jbeam/images/pittsburgh1_a.jpg

Canon 10D
http://pittsburgh-music.com/jbeam/images/HeinzField_a.jpg

http://pittsburgh-music.com/jbeam/images/PghNight_a.jpg

http://pittsburgh-music.com/jbeam/images/McConnells_Mill_Dam_a.jpg

More of my photos at www.jbeamphotos.com and www.paintballmedia.com

[coolcatpete]

get a sony. MIne works real nice. They also can make a 90min videos.
In that price range you could get a nice 5.0 mega pixel one and that would be all you would ever need.
Pete

[Muzikman]

After owning two Sony's I'll never buy another. I have learned one thing, stick with companies that have a history of making still cameras. Even with the "Zeiss" lenses, their optics are average at best.

[Firedude]

I have a Nikon 5700, and am very happy with it. Its 5 megapixels and has an 8x optical zoom. Not cheap, but it takes great pics. I'm still learning how to use all of its features.

[RamboPreacher]

Nikons are great, but I like the flexability of the Sony DSC f828:
http://www.cybershotf828.com/

http://www.citylifeworshipcenter.org/images/040403Web/images/040403%20214.jpg
http://www.citylifeworshipcenter.org/RP/butterfly.jpg

[Bluestrike_2]

I should have know the megapixel thing would come out. Sony optics are average, at best. Therefore, their f828 is of a much lesser quality than say, Nikon, Canon, Rollei, Mamiya, or any other camera company(film and digital). BTW, I know they use Carl Zeiss lenses. Big deal....

The movie mode is garbage. Anyone stupid enough to use it to substitue a real video camera is a fool. The technology shows promise for the average user, sure, but the quality is still lesser than a video camera. Don't use it if you really want good shots and videos. Need videos? Get a video camera!

Just look at the Sony's resolution in movie mode:

MPEG Movie Video
Mail
160x112
8 frames/sec.

MPEG Movie VX
640x480
16 frames/sec.

MPEG Movie VX Fine
(requires compatible
media)
640x480
30 frames/sec.

Even then, you still have other outside factors affecting it, not just the resolution.

Example for the megapixel thing:

One person has the Nikon D2H at 4.1 megapixels
You have the Sony at 8 megapixels.

Guess who has the better photograph! The Nikon. Don't try to dispute it. Muzikman can chime in, too. Megapixels are NOT the deciding factor. Now, would I like a 14 megapixel Nikon? You bet! Yet the quality on the Nikon D-SLR's, and many of their digital cameras is very nice, rivaling most consumer 35mm cameras[the D-SLR's rival the professional SLRs], except for the lower end of the spectrums.

Megapixels are NOT the end all point of reference. Think of them as PC processors. A PowerPC chip[macs], an Intel, and an AMD each cannot be compared gigahertz. Can't! Different architectures and such.

[RamboPreacher]

wow - where'd that come from. I never mentioned megapixel. sounds a bit defensive to me.

It wasnt' the pixel count that sold me, NOR was it the optics, but if they were anybelow average, I probably would have chosen differently (sorry, don't even know why the Carl Zeiss thing is supposed to be an issue - I don't buy "Tommy Hilfiger"/name-brand clothes either). My main feature was that way kewl, adjustable lense angle.

If I were a professional photographer, I may have gone with a digital SLR, but most of my pictrures are at two places - church and paitnball fields. I really like teh angles I can get with the adustbale lense mount. I am not good enough to point my camera at something wothough seeing it inteh viewfinder or lcd screen, so angling the lens allows ME to be more productive with the camera.

The apature range leaves alot to be desired, on the sony, but again, what it dies do is completley acceptible for me as a non-professional, amateur photographer.

I also think it's kewl (though not a deciding factor for me) that it supports both CF and memory stick, and I have the media to be able to use the fine mpeg movie, and for the kind of video I shoot (rarely, special occasions, Christmas, Birthdays etc... just like most everyone else that does video recording - cept I do some Paintball stuff too), it is great to plop that on a DVD with convenience and speed (so, I guess I am a fool).

[Bluestrike_2]

The megapixel argument always comes up. I figured I could have nipped it in the butt before it even shows it's butt-ugly head. I wasn't trying to imply that you were using it as a deciding factor in your purchase. For that I applogize. I wan't to get out on my daily run, and I rushed my post, using improper wording. Still, it's no excuse.

Yes, I said that:

The movie mode is garbage. Anyone stupid enough to use it to substitue a real video camera is a fool. The technology shows promise for the average user, sure, but the quality is still lesser than a video camera. Don't use it if you really want good shots and videos. Need videos? Get a video camera!

It's common sense. A still camera cannot replace a video camera at this time, and most likely not for a few years(when compared to middle end DV units, if ever). Now, I sincerely doubt that you are going home to edit your videos in Vegas or Final Cut Pro. If you're just doing web videos and stuff, the quality is, acceptable. There are limits to any statement. Mine was worded towards the higher end user/power user. 3 on a scale of 5.

Note: I am an opinionated person. Image problems really get to me. A lot! I can't watch some movies in a movie theater because of this. I just cringe sometimes. Snoring projectionists!


You do know that an image will appear in the viewfinder on a D-SLR. Unless the lense cap is still on :D

The optics. Hehehe. Wait one second. Let me find the prints.

30 minutes later:

GRRR!!! I have 20k photos in bins in this room and I can't find the frickin photograph of the horse and it's mother. Very nice photo. Grrr!

Here's a few photographs:

NOTE: JPEG COMPRESSED, AND RESIZED 25%.
-Front of postcard I designed for a company
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/990/img001.jpg
<br><br>
-CrossRoads
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/6616/img002.jpg
<br><br>
-No title - yet
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4739/img003.jpg
<br><br>
- Nakita [Siberian Husky]
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/6362/img004.jpg
<br><br>
-Rustic Log Homes [Large file size.]
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/555/img005.jpg

All were taken with high quality glass.(optics.) Mamiya, Nikon, and one cropped Rollei shot. The Mamiya and Rollei are medium format. Nikon shots are 35mm. While this was film, and there is significant JPEG compression(Hey! I'm stuck on dialup!), they should show that there can be a significant advantage to lense quality. That's why you should consider well known and experienced optical companies.

The Carl Zeiss comment:

That's just the manufacturer of the lense. How in god's name do you come up with a Tommy Hilfiger metaphore? They aren't that high quality compared to Nikon/Canon/and other long-established optical companies.

[Bluestrike_2]

The compression does absolutely NO justice to the prints. Nakita is most affected. That, and dust on the scanner.(I scanned these quickly on a flatbed scanner.

They're not my greatest, but:

ANYONE ATTEMPTING TO STEAL/RIP THESE OFF WILL HAVE THEIR HANDS CUT OFF WITH A NICE, RUSTY SAW! THEY WILL BE SCALPED, TOO. ALSO FORCED TO JOIN PETA.

Sorry about the caps, but I wanted to get that across to everyone.

Titles got screwed up. In order:

Postcard
Crossroads
Nakita (B&W)
No Title [Wood Barn, tree]
Rustic Log Homes

[RamboPreacher]

kewl...
2 things - I would much rather spend a grand on a camera and have it also be able to do video, than spend a grand (or more) on a video camera and have it also take stills - yuk...

Yes, I realize that there is a display for a d-SLR, but when you are holding the camera over your head, it is kind of hard to see the screen, let alone a viewfinder/eyepiece. I can get many more pics this way, than having everything at "eye-level" or lower.

I also will do "hip-shooting" where, I'll hold the camera strap-tight down at my belly level, adn turn the screen upwards like some large format cams. my point is that having the camera at your face (ar anywhere near it so you can see the fixed position screen in perendicular to the lense, isn't always the best place. :)

the optics comment I made was that I have heard of some sony-users refer to the carl-zeiss lens as some kind of special name brand thing, like it is popular, I paralleled to TH clothes. name-brand popularity vs perceived and actual performance.

and finaly - great photos. :D I have aspirations to be a good photographer. right now I just rely on having 10 gig of media and taking a bazillion pictures in hopes that a few will turn out. :D I did a wedding and took a couple thousand pictures, and ended up only liking about 150 and only 5 were ones that I felt were really good. Still learning...

[Muzikman]

First off...Blue, you live in/need Somerset? Just curious, spend a bit of time out that way.

RP: The one thing I noticed about digital over 35mm is the number of shots vs the number of keepers. In 35mm I shot a lot less and actually kept a bigger percentage of photos than I do with th digital. One of the things I started doing with digital is taking that shot that has a 50/50 chance of actually turning out the way you want it. With 35mm, I wouldn't have chanced waisting the film. I also tend to use that continue drive a lot more:)

In the end...it's not the camera that makes a good photo, it's the person behind it. It's just like paintball.

[Bluestrike_2]

No, I dont live out that way. Sadly.

Muzik gave the best advice so far. Heed it.

[RamboPreacher]

First off...Blue, you live in/need Somerset? Just curious, spend a bit of time out that way.

RP: The one thing I noticed about digital over 35mm is the number of shots vs the number of keepers. In 35mm I shot a lot less and actually kept a bigger percentage of photos than I do with th digital. One of the things I started doing with digital is taking that shot that has a 50/50 chance of actually turning out the way you want it. With 35mm, I wouldn't have chanced waisting the film. I also tend to use that continue drive a lot more:)

In the end...it's not the camera that makes a good photo, it's the person behind it. It's just like paintball.and just like paintball - comfort goes a long way when acquiring equipment. :D

[MarkM]

Even if the optics were up to it and the mega pixels worked out in your favour I would not buy that particular Kodak as it has one part that was the reason I held back from buying the camera I eventually did...the battery is a Kodak only unit and digital camera eat battery power, I was looking at the Fuji S602 Lithium Ion rechargable battery pack but waited until the S602 Zoom was released as it took regular batterys and also took the mega drive card as well as smart media and compact flash. It will output in Tiff if I want, and has two close up settings...ok it suffers from lag when using the flash but then all digital camers do that unless you are buying a "pro" model. The current Model I believe is the 7000 series and to be honest I can't see the difference other than the price when I get a little more time (it is late for me right now) I will post up some lowish res pics I have taken with it.

[MadChild]

id go with a sony that has 5.0 mega pixels. sony is a great company and the resolution with 5.0 mega pixels is awesome.

[SGTKennedy]

I love my Digital Elph. I will recommend the Canon to everyone. I took mine to Iraq, dropped it, and generally abused it for over a year, and it still takes fairly decent pictures.

[MarkM]

As I said when I got the time...a couple of shots I did for an online store.

http://www.ukcougars.freeserve.co.uk/images/Picture 027.jpg
http://www.ukcougars.freeserve.co.uk/images/Picture 048.jpg
Incidently taken with a Fuji FinePics S602Zoom at High setting but not the finest setting.
I know they are a little large but if I sized them to fit with a miniumum of scrolling then they would look a whole lot sharper so this is a fairer way of showing the pics ;)

See what I mean when you shrink pics down.....
http://www.ukcougars.freeserve.co.uk/images/Picture 027smaller.jpg
http://www.ukcougars.freeserve.co.uk/images/Picture 048smaller.jpg

[Bluestrike_2]

eh, I meant what kind of lighting was used, not if there was any used.

Another thing, look into what types of file formats the cameras support. Nikon uses .NEF as the camera RAW file. Most manufacturers have proprietary formats for Raw. They all have JPEG, though.

[Bluestrike_2]

Mark, any lighting used? ISO equivalent? Very nice shots. Although I think that the texture coming out on the larger shot makes the entire image more appealing than it's scaled down counterpart. Takes the drop and gives it the feeling of royalty, or something similair along those lines.

[Muzikman]

I am actually shocked at the noise. I to would like to know what ISO setting.

I only shoot in RAW if I know I am going to be doing something special. The quality difference is not that great between RAW and high res JPG. I will post some links to full sized images from my 10D.


EDIT:
Here are the the three pics I posted above from the 10D in full resolution.

http://jbeamphotos.com/gallery/misc2

[MarkM]

To be honest I have no idea what speed they were taken at...I could re-read the manual and see what I did. I took those pics over 2 years ago so I was still getting to grips with the camera...to be honest I still am, I only recently discovered that it had two close up settings :eek: There was lighting used, an over head halogen light and the built in flash unit, no reflector umbrellas either so the result was pretty good and the pics were taken without a tripod and on auto exposure. My main reason for the camera was I have a point and shoot Fuji (I am not brand loyal so that is just a coincidence) but this unit was only a 2.1 mega pixels, though when I got it only Pro cameras had 3 millon pixels so I was quite a way up the food chain when I got it and only when I bought the newer Fuji (3.1 megal pixels multiplied to 6 million, something to do with how Fuji converts the image and the pixel shape they use) did I find that what I paid for the little Fuji was being over taken by other makes. Also I found the zoom wasn't good enough for how I was using the camera...I was taking pics of paintball but having to crop way too much so I needed a camera that had larger file sizes so I would not lose so much information and I could get closer to the action.
Somewhere I have pics I took with a regular 35mm some with the speed pushed to crazy numbers to get grain but then that was the effect I was after, I will have to have a search and see where they are and then scan them up.

[Muzikman]

I just looked at the EXIF data of the drop forward photo. There are a few things that would have made it come out better (if the camera allows you to change some things)

ISO: 400 (That should be 100 or less)

f-stop: f/8 (smaller f-stop would give you better depth-of-field. I would have tried to shoot it at about 3.5)

Shutter: 1/80 (You said it was hand held, that is way to slow for being hand held. lowering the f-stop would increase the shutter speed too, which I think would help with any camera shake there might have been.)

EDIT:
As stated before. These pictures are perfect example of why MP is not important. Even a 2mp camera should produce a sharp image at full res. The image will just not be as large or with as much detail...but it should be sharp (IE. no halo's around pixels).

[MarkM]

Well it is a case of RTFM ! well for me that is ;) I know I can change the speed but that is in the modes it isn't as simple as a normal SLR, same thing with the F stop, but since I do very little still work I won't be losing too much sleep, that may change but right now I am too lazy and the basic idea of what I wanted was enough for me with the model I bought. I know I can get better results maybe when I have some spare time I will have to do some reading.