[the_monkey]

id like to buy one, around 300-400 cdn.
but i dont know what the terms mean and which one to buy. can andyone help me?

------------------
Maho: the online Comic

tradgedy is when i cut my finger.
comedy is when i fall down a manhole and die.

[Loki]

Hey monkey! Here's a banana!

Anyway. Digital cameras are hard to choose. Maybe you want to save up and get a good one - I'me now on my third, and this is the first one I'm happy with (but it was also a lot of dough - around $3000!).

Here are the terms:

Megapixel: I don't know who came up with that BS-term. Probably CCD-designer slang.
It's the number that you get when you multiply horizontal and vertical resolution of the camera. So for instance if the camera has 2200x1640 pixels res, it's roughly a 3.6 Megapixel camera ( the full nuber would be something like 3608000). It basically tells you how many receptors the CCD (ChipCoupledDevice) has.

Always look at the resolution.

Here are some things you want to look for in general (some things are probably only found on more expensive cameras).

* High resolution (1600x1200 and up!)

* Good automatic white balance / optional manual white balance

* good optics!!!!!!!!! What good is high resolution if it's just being used to perfectly picture the flaws of a cheap plastic lense. Make test photos

* battery life - you don't want to have to attach a AA-battery banana clip to the side of the camera just to be able to shoot for an hour. Get rechargeables! Better for the enviroment too.
Mine has a battery-pack that keeps it going for nearly two days! No more headaches!

* Good USB and software implementation. USB is the only way to go.

* abilty to save uncompressed files / 36-bits if possible ...

* Microdrive compatibilty - if you like to shoot uncompressed images a lot, you'll need lots of storage - 64MB won't cut it often. IBM developed this teeny weeny harddrive, that has the exaxct size of a compact flash card type II - 340MB is the smallest size - they just released a 1Gig microdrive!! Great thing - shooting all day long!

* forget the knick-knack - no quicktime movies, sound recording or integrated crap - what you want is a good camera that takes great stills - and that's it.

Allrighty - hope that helped

[Loki]

Here's a shot of my camera I took in downtown LA today. It's 1.2megabytes large, so I hope you're not on a 56k modem - the original was double the resolution - take a look - I'm quite happy with this camera.
http://www.vigilante.net/~loki/images/gallery/misc/P4102234.jpg

[roundeye]

thats really nice! i want your camera and your apartment.

[the_monkey]

well im guessing that u got an awful fine camera there loki, but the picture seems kinda...dotty. maybe its just my monitor, but the sky dosent look like one smooth gradient, it kinda looks like a compressed gif.

but its probally my monitor (its crap), so thanks alot for your help, im printing this thread out so i can go search for some good cams, and thanks for the bannana.

------------------
Maho: the online Comic

tradgedy is when i cut my finger.
comedy is when i fall down a manhole and die.

[Darklighter]

that's just the smog we got in l.a., haha

[Guy]

i wish i had the money for a digital camera

ive looked up some info on a few. i was looking up ones that would give you more artistic freedom. insted of the point and shoot deal. so far the nikon D1 and the cannon eos-d30 look to be the best. no idea how much they are, but i bet it's a lot. any one know more about these cameras? if theyre any good?

[[Shizo]]

It seems to me that digi cameras take much better quality pics than normal cameras, unless it is $100 digi cam heheh
High resolution is nice, but i mean $3000?!!! WHAAAAAT

[Impaler]

:]~~

Jesus. That picture is probably the best quality digital picture I've seen. And it's half the original size? mmmmm.. That's actually the quality of a 35mm shot, which has always been the goal for digicam manufacturers. I guess i can see paying 3000 dollars for it, maybe. But the question is, can you attach bigger lenses to it?

*hugs his nude pictures of Madonna and his f/3004 telescopic lens and his Minolta*



------------------
My signature is slightly better than yours.

[GreenPeach]

quote:

---

Originally posted by [Shizo]:
It seems to me that digi cameras take much better quality pics than normal cameras, unless it is $100 digi cam heheh
High resolution is nice, but i mean $3000?!!! WHAAAAAT

---

no, If that were the case, pro photographers would all use digital. They don't. I think they'll get there soon enough, but right now it's stil like film and video.

Oh, and monkey, I paid $500 for my canon elf and it has 1600 by 1200 res and uncompress file saving. The images arn't quite as good as Loki's but I tend to paint over them anyway. I love it. Perhaps someday I'll want a better one but until I'm working for hollywood it's fine.

[This message has been edited by GreenPeach (edited April 11, 2001).]

[[Shizo]]

here's a swell camera for $780
http://www.mypc21.com/itemdesc.asp?CartId=4200581KRCMU26&ic=QV3000EX%2DPROPAK&tpc=

[Mike]

if you check overstock.com and other discount places you might find a good deal. I ended up getting a nikon 990 for only about 500 from overstock a few months ago.

[Loki]

GreenPeach: tends what photographers you're talking about - nearly all the mainstream newsphotography has switched to digital - because quality is not always number one concern - speed and convenience are more looked at.
Fashion, commercial and studio photography still relies totally on film, because the quality is by far superior - It'll take a good while til the digital cameras will come close to a 6x7 middle format photo.

Actually, I dare to say that my camera is in some situations as good as, if not even better than 35mm - this is very hard to judge though. But having seen many many 35mm photos up close in PS, I dare make to that assumption ...
But it's only getting better ...

[GreenPeach]

You're right Lok. I was thinking of comercial photography and most fine art photographers. That must be one hell of a camera.