Heck.. if nothing else, I thought the slim would make a good starter digital for daughter since she doesn't have one at all.
Hummm, maybe the macro range would be better for me (I did buy one for me as well as dtr.), just for taking snaps for 'what is it'!!
Before you buy a Digital Camera
(57 posts) (13 voices)-
goodgotd
Memberwell, recall I've had 10 years, more or less, to wish for optical zoom because I couldn't get close enough to get more than little blocks instead of details.
When gary passed on the ricoh (which has optical zoom but not much difference in detail, [1.3 mp to the c200's 1 mp] plus other flaws- and was actually less than a year different in age and used the same ISO-100 max technology, though a lot different in price) I rather fixated on it as the gotta-have feature. oops.
What I hadn't had any experience with, and so didn't 'get' the reality of, was the difference an image sensor with 5.1 times the pixels and at least 4 times the sensitivity behind the same optics would make.
That's going from images that are 1152 by 872 to 2592 by 1944!
Sure, looking at the preview or even scaled to full-screen on a computer the distant objects look tiny- but at full scale there are staggering improvements in the detail that's there, and can be framed and presented as really good images with cropping.
Even after firing off 580 shots with this camera already- and *it's* 3 years older than current starter cams [and an ungodly number of generations behind state-of-the-art because of Moore's law]- I'm just beginning to start chipping away at the assumptions I never realized were ingrained as habits of thought and no longer apply when looking at modern digitals.
I should know better.
Posted 16 years ago # -
copmom
Membergood, then that basically means that you are behind the times! Guess we all have to open our minds to 'new/improved'.. but sometimes I don't WANT to learn more!
Remember that the whenever we do buy anything new, it's already obsolete the moment we leave the store with it!Posted 16 years ago # -
goodgotd
MemberI just have to modify and expand on my boat anchor post, based on recent experience. Like, since I got this camera.
This may not apply to those who use nice, solid, fast camera cradles for dumping the camera's memory- but if A) you use a USB cable to the camera, B) use USB 1.1, or C) have any chance of touching or jostling the camera while connected...
Combinations are not additive, it gets worse much faster. exponential.
It's far more of a problem than I guessed, and I really must strongly suggest at least one spare card and a direct reader for your flash memory.
This is without the factor of having to recover accidentally deleted photos, even. I found ways to avoid that.
first, the cable. Treacherous, unhandy and can simulate jostling the camera all by itself.
second, using USB 1.1 speeds on a mere 5.1 megapixel camera, it takes me three minutes to transfer a mere 18 pictures (28 megs) to the computer's hard drive.
third, don't touch- I've found at least a dozen ways to lose the usb link from jostling the cable to touching too-sensitive buttons to bollix up transfers that have consequences ranging from getting the computer annoyed to having the camera lock up and need the battery removed to reset it.
Ignoring the battery drain. Did I mention having the camera's stupid power-save turning it off while preparing a place to put the pix?
AAAaarrrghh.
Posted 16 years ago # -
goodgotd
Memberyes, and vented a bit about dumb design, too.
though faster isn't true aside from the (annoying) amount of time it takes for the camera to shift gears and get connected, the time for transfer is the same. At the speed of the slowest device in the chain.
USB 1.1 has a speed limit of 12 megabits a second; 2.0 can hit 480- *big* difference, and it reduces the time for the other things to happen.
I should note one common danger to both methods, and that's writing to the memory by mistake rather than copying from it.
yep, another from the 'I *was* that dumb' files.
Posted 16 years ago # -
maizeydaze
Membergoody, that's why I use Adobe photo downloader. It automatically starts when you insert the card into the reader, locates the files, asks if you want to download, gives you the option of where you want to put them, and will number the file names incrementally. It will create a folder named with the date and will add a numerical suffix to the folder when you download more than once per day. Afterwards its asks if you want to delete the files from the card. In addition, it catalogs all your pictures according to date, regardless of where you store them. You can create tags and groups. This makes it very easy to find tings. No chance of writing to your card.
Posted 16 years ago # -
goodgotd
Membergotta look for something like that, right now I have a checklist.
copmom, a camera in storage mode or a card 'reader' (better to think adapter, they read and write) turns the memory into a removable disc drive as far as the os is concerned.
if you open windows explorer you'll find them 'above' your regular drives, fully accessible. That's how you load mp3 players, or use a spare secure digital to move files between computers.
HyperSneakerNet.
And win2k + writes if possible like it or not- it updates the 'last accessed' time stamp on copied files.
so *don't* do that with smartmedia, use the downloader. OS writes to SM are usually the kiss of death. probably xD too.
compactflash, multimedia cards, secure digital- they don't care. no clue about memory stick.
But that's why I said that 21 in 1 would appear as 4 drives. sm/xd, cf/microdrive, mmc/sd, sony memory stick.
============edit==================
unlike the other 2 cameras, this one retains settings up to ten minutes so the time/date stays right- and auto-increments the files (including video clips- look in the exif data on my photos) regardless of formats, changed cards, etc.
I'm up to HPIM1257.JPG.
Posted 16 years ago # -
goodgotd
Memberactually (sorry it took so long to notice the question) since I use InsideCAT to catalog all my data CD/DVD's, and did even before I got the C200... and the list of DSC00*.jpg files (original HP C200 pix- the Ricoh RDC-4200 uses RIM00*.jpg, and I rename pix as I crop/resave 'em) runs to a tad over 37,000 when listed into a report, well-
there might be some dupes saved before I got a proper save/verify/delete cycle worked out, but 30 grand allows more than enough room for early mistakes.
The current HP M517 counts up to HPIM2000 regardless of erase/format cycles on the card (the older cams reset to *0001 when the card was cleared- max 500 for the HP C200/256 meg [8 with the oem 4 meg] and 20 for the Ricoh RDC-4200/16 meg), counting mpeg movies as just one number, then rolls back to HPIM0001.
I've rolled it over 3 times and took HPIM1260 tonight. call it 7200 and change. 453 shots just today.
as to why, so I could do basic DIY cleaning and maintenance regularly, and take it in to a camera shop for a professional clean and alignment job once in a while. like the odometer on a car suggesting when to change the oil, Y'know?
(about every 10k on the C200 is when light metering got touchy and picture quality suffered, this M517 hasn't changed yet. I think the C200 used a separate photocell on the front of the camera, and this M517 uses the image sensor itself.)
Posted 16 years ago # -
TK_M
MemberFirstly, Bubby I'm surprised at you! What do you mean - You DON'T own a set of lock-picks? Most geeks seem to, as it appeals to problem-solving mentalities. Think like a Rubik's Cube, but more mechanical & mathematical. In some countries, it's even a sport - try http://www.toool.nl for an example.
Secondly, my real reason for posting here is to warn you about memory cards. I just got a wonderful offer on an 8GB SD card and so bought it. My Kodak camera can take reasonable video as well as stills (I think most good makes can?) and this would have been wonderful for it. The problem is that the camera cannot recognise the card. After a lot of expensive phone calls and e-mails to Kodak, I have had many contradictory answers from them. The worst being to just buy one and try it - I already had and it doesn't...
So I thought it might be useful as a way of transporting temporary data on my Dell. The card didn't work there either. Dell assured me that their built-in card reader could read it and that it was a Windows issue. They kindly gave me a link to the MS KB article about it and the Hotfix for it. Sadly it did not work either. Back to Dell and they said MS are working on it.
However, last night I was told they are both WRONG. 8GB and over cards need special readers, not just different software/firmware. The prices of cards are falling rapidly and so 8GB and bigger cards are going to be "normal" quite quickly it seems, while the smaller ones are likely to disappear over a couple of years or so - Like 256KB cards are getting harder to get now.
I still do not know if my camera will take 2Gb - 4GB cards, or whether my current 1GB is the largest it can handle. The conflicting answers from Kodak mean I will not be buying them again. There are plenty of other excelent makes though...
Posted 16 years ago # -
TK_M
MemberHi copmom!
I do have the documentation for the camera, but it is so old that 1GB cards were the largest that were availabe at the time. So I thought my manual would say the maximum was 1GB then? Since larger capacity cards are now available, I thought it might take them, but alo thought I'd better check first! That is when I couldn't get a straight answer really from them.
It does look like the card is not compatable with anything I have, so I don't even know if the card is defective or not. I'll just have to wait until I own something that will take it (it does have a lifetime guarantee thankfully). Apparently I will need to buy an external card reader for my computer that can take "HC" cards (high capacity).
Thanks again for your help!
Posted 16 years ago # -
Quantum Dragon
MemberHello all,
@ RunesageMagik : Thanks for starting this thread, it's very interesting ... and made my natural curiosity light up !
And here is some of what I found on the subject starting with: The Megapixel Myth !
Basically, it says that megapixels are but one of the things that matter (and not the biggest one at that) when choosing a camera.
The real thing that matters is the size of the sensor array (CCD). In a CCD for capturing images, there is a photoactive region (an epitaxial layer of silicon), and a transmission region made out of a shift register (the CCD, properly speaking)
An image is projected by a lens on the capacitor array (the photoactive region), causing each capacitor to accumulate an electric charge proportional to the light intensity at that location. A two-dimensional array, used in video and still cameras, captures the whole image or a rectangular portion of it. Once the array has been exposed to the image, a control circuit causes each capacitor to transfer its contents to its neighbor. The last capacitor in the array dumps its charge into a charge amplifier, which converts the charge into a voltage. By repeating this process, the controlling circuit converts the entire semiconductor contents of the array to a sequence of voltages, which it samples, digitizes and stores in some form of memory. These stored images can then be transferred to a printer, digital storage device or video display.
You can find the full article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device
In today's world of shrinking cameras and higher megapixels count, it creates problems called "noise", the smaller the pixel, the more it generates noise.
Here are more articles for sensors, megapixels and digital cameras in general:
Articles on the myth and sensor size:
http://www.majid.info/mylos/stories/2004/02/13/megapixel.html
http://photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/08/business/ptpogue08.php
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/21pogues-posts-2/
A glossary of terms in digital photography:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/
An interesting article in 3 parts on the myth:
http://www.thetechlounge.com/articles.php?id=121
http://www.thetechlounge.com/article/123-3/Beyond+Megapixels+Part+II/
http://www.thetechlounge.com/article/134/
And finally two more that I include for the curious ones:
One about the eye titled Notes on the Resolution of the Human Eye:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html
The other about NASA's Spirit Rover titled Digital Secrets: How Spirit Makes Great Photos:
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/pancam_techwed_040114.html
I'm still searching for articles about some of the problems expressed in this thread (cards capacity and the like, replacement programs for the included software) and should report back when I get something with meat on it.
Quantum Dragon
Posted 16 years ago # -
copmom
MemberGee, someone's been doing their homework!! Just finished reading about NASA. Maybe that's one of the reasons I bought my camera when I was originally researching! It has a glass lens as opposed to plastic. It also takes excellent pictures in very low light situations, even without the flash which is what I was after.
It's outdated now I guess, but what I have is an Olympus (Camedia), C4040 zoom, and really does meet all my needs. It says 4.1 megapixel "noise reduction system", 3X optical zoom, 2.5x digital zoom. What's strange is it also says 7.5X Digital Zoom? Why 2 different digital zoom numbers I don't know. Optical is the more important of the two. I did get some telephoto lenses and macro lenses for it, but they're a bit of a pain to hook up. The newer cameras already seem to have those functions built in. And I think the main reason everyone's after the larger MP cards is so they can use their cameras for making videos. I did one video of my granddaughters soccer game recently, but didn't really know what Ii was doing and wasn't using the viewfinder so it looks like some drunk was filming! Got a lot of feet and sky! Then since I was starting/stopping the video I used one of the programs I recently downloaded from GOTD recently (gee I forgot which one!), and pieced it all together to make one continuous video to view on WMP.Posted 16 years ago # -
TK_M
MemberHi again Copmom,
I am now being told that there is a limit after all. All normal readers will only read cards up to 4GB, anything larger than that needs a newer reader apparently.
I checked on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital_card
and apparently it is true, so people should bare this in mind, or they might get stuck with a card they cannot use.
Posted 16 years ago # -
copmom
MemberOr they can get a newer reader that does take the larger sizes. OR do we really need all the bigger, better, faster?? I recently got a 21 in 1 reader at WalMart for about $20. I later returned it because what I was really after was an adapter that would make my SM card "readable" by my printer which took SD cards. This wasn't a bright idea after all!
Posted 16 years ago # -
TK_M
MemberWell, hopefully they can find a new reader that will work. I am having a bit of a problem finding an external reader that will take them at the moment. My problem is that mt computer has a built-in card reader, so hopefully there will be no clashes if I add an external reader as well.
My camera is quite old, but it takes video as well as normal pictures. The video quality is only so-so, but it is nice to have. A 1GB card will only give me about 20 minutes and I particularly wanted to film something that will last about an hour, so that is why I got a bigger card. Bit of a disappointment really, but just one of those things.
Posted 16 years ago # -
maizeydaze
MemberTK_M, Couldn't you just buy several 1 GB cards (they can be found quite cheap) and stitch the video together on your PC? You wouldn't miss much in the time it takes to swap cards in your camera.
Posted 16 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.