BetterPhoto Member |
|
Am I On The Right Tack?
My main interest is amateur travel photography. I've used my beloved Nikon F2 SLR for about 30 years, but have decided to switch to digital. (My reasons: during recent month in Italy, the airline refused to let me carry on my bag, then lost it for 4 days; I had pulled out my camera and film, but didn't have my lenses and missed many good shots; had to keep passing film through X-rays; when I finally got my lenses, I had to tote them around everywhere; dropped and broke my new zoom lens; had to pay cost of 50 rolls of film, then had to pay $350 to develop the film, but only kept 40% of the prints, and had to pay further for enlargements.)
For my purposes, I figure I need 4x optical zoom, and 4 megapixels (for enlargements to 8x10, maybe 11x14). I want to be able to use full manual, but would also like a broad menu of pre-programmed settings.
I have my eye on the Nikon Coolpix 4500. I know there's not experience with it yet, but does it seem like a good choice? The price seems ok, and I've been very satisfied with Nikon products.
What about a printer? I saw an HP that seemed pretty good and not too expensive (around $150), but can't remember the model number. I keep hearing bad things about Epson. Any thoughts? Are individually-replaceable inkwells an important advantage? And I'll have to upgrade my 6-year-old 233 megaherz Windows 95 computer, won't I? I understand I need at least Windows 98, preferably 2000 or XP.
My budget for camera, printer, and computer system is $2000, but could go a little higher if really necessary.
This is my first foray into digital and I'm a little overwhelmed, and fear I might be going completely astray. Any thoughts would be VERY welcome!
July 04, 2002
|
|
|
John A. Lind |
|
Terry, I can't help you much with specific hardware, but will provide some observations about cost, print sizes, "optical zoom" and digital file storage considerations. A good friend of mine worked out all the costs after buying a digital camera, printer, etc. He's not saving any money making his own photographic quality prints. It's about the same, perhaps a little more, when using high-end premium print paper. The print paper and ink for the printer are his significant costs. He badly underestimated how much ink he would use. It consumes much more than normal color printing and good inks that won't rapidly fade are more expensive. Most find that they're not saving much (if any) money unless they typically have a very low yield of keepers. What they do find, after getting past the learning curve of how to get a good color balanced print from their printer, is no more aggravation from poorly printed negatives from consumer one-hour labs. [Note: there are some decent consumer one-hour labs, but general quality level is spotty. A good one can suddenly go downhill with the rapid personnel turnover most have.] His maximum print size is an 8x10, it is marginal, and he must have maximum resolution files to get decent ones. They work OK at normal viewing distance in a frame on a wall, but cannot withstand close scrutiny. An 11x14 (or 11x16) print is about the limit for 35mm film enlargement, and that requires the highest resolution, slowest films. To get even an acceptable print that size requires a very high end, professional grade digital using max resolution, and their cost is several times your stated budget (camera body alone; not even a lens). I recommend downgrading your expectations to most no bigger than 5x7 with an occasional 8x10. You're smart to pay attention to "optical zoom" as using the "digital zoom" range sucks resolution out of the image quickly. The "digital zoom" feature works by cropping how much of the CCD is used to make the photograph. Even though some algorithm may expand the number of pixels to a full-size file, it's performing some form of averaging of the ones recorded from the CCD to do it. In short, these methods can add pixels and make files bigger, but they cannot add detail that was in the scene, but weren't captured and recorded from the CCD. Digital Storage Considerations:
You mentioned shooting 50 rolls of film. If these were 24 exposure rolls, it was 1200 photographs! To get larger prints (even with downsizing your expectations some) requires using maximum resolution from a digital. There is a severe limit to how many image files you can store before having to download them onto a computer. The alternative is having pile of "memory sticks" (or whatever the media is they're stored on in the camera). These are not inexpensive, especially the largest capacity ones you would need for storing that many images. Work out the math for how many photographs the camera you're considering can hold at the resolution you need for the print size you want. I know there are some wedding photographers that have switched to very high end digital cameras, but it's not very many, and none that I know locally have done so. The reason? The image storage requirements are staggeringly enormous. The logistics of hauling a laptop computer around plus the time required for downloading them on-location are infeasible. They shoot about 300 images average, 500 max for a very large wedding and long reception, between 1/4th to 1/3rd of the 1200 you shot. If your typical "burn rate" when traveling is that high, start working out a complete "game plan" for how to store and transport that many digital photographs based on a calculation of total storage requirements . . . and consider the cost of that also. -- John
July 05, 2002
|
|
|
T Lee |
|
Hi Terry, I can help a little with the computer side of things based on my experience as a network technician, and will offer my experiences with digital cameras. After using my Elan 2 for 2+ years, I tried a couple of Digital cameras. I planned on using them sort of like polariods, for exposure information, etc. I expected them to perform like regular cameras. Perhaps this was my mistake. The first that I bought was your basic point and shoot digital. It frustrated me very badly. You see, I tend to take pictures of objects that move... or breathe. I have a 7 year old daughter, and she doesn't much like to sit still for the camera. I would point the camera at her, and press the shutter. The camera would then think about taking the picture, adjust the shutter speed and such, and -then- take the picture. By this time, she'd already have moved, and the picture was ruined. The camera went back the very next day. Thinking that this was maybe a pitfall of "cheaper" cameras, a few months later, I found a used Canon Pro70. While it did seem to perform better, the delay was still significant. I missed several shots this way. That camera went back later the next week. The camera shop suggested that a Canon D30 might be more what I was looking for if I was expecting image quality and rapid shutter response of my "other" camera. This is a $4500+ cdn camera here. Body Only. The one thing that I notice that John's excellent response does not comment on is the rate that these digital cameras will chew up batteries as well. Unless you never use the lcd, and only record images on the flashcards and download them, without viewing, or erasing etc, you will notice that you are changing batteries often enough that it might well be worth your while to carry a second suitcase for batteries alone. ( ok,..slight exaggeration ;) ) But you will want to purchase NimH Batteries aplenty. And they're not cheap. 4 AA batteries here run around $14 a package + charger, and typically ran those cameras about 20 - 30 images with larger resolutions ( as you seem to indicate that you will be wanting to do.) The camera that you describe has a Lithium battery, and may not take AA batteries as a backup. In that case,.. you'd want to purchase a second, perhaps even third spare battery, since sometimes the opportunity to recharge those batteries doesn't present itself on a daily basis while travelling. I have both Epson Scanner and printer. I have no complaints about either. I find that for the money especially, they were an excellent buy. I would, in retrospect perhaps have purchased the C60 or C80 if I'd realised I was going to be printing pictures. I was more interested in price at the time, as my old printer had just died, and I needed to print some stuff. HP makes an excellent printer, but I find them pricey. ($60 - $100USD more for similar features to an Epson or other brands. Especially true of the scanners that I was looking at.) Seperate cartridges are definately a bonus. You will typically use one color more than the others, and would then only have to replace that cartridge. This can save a lot of money in the long run. Another thing to look into is the price of cartridges, and availability. The Nikon software will require that you upgrade your computer. If you don't use it for retrieving the images, and another piece of software.... that might not be an immediate need. For instance,.. both of those cameras were supplied with software, I never did install either of them, but was able to retrieve the images through windows explorer, and view them in Irfanview (www.irfanview.com), the imageviewer that I use. It's fully featured as a viewer and better still,.. it's free. If your computer has USB capability, it will be fine, although you will need to upgrade to Win98se for the ability to use it, as OSes previous to this had questionable or no USB support. If it doesn't, then there are flashcard readers out there that use a serial connection,.. they are harder to find now, but out there. They are slower, but still usable. Or you can purchase a USB reader, and a card for your computer that will add USB ports. The page I found for the camera says that the camera doesn't support this, but a regular USB reader will. The other thing that you will want to puchase if you are going to be storing digital images, is a CD burner. This will add about $120USD (last time I was in the states) to your price. You do not want to store images only on your computer, in case the harddrive fails. There is no way to retrieve the data if this happens, and all of your pictures will be lost. I scan to my computer, to post to my webpage, and regularly backup to more than one CD, in case one gets scratched. I hope this helps.
Thanks
stormi
July 13, 2002
|
|
|
T Lee |
|
Hi Terry, I'm sorry,.. I also forgot to mention that you will want a printer that is capable of matching,.. or at least come close to matching, the resolution of the images that you print. For instance,.. If I print an image that is 1200x700dpi on my printer, that is capable of 300x600, I will see loss. So if you want to use this printer as your "photolab", in many cases, a not too expensive printer will start to show it's limitations early in the game. Thanks
stormi
July 13, 2002
|
|
|
John A. Lind |
|
Stormi (and Terry), About battery consumption: Saw a local newspaper photographer at a recent outdoor, daylight event I was also shooting. The newspaper converted to very high end digital a couple years ago; 35mm SLR's with digital backs. It's an excellent digital application with (relatively) low resolution requirements that cuts out the developing and "pre-press" work required to get film into newsprint. He was wearing a "slab" -- jargon for the mondo battery used with high power flash heads in the GN 150-200 range (ISO 100; feet). The size of a hard cover novel (but much heavier), they're worn on a belt around the waist or hung from a strap over the shoulder. It powered his camera, not a flash. Don't know how long he can run on the slab but it must be significant compared to internal batteries. Same reason they're used for high power flash heads. -- John
July 14, 2002
|
|
|
Mike Mincey |
|
|
|
|
|
Just a duck.
Taken with an Olympus C-720 UZ camera. No flash.
Mike Mincey
|
|
|
|
Hi. I thought that I would provide some information for you. First off, I provide technical support for one of the digital camera manufacturers. I will agree that battery consumption can be a problem, but it's all in how the camera is used. Yesterday, for example, I used a 3 megapixel camera and 2 16 mb smartmedia cards (the media used in this particular model to store the images on). At the default quality setting of 1984x1488, I managed to take well over 70 pictures. Mind you, this involved reviewing pics to see what I did and did not like and reshooting, zooming in and out, making some manual adjustments, etc. I still managed to go home and download that images to my computer via usb and not once worried too much about the batteries as I was ready to go out and shoot again. I was using NiMH rechargeable batteries and they are well worth it and a viable option.As for printing, I have the opportunity to print on professional printers, but I have an Epson Stylus 777 which prints EXCELLENT photos. Even upon close inspection, you will have an extremely tough time telling the distance (unless you're the type that looks at every photo with a magnifying glass). Even our senior technicians could not tell that I used my $99 printer instead of their $800 professional printer. Yes, there are better printers out there and yes, the cost can sometimes equal, if not exceed, traditional developing, but I love the do it yourself feel and the option of choosing 4x6, 5x7, or 8x10. I will not go back to film.
July 15, 2002
|
|
|
T Lee |
|
Hi John, Terry and Mike, John - I think that I would have to start packing my own mule around just to carry the battery packs! Terry - If you do go the digital route, see if there is a store that will let you "test drive" a camera, even if it's an older model, with similar features. This way you can decide whether it's for you or not. I found that with both cameras I tried, I was frustrated by the lack of control. I was also disoriented by the feel of the camera, as I am used to an SLR camera. Good luck in whatever you choose though! Mike - What was the brand and model of the camera? I would be interested in looking into one. And I've been using the Optex CamPower batteries with a 1200mAh rating. The first camera chewed them up and spit them out. What batteries are you using, and what is the mAh rating on them?? stormi
July 20, 2002
|
|
|
Mike Mincey |
|
Hi Stormi! The camera was an Olympus C-720uz. I was using the Olympus brand of rechargeable NiMH and they are rated at about 16mAh. There are two chargers available. A quick charger and an overnight charger. Yeah, those 1200mAh batteries will go on you quick. Definitely go for something with a little more juice. Also, if using a digital camera, you may want to remember to use the lcd screen to review pictures that you have just taken instead of using it to take all of your pictures. It will greatly increase that battery usage you will get.
July 20, 2002
|
|
|
Lyndon Guy |
|
So let me throw in another two cent's worth - Take a look at the Fuji Finepix 602S. This answers a bunch of your concerns - it is a 3.3 Mpixel camera, uses rechargable AA cells, can use eithe smartmedia or compactflash memory (and the 1Gbyte Microdrive, by the way). This gets you about 400 images between downloads at max res and jpg "fine" mode compression. It has full manual and full auto capability and everything in between. It doesn't weigh much and gets good life out of the batteries. I use an Epson 1280 printer with a continuous feed ink system from missupply.com. With 4 oz ink bottles, you can print a LOT of 8X10's before you have to buy more ink. Read up on this printer, lot's of folks use it for professional and semi pro work with excellent results. With 2000 + prints under my belt, I have found it to be very reliable. Camera investment - about $800, Printer + CFI system + first set of inks ~ $600. Microdrive ~ $250 That leaves you a few bucks for a new computer motherboard and processor.
July 23, 2002
|
|
|
Diane H. Inskeep |
|
Hi Terry,
I am a rather recent convertee (sp) from film to digital. I bought the Canon D30, which was $3000 when new, but they are now showing up used in the $1000 range. I decided to use the Canon so I could use my other 35mm lens with the digital back. It is a nice feature to be able to put a 200mm lens , or a 15mm lens on a digital back, when you need it. Will your old Nikon lens fit the newer Nikon digitals? I use the HP Photosmart 1315 printer, costs alittle less that 400. Pictures are fine. The feature I like best is the ability to print an index print,with photo numbers, directly from the compact flash card. then I burn it to a cd, for safe keeping. HP does not have separate ink cartridges, which I do not like. The HP is very slow....I would even change to another printer if I can get better ink options as well as the index printing directly from the flash card. I have 12 compact flash cards, in several sizes. The costs of cards has come down alot in our area, so the last 128 mg card cost me $45. (Holds 150-200 shots per card) With multiple cards, I can shoot over 1200 photos, at the highest jpg option.
I recently bought a billion rechargeable batteries, a big battery chargers , and a smaller charger(with the car adaptor plug) Seems like I got 36-38 batteries, and it all cost about $200 mail order. Researching batteries was a pain, but I ended up getting a charge that could charge ALL of the various types of batteries. I can look up the web site on the battery stuff if you are interested.
Hope this helps.....and as soon as you get the first few thousand images, we can all discuss how to organize and keep track of them! Diane
July 29, 2002
|
|
|
Lem Metro |
|
|
|
|
|
Good Wood
Lem Metro
|
|
|
|
Pale Mail
Lem Metro
|
|
|
|
Pretty Kitty
Lem Metro
|
|
|
|
Terry,
I bought everything you mentioned you were about to obtain in May of this year, with a budget of $2500.00. My budget went like this.
$1500.00 for laptop computer. I bought the Winbook J4, P4 1.6GHZ and loaded.
$500.00 for digicam. I purchased Minolta's S404 new for $431.00. (see attached photos) At 4MP, with a 4X optical zoom and loads of features, this may be the best bang for the buck out there.
$200.00 for photo printer. My answer was the HP Photo Smart P1000 at $141.00.
$300.00 for camera accessories. Solution. Shop for weeks and gather a 256MB memory card for $96.00, a basic filter kit and adapter for $55.00, lots of NiHM batteries and charger for $50.00, and a large camera bag for $15.00, My total cost was $2288.00. Plus around $110.00 in taxes and shipping costs. $2400.00. Ouch! But I have it all!
Let's address your slightly limited budget. At $2000.00, you may have to cut a few corners, but here is a way to do just that and still have everything you need to begin enjoying digital photography. First is the computer. Allow one half of your budget for your digital darkroom. $1000.00 will buy a very nice desktop system with a Pentium 4 processor at around 2GHZ. It should have all the necessary photographic options like CD-RW, 60GB hard drive, DDR ram, USB ports, and Windows XP installed. Purchasing a very good compact zoom digital camera, all the extras that requires and a serviceable photo quality inkjet printer will take the second $1000.00 of your budget. Obvious camera choices are the Minolta S404 or the Sony DSC-S85 both around $500.00. The Olympus and Canon models that give you similiar qualities cost a bit more at a price point of $600.00 or more. Choosing the Minolta S404 allows you to invest about $300.00 in accessories and still leave $200.00 for a good quality printer and your first pack of glossy photo paper. For $300.00 you can add a 256MB Compact Flash memory card, a cheap telephoto or wide angle lens with adapter and filters, rechargeable NiMH batteries and charger, memory card reader and maybe even a camera bag. A real bargain shopper might be able to bring this in well under $2000.00.
August 15, 2002
|
|
|
Ronnie G. Rutledge |
|
|
|
|
|
Lake Isabella
This is Lake Isabella with McNalley forest fire smoke in the background.
Ronnie G. Rutledge
|
|
|
|
Hi Terry, I am not a professional photographer by a long shot but I just bought my second Sony Digital camera. I bought a 4 megapixel Mavica CD400 for $667. It only has 3x optical zoom but for an additional$120 I purchased a 2x zoom lens and mounting adapter from Sony. As for the battery life I get "at least 2 hrs" of shooting with one charge and bought an additional rechargeable battery for $60 so I never run out of battery. Also 156 MB to 200MB cds hold lots of pictures and are very cheap at about 50 cents each. Good luck with whatever you choose.
August 20, 2002
|
|
|
Bill Hammer |
|
Terry, all the information you received ignored one consideration - the time to actually make prints from your files. I have been taking slides for over 50 years (no wise cracks about my age!)and for the last two years doing digital. Even if you load your images into your computer directly from your memory card they will probably need some image correction. Be it levels to correct small exposure problems, cropping or cloning to remove extraneous material, etc. I am pretty good at Adobe Photoshop but I still spend 5-10 minutes to improve each print. Did you say 50 rolls of film on each trip? I take about 30 rolls of slide film and when I get home it only takes me about 10 seconds to discard the losers. I'm not sure this helps you BUT YOU MUST CONSIDER IT. Bill Hammer
January 21, 2003
|
|
|
Mike Mincey |
|
Hi guys. Long time. I've got a new setup. Over the holidays, I purchased the Olympus C-50 5 megapixel compact camera. Love it despite a few minor drawbacks (no manual focus, no infra-red sensor AF assist for low light shooting and no audio using movie mode). I also just purchased the Epson 785EPX printer as there has been a promotion running for for a rebate when you purchase an Olympus Camera and Epson Printer. I've been using the Epson Stylus 777 printer to print out my photos with rave reviews, so I wanted something even better. The camera I love for the compact size, abundance of features, and the really long battery life from the included lithium battery. I'll let you guys know how this setup works for me after I shoot over the next week.
January 21, 2003
|
|
|
|
Log in to respond or ask your own question.
|
