Digital Camera Experts

bob saunders · #1 01-24-2003, 01:51 AM

Looking at buying a digital camera, but can't decide which one. Would the Canon s230 be a good start.

Hlywud · #2 01-24-2003, 01:55 AM

Bob: I dont know the Canon but HP has a very nice basic model HP320 that is 2.31 megapix witha 2x optical zoom, great for anything that doesnt require ultra closeups, simple to operate.
Good luck
I will post my link to Punta Cana in a week leaving tomorrow.

rafael · #3 01-24-2003, 06:50 AM

I have 2 canon digital cameras and am very happy with both. I had been using Canon ELFs for standard APS photos and liked the small size. I purchased and s330 Digital Elf that is 2.1 Mega Pixel etc. I have had it for a while and am very happy with it, though it was a bit bigger than I would like.

So. . . . .while in LA in December, I bought an s200, which is smaller. Still 2.1 megapixels etc.

Do you plan on doing large size prints from the stills? Mostly for web and email? If large size printing the 3.0 megapixels of the s230 will be worth it.The s230 seems to be virtually the same as my s200 just with 3 megapixel rather than 2.1.

In all the time I have had both cameras, I have never done any printing. I was told for prints up to 5 x 7 2.1 megapixel will be fine. In best resolution settings you get 1600 by 1200, so I am always scaling down and cropping in Photo Shop etc, so for me the 3.0 megapixels isn't necessary.

If you want it for mostly electronic media, get the s200 with extra smart media cards. The cameras come with 8 meg cards. I have a 128 in my s330 and a 256 in my s 200. You can't fit many photos at high res on an 8 meg card.

I'm not an expert, but I hope this helps.

Daniel W. · #4 01-24-2003, 07:57 AM

I concur with choice of Canon. My favorite travel camera is the S300, and I've taken it all over the D.R. while on vacations there. With the stainless steel body and compactness it travels very well, is resistant to jars, and takes very good photos.

El Viejo · #5 01-24-2003, 08:35 AM

I have the Olympus D 520zoom w/ 128 mb smart card. I picked it for the panorama feature and if you can't recharge battery pack it works good on 2 AA alkaline batteries. El Viejo

andy a · #6 01-24-2003, 01:42 PM

I've used camcorders extensively, including transferring video and "still" shots to computer disk, CD, DVD, and VCR.

I've never owned a digital camera, although I'd like to. Some of what I've learned about DV camcorders should be appropriate, though.

First off, are you sure that you want a digital camera instead of a DV camcorder? You might be pleasantly surprised at the image quality. They can be bought for as little as $350 and have 3 times the image quality of even hi8 camcorders. You can make a "still" shot out of any frame.

For $600 or so DV camcorders come with 1 megapixels, which is 3 times as much as the original ones.

For comparison, the image quality of DVD's is only as good as that of hi8 camcorders - at least in my experience.

Therefore, I don't think that a 2 megapixel camera is worth $250, which approaches the price of a DV camcorder. I have seen them as low as $120 on ecost.com (where I make most of my purchases).

I would either buy a 2 megapixel camera for $120 or I would step up to 3 megapixels. I think that anything over 3 magapixels is a waste. After all, what will you do with it? Won't you computerize it eventually, and wouldn't more pixels chew up a lot more space for barely discernible enhanced quality?

Also, I would make sure that it has a "good" movie-making capability for short bursts. I know that Olympus and Fujifilm (Finepix), in particular, offer this. Be advised though that the video bursts won't be as good in quality, nor certainly as long, as what one gets from a DV camcorder.

One last point which to me is the only one strong enough to decide in favor of the digital camera over the DV camcorder - it should fit in the shirt pocket (no camcorder is small enough) so it can always be available for those unexpected moments when needed the most.

Concerning the last point, if you customarily carry it in your pocket, then your wife, chica, or daughter (yes, a recent poster was worried about what his daughter would think), will have no reason to be suspicious when you take it with you for an "innocent" night out with the boys.

sjh · #7 01-24-2003, 02:00 PM

I have a canon s200 and a s110 and i love them both. My family has owned the s100 as well. Personally I think anything over 2 megapixal is waste but if i got another i would get the s230..

the s200 takes short low res movies which are great for emailing relatives pictures of the kids and fun stuff but not for serious movie making.

get a 128M or 256M card and an extra battery.. both are well worth it.

It is priced well, extremely small and takes great pictures. What more can you ask for?

andy a · #8 01-24-2003, 06:42 PM

What is the price range of the s200?

Does the 200 mean 2Mpixels?

What is the maximum res for movie bursts? 65k or so perhaps? or better?

What is the maximum length (either time or frames) for movie bursts?

Will it fit in a shirt pocket?

Does it have a zoom lens?

Thanks.

Paul Thate · #9 01-24-2003, 07:05 PM

http://zdnetshopper.cnet.com/shoppin...-20431966.html

for pricing and a write up of the cannon 230

sjh · #10 01-24-2003, 10:35 PM

I dont remember all the stats, all this info is best looked up on the web www.amazon.com www.bestbuy.com etc has all the info.

I fits nicely inside a shirt or pants pocket. 2x optical zoom

low res movies last about 30 seconds, medium 15 second, hi res about 5 seconds. Max movie size is about 3.5 megs.

one other note: get a flash card reader (about 20$) and read the files directly from the card. It is faster and easier. dont bother too much with canons software.. while it works, I prefer to use the tools that come with XP