OT: Digital Cameras

You could take pictures in 1600x1200 and then reduce them to nice 800x600 click-here-to-view large
versions for the viewing pleasure of those broadband web surfers. You wouldn't need more than 2 or 3
megapixels for this, but I guess there could be differences in image quality even between cameras of
the same megapixel rating. Well you need the disk space on your website too.

David Bogie <[email hidden]> wrote:
: 6. Be prepared to buy a good photo editor package like Photoshop Elements. Everything else sucks,
: especially the [censored] that comes with most cameras or that joke that comes with Windows.

Or you could go with Gimp which is free in many senses of the word. www.gimp.org . Not the most
intuitive to use, but there are manuals. It works also on Windows and can get you a long way as
image processing goes.

--
Risto Varanka | helsinki.fi~rvarankaOpen ↗ varis at no spam please iki fi

You could take pictures in 1600x1200 and then reduce them to nice 800x600 click-here-to-view large
versions for the viewing pleasure of those broadband web surfers. You wouldn't need more than 2 or 3
megapixels for this, but I guess there could be differences in image quality even between cameras of
the same megapixel rating. Well you need the disk space on your website too.

David Bogie <[email hidden]> wrote:
: 6. Be prepared to buy a good photo editor package like Photoshop Elements. Everything else sucks,
: especially the [censored] that comes with most cameras or that joke that comes with Windows.

Or you could go with Gimp which is free in many senses of the word. www.gimp.org . Not the most
intuitive to use, but there are manuals. It works also on Windows and can get you a long way as
image processing goes.

--
Risto Varanka | helsinki.fi~rvarankaOpen ↗ varis at no spam please iki fi

"David Bogie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Don't buy a Nikon or a Canon unless you REALLY want one, the operating systems suck.

But they do take the best looking photos, bar none, and this is true all the way down the model
line. They have the best exposure intelligence, IMO, which matters a lot to perceived image quality
(especially for consumers). Olympus is always too dark, IMO.

Quoted message said:

Since you will not be expecting to be making a living with your camera, don't buy a digital
still camera based on anything other than one simple criteria: The operating system built into
the camera.

I disagree. Digital cameras function quite differently from one another, and the OS is only one
factor. Most folks will just pop in the batteries, switch to "Auto" mode, and start shooting. The
camera will be expected to handle all image decision making. They will never interact meaningfully
with the OS, so it is of little importance.

Quoted message said:

Everything else is nonsense and marketing hype.

Yes, amen brother. I think that image resolution is hyped far beyond its value to the average
consumer. The number one culprit: Digital zoom. It's worthless, yet it's used as a selling point.
The bigger the better!

Quoted message said:

just buy what you can afford, learn how to use it so you can enjoy using it, and start taking lots
and lots of pictures.

This is harder than it sounds, since "what you can afford" is directly related to knowledge that the
average consumer doesn't have, such as what is hype, and what is not.

Quoted message said:

The features are meaningless

I disagree. Optical zoom, memory card compatibility, battery type, ISO equivalence, audio annotation
and other "features" do distinguish one camera from another for pure ease-of-use, convenience and
compatibility. They're not quite generic yet. Also consider that size and weight my be deciding
factors. The Canon S200, for instance, is a beautiful, rugged little camera that can easily
disappear in a pocket. It also takes phenomenally clear and sharp photos for a camera of its size
and price. The only problem is the wimpy rechargeable battery...but that's what I mean about the
difference between cameras being more than just the OS.

Quoted message said:

There are a few things people fail to consider in their purchase and you must include these in
your budget. Don't buy Just The Camera, that's a dangerous and frustrating wasted emotional
investment.
1. A good case (absolutely crucial if you're carrying electronic jewelry on a bicycle)

Any decent padded case will work fine, unless you have it out in the open while touring in
rainstorms. I paid $5 for my nylon Cordura padded zipper-closure case. It works great - even has a
little externnal pocket for extra CF memory cards and batteries. It was marked as an audio player
case, but it fits my camera very well.

Quoted message said:

2. Batteries system: I refuse to buy a proprietary battery system. If the camera doesn't run on
AAs, I won't buy it. Period.

Agreed, though the Sony Li-Ion batteries are quite wonderful, with very long run times and quick
charge cycles.

Quoted message said:

3. Memory cards: They're all about even in performance and durability, don't let a salesperson
tell you otherwise, they're full of it.

<sigh> You're absolutely right. I can't stand listening to the blue shirts at the big box stores
talking about memory cards and other digital camera details. They know just enough to be dangerous.
Much of what they say is specious at best.

Quoted message said:

you MUST buy at least two additional cards of at least 128M capacity

Yes, 128 MB cards are the optimal value-for-dollar right now. With my Nikon 2 megapixel camera, I
get over 200 highest-quality JPEG's onto one 128 MB card. Two of those cards is enough for a very
long trip: 400+ photos is a lot of photos! If I switch to the "Good" quality setting at 1600 x 1200
(2 megapixels), I can get over 500 shots on a single 128 MB memory card. That's more than most
people will shoot in 5 years.

Quoted message said:

The card that comes with the camera [is] worthless.

Better idea: Keep it with you as a spare.

Quoted message said:

4. Card reader or offloader: Depending on your propensity for these things, you may not like
hooking up your caera just to download the shots so either get a reader for your Macintosh/PC
or get a digital wallet so you can download and reformat your cards in the field. (The digital
wallets that have display screens are way cool, totally silly.)

Dude, what the heck are you thinking? Digital wallet? Fuhgeddaboutit!

All you need is a USB memory card reader. They cost about $20-25. You plug it into your computer,
pop the memory card into it, and the memory card becomes just another drive on your computer. If
you're using Windows XP or 2000, you can use Thumbnail view to see all of the photos in the memory
card - no additional software required. I recommend making a new folder somewhere on your hard drive
(like inside the "My Photos" folder, for instance) with a name like "Pamela's April 2003 Baja Tour"
so you can easily find it later. Then just select the photos from your memory card and cut-n-paste
them into the new folder on your computer's hard drive. In a few seconds, the photos will transfer
to the hard drive, and you're ready to re-use the memory card. You can worry about messing with the
image files later.

With this technique, it's also very easy to archive your photos on CD-R's recordable discs. Drag the
folders you want to archive into your CD burning software (I use Nero Burning ROM), and burn the
disc. You're done.

Quoted message said:

5. A good digital photography book...or take a class in digital photography.

Good idea, but not going to happen.

Quoted message said:

6. Be prepared to buy a good photo editor package like Photoshop Elements. Everything else sucks,
especially the [censored] that comes with most cameras or that joke that comes with Windows.

Yes, I used to hate the consumer grade Adobe Photoshop-like products; but Elements finally gets it
(mostly) right.

Quoted message said:

7. Be preapred to buy a photo-grade printer or learn how to use email and a phot post Web service
really well.

Almost any of the current crop of inkjet printers will work fine for photo printing. Epson has the
best image quality, and good prices; but I've had some probems with my Epson printers (several of
them). I'm not sure what to recommend; but Epson, HP and Canon have cheap aftermarket ink
cartridges, while Lexmark does not. That will help make your decision.

Cheers,

-Barry

"David Bogie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Don't buy a Nikon or a Canon unless you REALLY want one, the operating systems suck.

But they do take the best looking photos, bar none, and this is true all the way down the model
line. They have the best exposure intelligence, IMO, which matters a lot to perceived image quality
(especially for consumers). Olympus is always too dark, IMO.

Quoted message said:

Since you will not be expecting to be making a living with your camera, don't buy a digital
still camera based on anything other than one simple criteria: The operating system built into
the camera.

I disagree. Digital cameras function quite differently from one another, and the OS is only one
factor. Most folks will just pop in the batteries, switch to "Auto" mode, and start shooting. The
camera will be expected to handle all image decision making. They will never interact meaningfully
with the OS, so it is of little importance.

Quoted message said:

Everything else is nonsense and marketing hype.

Yes, amen brother. I think that image resolution is hyped far beyond its value to the average
consumer. The number one culprit: Digital zoom. It's worthless, yet it's used as a selling point.
The bigger the better!

Quoted message said:

just buy what you can afford, learn how to use it so you can enjoy using it, and start taking lots
and lots of pictures.

This is harder than it sounds, since "what you can afford" is directly related to knowledge that the
average consumer doesn't have, such as what is hype, and what is not.

Quoted message said:

The features are meaningless

I disagree. Optical zoom, memory card compatibility, battery type, ISO equivalence, audio annotation
and other "features" do distinguish one camera from another for pure ease-of-use, convenience and
compatibility. They're not quite generic yet. Also consider that size and weight my be deciding
factors. The Canon S200, for instance, is a beautiful, rugged little camera that can easily
disappear in a pocket. It also takes phenomenally clear and sharp photos for a camera of its size
and price. The only problem is the wimpy rechargeable battery...but that's what I mean about the
difference between cameras being more than just the OS.

Quoted message said:

There are a few things people fail to consider in their purchase and you must include these in
your budget. Don't buy Just The Camera, that's a dangerous and frustrating wasted emotional
investment.
1. A good case (absolutely crucial if you're carrying electronic jewelry on a bicycle)

Any decent padded case will work fine, unless you have it out in the open while touring in
rainstorms. I paid $5 for my nylon Cordura padded zipper-closure case. It works great - even has a
little externnal pocket for extra CF memory cards and batteries. It was marked as an audio player
case, but it fits my camera very well.

Quoted message said:

2. Batteries system: I refuse to buy a proprietary battery system. If the camera doesn't run on
AAs, I won't buy it. Period.

Agreed, though the Sony Li-Ion batteries are quite wonderful, with very long run times and quick
charge cycles.

Quoted message said:

3. Memory cards: They're all about even in performance and durability, don't let a salesperson
tell you otherwise, they're full of it.

<sigh> You're absolutely right. I can't stand listening to the blue shirts at the big box stores
talking about memory cards and other digital camera details. They know just enough to be dangerous.
Much of what they say is specious at best.

Quoted message said:

you MUST buy at least two additional cards of at least 128M capacity

Yes, 128 MB cards are the optimal value-for-dollar right now. With my Nikon 2 megapixel camera, I
get over 200 highest-quality JPEG's onto one 128 MB card. Two of those cards is enough for a very
long trip: 400+ photos is a lot of photos! If I switch to the "Good" quality setting at 1600 x 1200
(2 megapixels), I can get over 500 shots on a single 128 MB memory card. That's more than most
people will shoot in 5 years.

Quoted message said:

The card that comes with the camera [is] worthless.

Better idea: Keep it with you as a spare.

Quoted message said:

4. Card reader or offloader: Depending on your propensity for these things, you may not like
hooking up your caera just to download the shots so either get a reader for your Macintosh/PC
or get a digital wallet so you can download and reformat your cards in the field. (The digital
wallets that have display screens are way cool, totally silly.)

Dude, what the heck are you thinking? Digital wallet? Fuhgeddaboutit!

All you need is a USB memory card reader. They cost about $20-25. You plug it into your computer,
pop the memory card into it, and the memory card becomes just another drive on your computer. If
you're using Windows XP or 2000, you can use Thumbnail view to see all of the photos in the memory
card - no additional software required. I recommend making a new folder somewhere on your hard drive
(like inside the "My Photos" folder, for instance) with a name like "Pamela's April 2003 Baja Tour"
so you can easily find it later. Then just select the photos from your memory card and cut-n-paste
them into the new folder on your computer's hard drive. In a few seconds, the photos will transfer
to the hard drive, and you're ready to re-use the memory card. You can worry about messing with the
image files later.

With this technique, it's also very easy to archive your photos on CD-R's recordable discs. Drag the
folders you want to archive into your CD burning software (I use Nero Burning ROM), and burn the
disc. You're done.

Quoted message said:

5. A good digital photography book...or take a class in digital photography.

Good idea, but not going to happen.

Quoted message said:

6. Be prepared to buy a good photo editor package like Photoshop Elements. Everything else sucks,
especially the [censored] that comes with most cameras or that joke that comes with Windows.

Yes, I used to hate the consumer grade Adobe Photoshop-like products; but Elements finally gets it
(mostly) right.

Quoted message said:

7. Be preapred to buy a photo-grade printer or learn how to use email and a phot post Web service
really well.

Almost any of the current crop of inkjet printers will work fine for photo printing. Epson has the
best image quality, and good prices; but I've had some probems with my Epson printers (several of
them). I'm not sure what to recommend; but Epson, HP and Canon have cheap aftermarket ink
cartridges, while Lexmark does not. That will help make your decision.

Cheers,

-Barry

Quoted message said:

David Bogie <[email hidden]> wrote:
: 6. Be prepared to buy a good photo editor package like Photoshop Elements. Everything else
: sucks, especially the [censored] that comes with most cameras or that joke that comes with Windows.

Or you could go with Gimp which is free in many senses of the word. www.gimp.org . Not the most
intuitive to use, but there are manuals. It works also on Windows and can get you a long way as
image processing goes.

Gimp is good. But when I am in a hurry, I use Picture Publisher from Micrografix. If ACDSee was less
buggy, I would use it. but it is a real crash master.

Randy

Quoted message said:

David Bogie <[email hidden]> wrote:
: 6. Be prepared to buy a good photo editor package like Photoshop Elements. Everything else
: sucks, especially the [censored] that comes with most cameras or that joke that comes with Windows.

Or you could go with Gimp which is free in many senses of the word. www.gimp.org . Not the most
intuitive to use, but there are manuals. It works also on Windows and can get you a long way as
image processing goes.

Gimp is good. But when I am in a hurry, I use Picture Publisher from Micrografix. If ACDSee was less
buggy, I would use it. but it is a real crash master.

Randy

Your advice is excellent and right on target. I currently use a Canon 300s which takes astoundingly
good photos and isn't much bigger (it is thicker) than a pack of cigarettes. Over the years I lugged
around the world a professional-level Nikon and lenses. No more.

--
Gator Bob Siegel EasyRacers Ti Rush

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don't buy a Nikon or a Canon unless you REALLY want one, the operating systems suck.

But they do take the best looking photos, bar none, and this is true all

the

Quoted message said:

way down the model line. They have the best exposure intelligence, IMO, which matters a lot to
perceived image quality (especially for consumers).

Quoted message said:

Since you will not be expecting to be making a living with your camera, don't buy a digital
still camera based on anything other than one simple criteria: The operating system built into
the camera.

I disagree. Digital cameras function quite differently from one another, and the OS is only
one factor.

Your advice is excellent and right on target. I currently use a Canon 300s which takes astoundingly
good photos and isn't much bigger (it is thicker) than a pack of cigarettes. Over the years I lugged
around the world a professional-level Nikon and lenses. No more.

--
Gator Bob Siegel EasyRacers Ti Rush

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don't buy a Nikon or a Canon unless you REALLY want one, the operating systems suck.

But they do take the best looking photos, bar none, and this is true all

the

Quoted message said:

way down the model line. They have the best exposure intelligence, IMO, which matters a lot to
perceived image quality (especially for consumers).

Quoted message said:

Since you will not be expecting to be making a living with your camera, don't buy a digital
still camera based on anything other than one simple criteria: The operating system built into
the camera.

I disagree. Digital cameras function quite differently from one another, and the OS is only
one factor.

Bob -

I use Photoshop Elements and I see NO need for the camera manufacturer's computer interface
software. I have NEVER used the bundled software with any of my digital cameras. I insert the memory
card directly into a small Zio USB adapter and look at and process the photos on the computer. First
thing I do is transfer all the photos off the card into a newly created file on the computer HDD. I
make two copies of the file, just in case.

FWIW, my experience with the Canon S330 Elph is that it is absolutely phenomenal. It's a 2 megapixel
camera but I suspect the 330 model will be upgraded to 3 megapixels shortly. Two megapixels is more
than enough for computer display, email and prints up to 5x8. You also get a lot more photos on a
memory card than with higher mp cameras. On a recent two week trip to Machu Piccu and the Galapagos
Islands I brought two 256 meg memory cards and shot about 400-plus photos. Each was stored at one
megapixel so I got about 250 photos on one card. At night, I reviewed each day's photos and erased
the losers directly from the storage card.

--
Gator Bob Siegel EasyRacers Ti Rush "EZ Biker :-)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bob, I too am about FINALLY take the plunge into the digital camera

arena

Quoted message said:

and am ALSO seriously looking at the Canon S230 or the Olympus 5050. Some friends use both and one
particular one favors the Canon S230 for the compactness. (Less COST too) It slips into their
shirt pocket and is used

at

Quoted message said:

all kinds of events including recumbo cycling events. EZ Biker :-) Pompano Beach, Fl. (GRR Ti &
Tailwind Pilot)

"DrRecumbnt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...>

Quoted message said:

I was ready to buy a Canon S230, S45 or G2. As a Mac user, I am

concerned

Quoted message said:

about

Quoted message said:

getting good software/interface. Based on the comments here, I am

starting

Quoted message said:

to

Quoted message said:

look at the Olympus cameras.

"Carl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in article [email hidden], DrRecumbnt at [email hidden] wrote on
1/15/03 9:49 AM:

Quoted message said:

I was ready to buy a Canon S230, S45 or G2. As a Mac user, I am

concerned

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

about getting good software/interface. Based on the comments here, I am

starting to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

look at the Olympus cameras.

I've got a Canon PowerShot S230 which I use with Mac OS X. I had to

install

Quoted message said:

the driver from the CD that came with it (easy). Now I plug it in & iPhoto pops up, ready to
import the photos.

My dad has an Olympus and uses Mac OS 9. He plugs it in and it just shows

up

Quoted message said:

like a hard drive. I'm pretty sure he didn't install anything at all.

I'm happy with the Canon and it works will with my Mac.

Ain't Macintosh sweet? You gotta love that kind of intelligent design.

-Barry

RE/

Quoted message said:

Ain't Macintosh sweet? You gotta love that kind of intelligent design.

"Windows is to Macintosh as a transvestite is to a real woman" (Guy Kawasaki - former Macintosh
evangelist)

Dunno if I agree with it today, but IMHO it was a great line in it's time.

Always thought that pic of Milton Berle in drag as Cleopatra to tack up next to one of Liz Taylor
would have made a great supporting visual...
-----------------------
Pete Cresswell

Bob -

I use Photoshop Elements and I see NO need for the camera manufacturer's computer interface
software. I have NEVER used the bundled software with any of my digital cameras. I insert the memory
card directly into a small Zio USB adapter and look at and process the photos on the computer. First
thing I do is transfer all the photos off the card into a newly created file on the computer HDD. I
make two copies of the file, just in case.

FWIW, my experience with the Canon S330 Elph is that it is absolutely phenomenal. It's a 2 megapixel
camera but I suspect the 330 model will be upgraded to 3 megapixels shortly. Two megapixels is more
than enough for computer display, email and prints up to 5x8. You also get a lot more photos on a
memory card than with higher mp cameras. On a recent two week trip to Machu Piccu and the Galapagos
Islands I brought two 256 meg memory cards and shot about 400-plus photos. Each was stored at one
megapixel so I got about 250 photos on one card. At night, I reviewed each day's photos and erased
the losers directly from the storage card.

--
Gator Bob Siegel EasyRacers Ti Rush "EZ Biker :-)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bob, I too am about FINALLY take the plunge into the digital camera

arena

Quoted message said:

and am ALSO seriously looking at the Canon S230 or the Olympus 5050. Some friends use both and one
particular one favors the Canon S230 for the compactness. (Less COST too) It slips into their
shirt pocket and is used

at

Quoted message said:

all kinds of events including recumbo cycling events. EZ Biker :-) Pompano Beach, Fl. (GRR Ti &
Tailwind Pilot)

"DrRecumbnt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...>

Quoted message said:

I was ready to buy a Canon S230, S45 or G2. As a Mac user, I am

concerned

Quoted message said:

about

Quoted message said:

getting good software/interface. Based on the comments here, I am

starting

Quoted message said:

to

Quoted message said:

look at the Olympus cameras.

"Carl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in article [email hidden], DrRecumbnt at [email hidden] wrote on
1/15/03 9:49 AM:

Quoted message said:

I was ready to buy a Canon S230, S45 or G2. As a Mac user, I am

concerned

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

about getting good software/interface. Based on the comments here, I am

starting to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

look at the Olympus cameras.

I've got a Canon PowerShot S230 which I use with Mac OS X. I had to

install

Quoted message said:

the driver from the CD that came with it (easy). Now I plug it in & iPhoto pops up, ready to
import the photos.

My dad has an Olympus and uses Mac OS 9. He plugs it in and it just shows

up

Quoted message said:

like a hard drive. I'm pretty sure he didn't install anything at all.

I'm happy with the Canon and it works will with my Mac.

Ain't Macintosh sweet? You gotta love that kind of intelligent design.

-Barry

RE/

Quoted message said:

Ain't Macintosh sweet? You gotta love that kind of intelligent design.

"Windows is to Macintosh as a transvestite is to a real woman" (Guy Kawasaki - former Macintosh
evangelist)

Dunno if I agree with it today, but IMHO it was a great line in it's time.

Always thought that pic of Milton Berle in drag as Cleopatra to tack up next to one of Liz Taylor
would have made a great supporting visual...
-----------------------
Pete Cresswell