Cameras

“Last year, I asked for some advice on cameras, but never got one, kinda hoping some digital models would come along, also some some personal issues to deal with. So now I'm asking again:

I want a packable appropriate camera, small, light weight,easy to use (point and shoot), some what durable, give decent photo quality, zoom is a must, auto focus. Any other handy features that any one could suggest?

Oh, did I mention that low cost is important? I guess I'm looking for a consumers report best buy, but I want a backpacker's perspective, not a laboratory analyst's point of view.

What have you used on the trail? A traditional camera is not out of the question. How about some commentary, sage advise, sound counsel, errr... um some hub bub, as it were?”

“I use a Yashica T4 Super Weatherproof. An easy to use point and shoot with excellent Ziess optics. Perfect for the backpacker.

Some info on the T4 Super.”

“This is what I use. It's not very trail friendly, though. And the tripod weighs another 18 lbs. and the battery another 6lbs.

http://www.gtc.org.uk/mainsite/zerb-s97/beta-sx.htm”

“Olympus Stylus Epic Zoom 80”

“I have the Olympus 460 Zoom. It seems to have all of the stuff you asked for. Weighs 9 1/2 ozs. 1.2 Mega Pix. and about $250. It comes with a 8mb Smartcard and I bought a 32mb card also. Got it last Christmas and haven't taken it to the mountains yet but it seems to take good shots. The 490Z is a 2.1 mp and about $100 more.

Olympus 460Z Review

Priceline Prices”

“Sorry......Damn HTML

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D460/D460A.HTM

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_attrib.php?page_id=48&ut=cfad1885f20138be”

“Are you looking for a digital or a 35mm camera? It's not clear from you original message.

For film, the two basic cameras that come to the top of nearly all lists are the Yashica T4 and the Olympus Stylus Epic. Both are robust, high quality, P&S cameras with a great reputation. Neither has a zoom lens, which is why they take such quality pictures. Zoom lenses, especially in P&S applications, are notoriously poor. If you must have a zoom, the Olympus Stylus Zooms have a pretty good reputation. You can get the Stylus Epic for about $100, the Yashica is closer to $200.

For digital, I have an Olympus D-490, a 2.3 megapixel camera with 2.5 optical zoom. (Don't bother even reading the specs on digital zoom, it is a completely worthless feature.) It runs about $400, but you also will need to buy a bigger memory card (32 meg for $50), rechargable NiMH batteries and a recharger ($45), and a Smartmedia Card Reader (currently free with an Olympus rebate). For good printed images, I'd recommend looking at 2 megapixel, any decent camera will run you $300+, plus the accessories.”

“ This thread talks about digital cameras.

After a bit of research, I am ordering a Canon Powershot S10 today ($349) for my wife - her employer is picking up the tab - and I may get to use it sometimes.”

“Elph”

“Re: Elph

If you are buying a film camera, I can't really find any reason to recommend APS cameras. The film isn't as good, it costs more for the camera, film, and processing, and it's harder to find.”

“Digital Elph”

“I have cameras ranging from 6x7 cm, to 5x4.5 cm to 35 mm to APS. I love them all, and they all have their uses. My ELPH (film version) takes wonderful pictures, even though the format is smaller. I just don't expect to get large reproductions from it. As far as the film for APS not being as good, I don't know what you base that comment on. Some of the best emulsions were developed by FUJI as a direct result of the APS. Almost every emulsion I can buy for 35mm, I can buy for APS.”

“thanks Hobbit”

“kleetn, I have a S10 and I have gotten great results with it. I think you need to buy a bigger memory card and the rechargable battery for best use.”

“It really depends on what kind of pictures you want and how many you take.
Me, a three day outing can generate a couple hundred frames. For that it has to be slide and that means 35mm, for cost and bulk. For more orgnized shoots I use the Rollie, large format.”

“Does Rollie make large format cameras?”

“I guess APS technology has improved in the last two years. When I last looked, it was very difficult to find the film in speeds other than 100-400 and the reviews of them weren't that good.

One nice things about the new digitals is that with a MicroDrive you can store over 1000 full quality 3 Megapixel images without ever changing cards. You'll need a few sets of batteries, but they take less space than all the film.

Granted, it's not yet at the quality level you get with slide film, but unless you are really serious with what you do with the images, most people could achieve all the results with digital.

Still, I have both digital and 35mm and will for some time.

A good place to look online for equipment is B&H Photo (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/) a very well respected mail order firm in NYC.”

“A 3x3" neg is a large format, and that all Rolleflex mades that I know of.”

“Now I've never owned one mind you, but it is my understanding that the only cameras that Rolleiflex ever made used standard 120 or 220 roll film (med. format), or the standard 35mm format. There also was a Rolleiflex 4x4, which used 127 roll film, however I've never heard of a 3x3. Which model Rolleiflex camera do you have? And does it use sheet film or roll film? I'm not being flip here, I really am curious about the camera.”

“Well Hobbit, I can't say what model it is. You got me to thinking so I went and got it out, just says Rollieifex. My grandfather gave it to me about 20 years ago, he bought it in Germany in 1936 when he was there for the Olympics. Film is sheet and getting hard to come by, right now I get it from Agfa and I have to go to SF to get it.
I also have a Yachica (sp) which uses 124, 2x2, but flim is impossible to come by.”

“Thanks TT, that's interesting. Give these guys a try. They might be able to help with your film and processing for the oddball stuff.”

“Geez, that was a dewey dumb sh!t. At any rate, the link still works. *grin*”

“Howdy all, I (finally) bought a camera in January of 2002. Here's what I got:

Kodak DX3900, 3.1 megapixel with 2x optical zoom, 3x digital (Which I don't use, I use my PC at home for that). I also got a 64 MB card for it, a rechargable battery, 4 year-good as new service contract, software, and a docking station. Total cash outlay: $600.00. Now only 5 months later, you can get all that, with 4 megapixels for about $20 less!!! I can't stand it!!!

Initial reasons for choosing this model/package: Size, weight, options, price, reports on ease of use (rated easiest to use in some publications). (In that order).

Anyways, what I wanted to share with you all is that this camera really is an easy one to use. I take the pictures, and when I get home, I turn on the PC, set it in the Docking Port, and push one button on the docking port. The pictures get transferred into a folder right on the desk top, ready for immediate viewing or transfer, or printing, or whatever.

Then by clicking on the Kodak icon, I can do quite a few different things with the pictures. (BTW, I can import pictures from anywhere on my PC, or discs). I can trim, modify, adjust, email them (in very low, email appropriate resolution), print, set up a slide show, get rid of red eye... It just goes on and on.

What is really interesting is the e-mail feature. On Yahoo, you can only send 3 pictures per e-mail. I have sent 34 on one e-mail via this program through my yahoo account, without having to wait for them to scan each individual pic for viruses.

I think I would recommend this setup for a hobbyist, such as myself. This setup does not have absolutely every feature/enhancer available, but it has everything I would want to be able to do. It also does not have the optics that a Nikon would have for example. But it is a very servicable point and shoot camera. And it is really easy to access the pictures and manipulate them.

I still find that the most important part of the photo is the actual taking of the picture. I still haven't found a way to manipulate a bad shot into a good photo.....”

“Man, Uphill Klimber I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you got ripped off, big time. Last September we purchased the "EXACT" same system, except with an 8 MB card from Best Buy for $349.99

Kodak 3900”

“yeah camera prices really took a dip last year... and yes i got mine for 350.00 ...

next year ... 19.95 :)”

“Just to clarify, the camera cost me 399.00. The 64 mb card, docking station, rechargeable battery (sold separately), and the service contract for 4 years brought the total to $600.00. Like I said, this was for the whole package, not just the camera. Still though, Feb 2002 was more expensive than last September!!! Bummer.”

“Seriously though, how did you find that camera for $350.00? I had been watching Best Buy (Where I bought it), Circut City, Staples and Office Max, since Summer of 2001. That was the best price I could find. I found some web pricing that would have saved me another $30.00, but wanted to buy from a local source in case of problems.

Of course I recognize future price drops for even better cameras, due to technology improvements.

I live in South Portland, Maine, where do you live? Is it possible that they use regional pricing guidelines.

I'm sure it couldn't be that I missed a sale....well maybe I did... but..but... I am pi&&ed now... I paid 399 months after you got yours for 350....

ARGH!!!”

“UK, the Hyperlink included in my first post will take you to Best Buy where the camera is still $349.99.

When we bought it last September it included EVERYTHING you received in the package. Like I said the ONLY thing we didn't get was the 64 MB card. We DID get the dock, battery, 8 MB card etc, but not the extended warranty. But that certainly wasn't worth the extra $250 you paid. We also don't have a sales tax which might have been part of the $600 you paid.”

“Man, now I am really pi&&ed. I'm copying that add and going to visit those thieves!!!!”

“Hey Geezr, I checked out that hyper link you gave me. Did you use a gun to rob them with that link? It says the docking station is sold separatly, and only a lithium battery comes with it, not a rechargable.LOL. I'd say if you got all that for that price, you got over on them. Good for you. But I'm still out $50 for the camera....”

“Uk, that's what it's selling for now, NOT what we purchased it for in September of last year. In fact if you run a search I'd be willing to bet you could even find it cheaper than that. I think we found "The Package" for $319 plus shipping. We just purchased it locally because we were leaving on vacation and couldn't wait. Hope you get your money. Didn't mean to rub you the wrong way, just stating a fact.”

“Looks like a great deal... I won't be looking for a while for a camera. Hope the info helps some one else. I still recommend the package , but at your price!!!”

“Ive heard that you should look for a minimum of 3x OPtical zoom and that the digital zoom is bunk.”

“davex, you are right, digital zoom is bunk. You can digitally zoom in on your PC after you down load the pic. I turned mine off shortly after I got the camera. Resolution gets lost with that. Optical zoom is what you want, and of course the more you get, the more you pay. The 2 things, I think, that you should look for are as many megapixels and optical zoom as you can afford. The quality of the optics also comes into play. All the other features you may need are probably already on the camera.”

“since i do not have a dig cam, was wondering if anyone knew of a good scanner to use we have a 370 elf greeat camera, three different pic setting including pan,, but need to sent pic's back home so need a scannner any leads would help later”

“scanners that do photo quality are still very spendy according to a geek co-worker who hates digital cameras because he is a perfectionist....recently got down to about $600 for a halfway decent one earlier this year but still you lose so much of the information unless you get it done professionally with scanners that cost > $5K and that is why Kinkos or other copy places charge you plenty to scan each photo
The best approach is to have your shots put into digital format as well as prints at the time of processing (unless of course you do your own darkroom work) most places now offer the choice of a CD or floppy or website as formats for the repository of your images and it costs only a few bucks for a whole role of 27 exposures but the rub is you must do all or none at the time of development....”

“I've tried several of the photo CD services. Even used Kodak's services by a lab here in SLC that charges plenty for it. None of them were what I would term photo quality. As for being able to scan them yourself and do an equal job without spending tons of money, much of that has to do with the size of the print that you're scanning. If you hope to scan a 4x5 enlargement of a 35mm negative and use that scan to print an 11x14, expect to be disapointed. I believe that your best bet is to get a film scanner such as the Minolta Dimage, or the Nikon LS4000. You can even find a re-furbished Nikon LS2000 for a very good price that will do an excellent job for you. Well below $1000 in most cases.

If all you wish to do is scan photos for a web site, then save your money and get whatever flat-bed scanner that your local Wal-Mart has on sale for $150. Screen resolution vs. print resolution doesn't require nearly as large a file or as high a resolution scan. All of the photos on my web-page were scanned using the transparency adapter on my HP Scanjet 5470c. I actually sized them down considerably from the original scans, just for display purposes. I've used that scanner to do a slide scan and print an 8x10 that looked every bit as good as a traditional cibachrome print from the same transparency. Happy imaging.”

“I scanned some slides on a Nikon Coolscan at another of our work locations. Just made some 8x10 inkjet prints on my Hewlett Packard printer (realize that Epson currently gets rave reviews as the best)... Some were very good quality, some weren't. On the ones that weren't, I don't think I had a good scan. (still learning how to use that scanner)

I was very surprised with this. I have a very cheap-ass Olympus D-100 digital. Only 1.1 megapixels. I shoot at the highest quality I can. I was able to make decent 5x7s. And now I dared to try an 8x10. As B/W it looked pretty durn good. *shock!!* Will have to try it with a color shot.

You're really only supposed to go up to 4x6 or 5x7 with a 1.1 megapixel camera.”

“I was checking out the Kodak DX4900 and was wondering if anyone has this camera and if so what do you like/dislike about it. Here is a link to it.
Kodak DX4900”

“I have the 3900 model and it take great pics, has good battery life. you need the cradle if you want to use thier rechargables.”

“Wow, that is strange. The link I copied and pasted has a higher price than what I was just looking at. I came into that link from Pricewatch, they must give a lower price through them than if you log on to their website.”

“Just picked up the pics from this weekend, and 1/2 of them didn't come out. The camera was jamming, but towards the end of the trip, it worked again. So, the best part didn't come out!!!

I took the camera in (got the 5 year warranty, if they can't fix it they'll replace it). They laughed about how "used" it looks!

Anyways, this happened on the McGee Creek trail....the same one that Tekdude's camera didn't work. Wierd, huh? I was going to go back in 2 weeks anyway, I lost a baggie with maps and trip notes at the pass. This gives me another reason to go back. Maybe the smoke will be gone by then.”

“I broke down and got a digital. the one that I showed to dude...its awsome. I posted some DC shots, but I havent' captioned them yet. I wish I had the thing in Colorado, but I will be using it heavily for upcoming trips to the wilds.”

“I'll check it out. My little Olympus is giving me problems too. Last weekend on the Whitney dayhike it wouldn't close til the next day, even switching batteries. It finally decided to close on its own. ?????”

“I had an early digital, the resolution wasn't great but I had fun till it died. My problem was that I am lazy about backing things up and I lost the pics I had during a crash. In the early version, the downloading from the camera was also a pain.

How are you pixel heads doing with those issues-backup and downloading?

Your resolution and colors look good, in general. I notice some pixelation or JPEG effect in some that have been posted.”

“your comments to and what the heck is "pixellation"?”

“remember pixie sticks?




mMMmmmMMm”

“Sorry, my question was directed to users of digital cameras. Maybe the wrong thread, but not the worst case of thread degeneration is it?

My term, maybe invented? pixellation refers to being able to see the pixels in some images. I've noticed especially in the gradients of blue in the sky. The images seemed to have good resolution and the non-sky parts of the image seemed very good.”

“pixie's are delicious :}

I back my pics up to cdrom”