You might also be insterested in tips on buying a camera.
Do you know what really distinguishes the professional photographer from the amateur? A professional will go on a photo shoot and burn up dozens of rolls of film, just to be sure that somewhere in there, he has captured just two or three perfect pictures. It is expensive to take all those extra pictures, but it is an investment to him, because he can't be sure which one will be perfect until they come out of the lab.
And what does the snapshot amateur do? He takes one picture. Perhaps, if it's an important one, he'll take two ("just in case the first one didn't come out"). This usually doesn't help because the second photo often comes out exactly like the first. After all, his simple camera has no controls he can adjust in an attempt to improve quality.
The serious amateur will "bracket" his photos, taking two or three with slightly different settings, so that if one is too light the next one will be a bit darker - hopefully just right. This takes a slightly better camera (with exposure control), a bit more film, and a will to do the right thing. This is the kind of guy who would like to take a lot more pictures, in order to improve his chances of success, just like the pro. He simply can't afford all the film and processing.
Digital cameras give the common man the power that was once reserved for professional photographers. Now, anybody can keep snapping the shutter until they get what they want - and know it. You don't have to pay for the less than perfect pictures - they can be deleted in the camera, or later during transfer to the computer.
And it helps the people who are in your pictures, too. For the longest time, my daughter hated having her picture taken, convinced that they would turn out bad. Now I take a picture, and show it to her via the display on the camera. If she doesn't like it, I press one button, and it's gone forever. And when it turns out well, she knows it. Suddenly, she seems a lot more confident in the quality of the outcome, and more willing to let me take her picture.
By the way - you can plan on deleting 50% of the digital photos that you take - especially in the beginning. This is a good thing, because those are the digital equivalent of the bad film pictures that you would throw out - except you didn't have to pay to have them printed!
Your best bet is to read a lot of reviews. The trade-offs are considerable and the technology is moving fast.
Here are a few good digital camera web sites:
In other words, look for a camera that has both optical and LCD viewfinders.
You don't want to use digital zoom - it degrades picture quality. Look for a camera that offers "optical zoom". It's OK if the camera also offers digital zoom in addition to optical zoom; I just suggest you don't use the digital zoom.
As of summer 2004, Compact Flash still seems like a popular storage format.
Prefer cameras that have a CF Type II slot, especially if it says "microdrive compatible." This will expand the storage options available to you, and allow you to put more storage space in your camera.
As of winter 2002, Smart Media and Compact Flash cost the same per megabyte. I still think that Smart Media is not a good format and would avoid it.
As of summer 2004, Smart Media seems to be getting more and more rare.
Get at least two spare sets of batteries. http://thomas-distributing.com sells several brands of NiMH batteries at a good price.
Electronic parts last a long time, but mechanical parts are prone to wear and jams. This includes flip-up electronic viewfinders, the Nikon swivel arrangement, pop-up flashes, and the power-driven lens cover on the old Epson 850z.
I consider all of these weak spots that are likely to fail someday. I would advise camera designers to avoid such mechanical complexities, in order to keep MTBF up.
There continues to be a trend to higher-resolution cameras, in order to get better picture quality. But I suspect that this trend will damp out, as the customer base finds a happy medium between image quality (high res) and storage space (low res). After all, we are not all driven in quest of ultimately beautiful pictures. If we were, we would all be lugging around big expensive studio cameras instead of snapshot cameras. I think that standard resolution will wind up between 4 and 5 megapixels.
Like the film camera, digital cameras will settle into approximately three levels:
There is a clear trend towards cost-reduction. In the past, just making a digital camera was challenging enough that the end-product cost a couple of thousand dollars. When the customer is paying that much, the manufacturer can easily toss in a bonus item or two to "sweeten the pot" and steer customers away from the competition.
But now the prices have dropped, and continue to drop. Everybody is tightening their belts. In comparing the my Epson 850z (year 2000) with 3100z (year 2001), we find:
Well... I use my camera at work to capture white board meeting notes, and leave the PC cable at work; I use the Mac cable at home - I appreciated both. The LCD viewfinder backlight takes a huge amount of power, and it doesn't work well outdoors - I used the solar backlight option. And if the old CF-II slot didn't use the full capacity of the Microdrive, fix it - you are selling a camera that requires greater storage capacity and you remove a way to get it?
Nor is this feature-cutting trend isolated to Epson. The Nikon 995 uses a plastic body instead of the alloy of earlier models. The company says it was needed to balance the weight added by an improved lens. Yeah. Right.
This isn't a slam against Epson - to balance the lost features, they have added a ton of new ones. But it does go to show that the digital camera market is getting fiercely competetive, and in order to trim costs, features that are considered marginal will have to be trimmed.
You can easily pay more money than necessary to get more resolution than you need. My rule of thumb is, "Don't pay money for higher resolution, past 5 megapixels." Let's see why...
The digital camera business is quite competitive, and manufacturers try to give you some reason to buy their camera instead of a competing one. Somebody will always be offering a higher resolution in their product. "Buy ours, we have an extra 1 megapixel!" You can easily be suckered into thinking that high resolution is important - and worth paying money for.
If you are just taking snapshots and usually printing 4x6", with an occasional 8x10", you can get great results from a 4 megapixel camera.
By adding more megapixels, you don't get better snapshots, because the improvement in quality is not visible to the eye. Higher resolution gives you the ability to blow up photos larger, without looking grainy. You also get the ability to "crop" the picture, cutting off stuff around the edges in order to pay more attention to a detail inside.
Now, ask yourself how often you have made huge prints or custom-cropped a picture taken with your previous camera. Is it worth paying more money for the ability to do something you are unlikely to do?
"More pixels" is better, but more expensive all the way around. The manufacturer has to amortize R&D costs for higher technology. The imaging chips are more complex, larger, and harder to make. [The bigger a chip, the more likely that a tiny flaw will ruin the chip. Lower yield of good chips means higher cost for the good ones.] Even after the camera is paid for, you pay for higher resolution again and again. It takes more time and battery power to process larger images. It takes more space on your storage card to hold high-resolution images, so you have to buy more storage cards. The pictures take up more space on your hard disk, and when you back it up they consume more space on your CD. E-mailing high-resolution photos to grandma takes more bandwidth, and the photos start eating up grandma's resources. Excess resolution is like a virus, starting with the camera and spreading with the photos as the vector.
If you get the higher resolution "for free", and you can tell the camera to use it only when necessary, you might as well get the camera with more megapixels. But only do this when you are deciding between two cameras that are otherwise equally desirable.
As an example, in the Fall of 2004, I bought a new digital camera. It has 8 megapixel resolution. The reason that I bought that model was for the 10X optical zoom, use of compact flash media, AA battery option, full manual mode, and fast shot cycle time. The extra megapixels are gravy, and most of the time I shoot at around 5 megapixels.
But here are some notes...
The Nikons usually get good reviews. Here are some 990 reviews:
As of this writing, there aren't many online review of the Epson 3100z, a camera that I like very much:
This side-by-side comparison shows Canon's new, $3,000 D30 SLR digital camera beating out film!
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htmI'm not ready to drop $3K on this camera, but it is comforting to know that the technology exists, and can be had by anyone who really wants it.
Christmas 2000 brought a slew of under-$200 digital cameras. Avoid them; they are suitable only for (a) kid's toys (b) low-res snapshots for web pages and e-mail. There is a detailed story here:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1006-200-3816312.html?tag=st.ne.1430735..niIt states, in part:
But the cameras that many consumers would want to own, analysts say, still cost much more--in the range of $350 to $999. Consumers buying the lowest-cost cameras may feel more like Santa left a lump of coal in their stockings than a digital delight. Retailers worry disappointment could lead to high returns--as much as 50 percent--after the holidays. "Prices have been falling fairly rapidly, but not rapidly enough where that feature-rich camera is going to be in the golden, $199 price point," said IDC analyst Chris Chute. "That won't happen until next year." ... National retailer Wolf Camera had a 50 percent return on one $149 device, said Greg Bragg, the company's vice president of purchasing. "People were just so disgusted...When you're used to seeing a picture from a still camera, and you think you're going to get that from a digital camera and you don't, it's very, very dissatisfying."
As of Christmas 2002, you can get some very nice digital cameras for $300.
The correct answer is that it depends completely on your usage patterns.
I find that, on vacations, I use about 100 meg a day for pictures (3 megapixel camera, full resolution, highest quality compressed mode). I can survive for nearly a week, carrying my assortment of cards: 160, 128, 128, 64, and 40 meg.
If you go on a trip and you suspect that your storage will not last, spend some time each evening reviewing your photos in the camera, and deleting the ones that didn't come out. [Normally, I would do this when I got home.] If you take a laptop computer with you, you can upload pictures to that occasionally, cleaning out the cards for subsequent reuse.
Storage capacity is measured in "megabytes" ("MB") for smaller cards and "gigabytes" ("GB") for larger cards.
If everything else is the same, cards that store more information will cost more.
When you are taking photographs, the most important speed is the write speed. After you take a photo, the camera must write it to the storage card, and if your storage card is slow, the camera will be slow to take the next picture.
When you are moving pictures from the camera to the computer, the most important speed is the read speed.
Manufacturers will quote the speed of whatever operation they do the fastest, which is usually read.
Speed may be quoted in any of the following units:
If everything else is the same, cards that are faster will cost more.
Here are some "X" numbers quoted in literature from various manufacturers.
| X multiplier | speed | notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1X | 150 KB/sec | |
| 40X | 6.0 MB/sec | |
| 60X | 9 MB/sec | |
| 66X | 10 MB/sec | probably should be 9.9 MB/sec |
| 70X | 11 MB/sec | probably should be 10.5 MB/sec |
| 80X | 12 MB/sec |
Notes:
A Type I card will fit in the Type II slot, but a Type II card can't fit in a Type I slot. Know what kind of card your camera accepts.
If two cameras are otherwise equal, prefer the one with the CF Type II slot (and ideally marked "microdrive compatible").
Don't bother buying a card over 2 GB if your camera is not clearly capable of FAT32. Know what kind of card your camera accepts.
If two cameras are otherwise equal, prefer the one that supports FAT32.
Ultraviolet light is a natural component of sunlight. You can't see it, but cameras can, and it can make your pictures come out different than you had intended when you took the picture. A UV filter blocks this invisible light from entering the camera.
But there is another reason to put on a UV filter and leave it on your camera at all times.
The lens of a camera is a precision piece of hardware. It is carefully shaped, precisely machined, and covered with exotic coatings. You don't want to mess with it. Even cleaning should be done as infrequently as possible. By keeping a UV filter on the lens, you expose the (cheap) filter to dist, cleaning, and scratches. It protects your lens. If, gods forbid, something sharp brushes against the front of the camera, it scratches the filter, not the lens itself.
You should always have at least two - one to use, and a fresh backup to switch to when you start to run low. And rotate through them, so both batteries get exercise.
Different sources of light come in slightly different colors. If you take a (film) photograph indoors under incandescent light, using film that is intended for outdoor use, the resulting pictures will look yellow. Fluorescent lights, too, can result in pictures that look off.
Filters are available that screw in the camera lens and correct this imbalance. Filters like this are often used by film photographers who advance past the "snapshot" phase.
But digital cameras (at least good ones) have a "white balance" control that can be set for sunlight, tungsten, fluorescent, and other lighting sources. Most digital cameras do this automatically. Why buy and carry around a filter that does what your camera already does?
Most colored filters are unnecessary for the same reason that you don't really need an indoor lighting filter: The digital camera takes care of white balance. And if you want colored tints for some other reason, you can do it outside the camera using a software product like Photoshop.
You might want a polarizing filter, though. No amount of Photoshop processing can remove reflections and glare like a polarizing filter.
I don't mean take an extra shot. I mean take the first shot. Then zoom in a little and take another. Then move a few steps to the side and take another. If it looks better from here - move a little farther and take another.
But this is usually the slowest way to download images. There are numerous aftermarket solutions to speed up the job. Most of these entail removing the storage card from the camera and putting it into some sort of reader of converter.
This adapter allows you to plug a Compact Flash storage card straight into the USB
port of a computer.
This type of adapter also allows you to use Compact Flash cards for portable storage
of files from your computer.
This adapter lets you plug a Compact Flash storage card into a computer's
PCMCIA slot.
Since Compact Flash and PCMCIA is electically compatible, such adapters are quite
inexpensive.
Similar adapters are available for other storage formats, but cost more.
I am also an engineer, nerd, and technophile, and so are a lot of my friends. We talk and compare notes.
I bought an Epson 850Z in January 2000. TaftR has a Nikon Coolpix 950. These are both 2 megapixel cameras, which I consider the minimum for great snapshot-quality photos. EdS has an Olympus of the same 2 megapixel generation. Any of these cameras is capable of taking breathtaking pictures. Ed has shown some of his 8x10s around work, and nobody can tell the digital photos from those taken on film.
JohnJ has a Sony Mavica. His model was the top-of-the line two years ago. By modern standards, the resolution is not that high. But taking pictures on cheap floppies is a neat feature. At one Christmas party, he walked around with a box of floppies, taking pictures and giving them away on disk! Sony has a new model that writes to mini CDs. Wow!
TerryM has a Nikon 990, and GaryW has a new Sony. I upgraded to an Epson 3100z in August 2001; JeffP bought one soon thereafter. These are 3 megapixel cameras, and they all produce incredible photos.
In the Fall of 2004, I bought a Nikon 8800. This is a 8 megapixel camera with a 10X optical zoom.
In addition to those whom I have mentioned, at least a dozen other friends and coworkers own and enjoy digital cameras.
I loved my 850z, took it with me almost everywhere, and have taken a stunning number of photos with it.
I had some problems with the 850z, and the good folks at Epson let me pay the difference and upgrade to a 3100z.
The 3100z omits some features of the earlier model, and adds some others. Overall, I am quite happy with the 3100z, and would be glad to recommend it to anyone interested in digital photography.
Some particularly notable features of the 3100z:
In the Fall of 2004, I bought a Nikon 8800. This is a 8 megapixel camera with a 10X optical zoom.
Thank you for visiting. Your comments are welcome.
![[back]](../_aCommon/l_hand.gif){kind=small}
. . .
![[paper and pen]](../_aCommon/an-feather.gif){kind=small}
. . .
![[tip jar]](../_aCommon/icon_TipJar.gif){kind=icon}