|
Right, thought I'd drag myself upto date and purchase myself a digital camera. Mainly coz I was round a mates last night, and he showed me some photies, and I was shocked to learn they were off a digital camera, and he'd used one of those booth things in Boots. So the brief: - Must use a memory card that I can use in those booth things. - Look swish. - Good enough res to print to a decent size. - Under 200 quid (150 if poss). I've obviously had a look, but I find the array of choice a bit bewildering! |
Digital Cameras
-
Jetset_UK 3,578 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 18 years ago -
Machiavel 5,964 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 19 years agoCanon a70 or a75 - both I think well under £200. -
I'm very much a DC newbie, but I found this thread really helpful - lots of folk on these boards know their stuff!
Don't know how it holds up in the greater scheme of things, but I ended up buying a Pentax 33LF from Amazon for £100 and it works great for my purposes. Good beginner camera in my limited experience, though it may be a bit more basic than you're after.
Edited by Ajay at 15:17:49 24-08-2004 -
squaylor 3,737 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 18 years agoJetset - we had a thread about this a few months ago when a few of us were looking at getting a digital camera. [link=http://www.eurogamer.net/forum_thread_posts.php?thread_id=15198&forum_id=1">Check it out, as it really helped me choose. I went for a Kodak LS633, which I really like - it's simple, easy to use, has a -
Shivoa 6,314 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 20 years agoThe booths seem to accept just about all formats (from the ones I've seen) from MMCs/SDs to the more hard to find formats like xD and Sony MSs (just like those 7-in-1 USB flash readers you can but there aren't as many slots as quite a few use common interfaces) so I wouldn't be too concerned about that unless the ones near you are very limited.
Personally I've been very happy with my Sony P-72 which should be comfortably under £150 now but only comes with a 32MB card (although Sony Sticks aren't much more than any other format especially if you go with a generic supplier and a common capacity like 256MB). There are some real camera geeks about so they'll probably be more help (and talk about the A70/80) -
squaylor 3,737 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 18 years agoI managed to pick up a 256K SD memory card for £45 at Amazon. I'm sure you can find cheaper, but it was a Kodak and I felt getting one that was the same make as the camera would be better. Plus I was saving so much on the camera (in fact the memory card was almost half as much), that I spent a bit more and got the 256K SD card - which so far has proved more than enough storage. -
pjmaybe 70,666 posts
Seen 12 years ago
Registered 20 years agoLove my splendiferous Minolta G600. It's luvverly...!
If you want to see the image quality, check out the EG group photo on the post peejlan thread...
Peej -
cyk 306 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 18 years agoCanon A75/60/85/95 will do the job .gif)
-
another week, another digital camera thread 
-
pistol 13,018 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 19 years agoThere are so many budget digital cameras on the market these days, you are spoilt for choice. Basically it is all about the pixels so if you are have happy with pictures that when printed are no bigger than say 6x4, then you could easily get away with a camera with only 2 million pixols. If you are going to print any bigger, say up to A4, then I would suggest going for one with at least a 3.2 of higher. Hope that helps.
Edited by pistol at 16:30:54 24-08-2004 -
cyk 306 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 18 years agopistol wrote:
There are so many budget digital cameras on the market these days, you are spoilt for choice. Basically it is all about the pixels so if you are have happy with pictures that when printed are no bigger than say 6x4, then you could easily get away with a camera with only 2 million pixols. If you are going to print any bigger, say up to A4, then I would suggest going for one with at least a 3.2 of higher. Hope that helps.
Edited by pistol at 16:30:54 24-08-2004
I'd say its not all about pixels. Its just a buzz word. People thing more pixels, better pictures, and yet the 8mp cameras aren't very good as they suffer from a lot of noise. I'd rather have a low megapixel camera with great image quality than a high one with low image quality. -
pistol 13,018 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 19 years agocyk wrote:
pistol wrote:
There are so many budget digital cameras on the market these days, you are spoilt for choice. Basically it is all about the pixels so if you are have happy with pictures that when printed are no bigger than say 6x4, then you could easily get away with a camera with only 2 million pixols. If you are going to print any bigger, say up to A4, then I would suggest going for one with at least a 3.2 of higher. Hope that helps.
Edited by pistol at 16:30:54 24-08-2004
I'd say its not all about pixels. Its just a buzz word. People thing more pixels, better pictures, and yet the 8mp cameras aren't very good as they suffer from a lot of noise. I'd rather have a low megapixel camera with great image quality than a high one with low image quality.
Not sure I agree with you there but each to their own. I've had quite a few different cameras with different pixels and I stand by what I said. Also, a friend of mine works for a camera company and had to do some product tests with cameras with different pixels and the findings were pretty much what I've described above.
Edited by pistol at 17:47:23 24-08-2004 -
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agoYou can tell the difference between a really cheap lens and a not so cheap lens in mobile phone camera which are about a quarter of a magapixel, so I'd suggest that lens quality is usually more important than pixels. That said, it'd be pointless to up the pixels without upgrading the lenses, so maybe higher MP cameras tend to have better lenses?
That probably doesn't apply to the really high MP cameras, where they're just using the numbers to entice the early adopters. -
Lens quality is very important, esp. at 3-4MP and above. A 2MP Nikon D1 from 1999 with a good lens beats any cheap 5MP compact at picture quality.
A safe path in the digital camera jungle is to stick to the big brand names which risk a lot on releasing shitty cameras. Stay away from unknown brands and stick to Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Minolta Konica, Sony, Olympus, Fujifilm, etc. -
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agoI was impressed with the shots from WOPR's Kodak (mainly the colours to be honest, but I didn't notice any lens problems). So maybe Kodak are also worth a look - I assume since their consumer film (and professional, to an extent) business will be dropping off, they'll be looking to establish a brand in digital. -
mal wrote:
I was impressed with the shots from WOPR's Kodak (mainly the colours to be honest, but I didn't notice any lens problems). So maybe Kodak are also worth a look - I assume since their consumer film (and professional, to an extent) business will be dropping off, they'll be looking to establish a brand in digital.
I went out a bought a DX6490 after seeing the photos that WOPR put on that thread.
Check out the photo's from our holiday, the ones that are out of focus were us mucking around in very low light conditions near the top of Mount Etna, so that is not the fault of the camera.
The only drawback of the camera is the size, but it doesn't bother us too much. It fact i think that we are in the market for a very checp digital camera to take out for stag weekend sand stuff.
http://www.robert.jerome.dsl.pipex.com/
Can't remember the linky code! -
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agoracing rob wrote:
Can't remember the linky code!
-
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years ago[link=http://www.robert.jerome.dsl.pipex.com/images/Sicily%20Summer%202004%20021.jpg">That is a great pic. Really has a good sense of depth. Some of the shots ( -
WOPR wrote:
mal wrote:
[link=http://www.robert.jerome.dsl.pipex.com/images/Sicily%20Summer%202004%20021.jpg">That is a great pic. Really has a good sense of depth. Some of the shots ( -
WOPR wrote:
For some more shots from the Kodak, and some damn fine geeky stuff to boot, click here
Edited by WOPR at 20:30:43 24-08-2004
WOPR do you bother with the night mode for the indoor shots, or just let auto do it's stuff? -
Monsta 1,276 posts
Seen 11 years ago
Registered 19 years agoi just purchased an ixus 500 from Amazon they're great, definite recommendation if thats the type of thing your looking for -
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agoracing rob wrote:
I don't mean the comments. I mean if you click on a thumbnail, the picture you actually get is the one next to the one you clicked.
I know about the wrong comments for some of the pictures, was only supposed to be for family to look at our holiday snaps, never got round to correcting it. -
cyk 306 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 18 years agopistol wrote:
cyk wrote:
pistol wrote:
There are so many budget digital cameras on the market these days, you are spoilt for choice. Basically it is all about the pixels so if you are have happy with pictures that when printed are no bigger than say 6x4, then you could easily get away with a camera with only 2 million pixols. If you are going to print any bigger, say up to A4, then I would suggest going for one with at least a 3.2 of higher. Hope that helps.
Edited by pistol at 16:30:54 24-08-2004
I'd say its not all about pixels. Its just a buzz word. People thing more pixels, better pictures, and yet the 8mp cameras aren't very good as they suffer from a lot of noise. I'd rather have a low megapixel camera with great image quality than a high one with low image quality.
Not sure I agree with you there but each to their own. I've had quite a few different cameras with different pixels and I stand by what I said. Also, a friend of mine works for a camera company and had to do some product tests with cameras with different pixels and the findings were pretty much what I've described above.
Edited by pistol at 17:47:23 24-08-2004
Canon Pro 1 Review
"# Visible noise from ISO 100 upwards"
Minolta A2
"# Disappointing resolution, soft images (not just as a result of poor AF)
# Auto focus confirmation despite being out of focus
# Lens being stretched past its resolution capabilities?"
Nikon 8700
"Visible noise from ISO 100 upwards"
I just don't see the point in spending the same amount of money on an 8mp camera as you could on a DSLR and get superior image quality. If you're getting the same noise issues that you get with a £150 camera, why even bother with a higher megapixel? The Canon A range have full exposure and aperature control, and produce very nice images. If someone went into a store and saw a Canon 300D with 6.4 Megapixels and a Canon Pro 1 next to it with the big shiny 8 mega pixel sticker, they'd buy the Pro1 simply because the sales assistant would jump up and down with his cheerleading squad shouting "Yey megapixels" They'd get back home, meet their friend with the 300D and then find out they made a terrible mistake.
OMG thats some really nasty noise there. -
StixxUK 8,755 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 19 years agoSo jetset, have you decided yet?
I only ask because I'm in a very similar, nay, identical boat floating along just behind you and I'd like to know the best sub-£200 camera without all the hard work research involves.
What better way than to get someone else to do it for me?
-
striker 2,606 posts
Seen 6 months ago
Registered 20 years agoWOPR wrote:
I was going to follow your advice, but ended up going for the Canon A75.
Spend a little extra and get the mighty Kodak DX6490.
Less MP but much less compression (don't know what Kodak were thinking, it's not like card space matters that much these days, especially to someone buying this kind of camera) gives about the same quality, so I went for the cheaper one. -
IronGiant 6,352 posts
Seen 5 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoeek i'm in the same position, not being an expert on digital cameras and thinking of getting the missus one for xmas.. so i'm all ears for good recommendations upto the £150 mark??? -
deem 31,667 posts
Seen 8 months ago
Registered 18 years ago -
cyk 306 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 18 years agoI'll just throw the Canon A75 in again The Canon A70 was one of Canon's biggest selling cameras in 70 years. Take a look at what it can really do instead of reading specs. -
deem 31,667 posts
Seen 8 months ago
Registered 18 years ago -
deem wrote:
cyk wrote:
I'll just throw the Canon A75 in again The Canon A70 was one of Canon's biggest selling cameras in 70 years. Take a look at what it can really do instead of reading specs.
I take back everything. buy the a75!
Is that really in the price range?
edit: but it does kinda help that you are a shit hot photographer.
Got any pics of booze?
Edited by deem at 01:57:36 25-08-2004
edit 2: not so sure about your claim to having a "kick ass" pc though!...
Edited by deem at 02:00:50 25-08-2004
Hehe thanks Amazon have it My PC kicks the ass of the old one
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
