Finding the Right Camera for a Computer on a Budget

[wolram]

I know nothing about cameras, i think i had a box brownie or some such when i was a kid, so what camera can i buy that will work with a computer
and does not cost mega bucks?

 

[JamesU]

not that I can answer your question, but how many threads have you started in the last week? You may be becomming pengwuino's apprentice

 

[wolram]

not that I can answer your question, but how many threads have you started in the last week? You may be becomming pengwuino's apprentice

Did some one speak what is a pengwuino

 

[JamesU]

hopefully a banned member

 

[wolram]

hopefully a banned member

Gottcha, that bloby thing with funny ears

 

[NoTime]

Try the cereal isle in the grocery store.
They probably have one as a prize

 

[wolram]

Try the cereal isle in the grocery store.
They probably have one as a prize

Does no one take life seriously any more? such an esteemed forum and all i get is noise :rofl:

 

[Chi Meson]

Pretty much any digital camera works with any computer through a USB cable. Some use firewire, but that is not necessary for still pictures. If you want low cost, look on Ebay. I saw some decent name brand "point and shoot" digital camera go for $10 (postage was more expensive).

Olymus, Nikon, Canon are trusty brands. For a good point and shoot cameras, I would expect to pay (starting at) $300 for no less than 4 megapixels.

 

[brewnog]

Got a lovely Minolta Dimage Xg to replace my old film 'idiot' camera.

If it's just for holiday snaps look for anything upward of 3.5 megapixels, anything from Nikon, Olympus, Canon, Minolta or Fuji. Don't be swayed by silly optical zoom lenses or loads of daft features, just make sure it's a nice bright lens, not too big an LCD panel (battery life!), rechargeable, and splash out on a nice big memory stick. Anything upwards of £130 on one of these brands and if you're not too fussy you won't be complaining. Get down to Jessops and ask to have a play with a few, then get yourself onto the interweb for the best prices.

I very rarely use my SLRs these days.

 

[larkspur]

My travel camera is a Fuji Finepix E550. I love it. It takes nice pictures and also video with sound.

 

[moose]

Do not get a vivitar. Fuji has some really nice new cameras. Fuji and Canon generally have really good colors.

visit
www.dpreview.com
^^ best site ever

 

[hypatia]

I have a very cheap Kodak, that works really well. D/L's are so easy with any camera these days.


When I can find it that is. Its been MIA for 8 months now.

 

[chroot]

These days, Canon is generally regarded as making the best all-around digital cameras. The other manufacturers are really not that far behind, though, so price or availability could easily be a swaying factor.

After a *lot* of research, I bought a Canon SD450, which is a very small (mostly) point-and-shoot kinda camera. It has a beautiful display, a very easy and intuitive interface, and takes incredibly good pictures for its very small size.

I also have a larger, much more expensive digital camera, a Sony F717, which admittedly takes better photos than the Canon, but is nearly the size of an SLR. I hardly ever use it anymore -- convenience often trumps a slight edge in photo quality when you're not an expert photographer.

- Warren

 

[larkspur]

These days, Canon is generally regarded as making the best all-around digital cameras. The other manufacturers are really not that far behind, though, so price or availability could easily be a swaying factor.

After a *lot* of research, I bought a Canon SD450, which is a very small (mostly) point-and-shoot kinda camera. It has a beautiful display, a very easy and intuitive interface, and takes incredibly good pictures for its very small size.

I also have a larger, much more expensive digital camera, a Sony F717, which admittedly takes better photos than the Canon, but is nearly the size of an SLR. I hardly ever use it anymore -- convenience often trumps a slight edge in photo quality when you're not an expert photographer.

- Warren

I also have a Canon Digital Rebel. So far, I have had to send it for repair of the shutter curtain two times. I have had it a year and a half. There is a serious flaw in the shutter curtain mechanism.

 

[chroot]

I also have a Canon Digital Rebel. So far, I have had to send it for repair of the shutter curtain two times. I have had it a year and a half. There is a serious flaw in the shutter curtain mechanism.

The camera I mentioned, the SD450, is not a Rebel. I don't know anything about their SLR problems, but the SD450 is a top-of-its-class little camera.

- Warren

 

[wolram]

Thanks for advice every one, i will keep my eye out for an canon sd450.

 

[fargoth]

the SD450 only has x3 zoom... that's really not enough if you intend on getting faces of people or pictures of things that aren't really really close to you...

i got the Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z2, and it's great, i think the Z3 is about the same price now, so i'd suggest this model.

it has x12 optical zoom instead of x10 that the z2 has, and 4 mega-pixels instead of 3.4...
both models have manual control over every thing (along with the automatic), so if you'd learn what everything does, you could get proffesional looking pictures.
if you want an example, i could post some really great pictures i got with this camera.
it looks like national geographic pictures.


and as a side note - don't pay any attention to the digital zoom - it's just software resize, you don't get more details, optical zoom is the actual zoom the camera has.

 

[chroot]

fargoth,

It'd be rather silly to directly compare the Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z3 to the Canon SD450. The Konica weighs three times as much and is more than three times the size! Of course it has more room for a better optical zoom.

The SD450 actually has better resolution, however.

Actually wolram, fargoth brings an interesting point to the table. You should probably give us a list of desired characteristics first before we start throwing camera models at you. Do you want something tiny? Or are you okay with a camera that needs a carrying case with a shoulder strap, yet takes phenomenally good pictures? The market is saturated with cameras of all shapes and sizes.

- Warren

 

[fargoth]

yeah, and you should tell us what price range youre considering too, the SD450 costs about half of what minolta Z3 costs...

by the way, Warren, i don't think you really get more details with the SD450's 5 MPixels, compared with minolta's 4 - i think the camera's optics are the limiting factor, not the CCD resolution (maybe i'll do the math tomorrow, but i think I'm right).
and even if you could get advantage of the 5 Mpixels you got, you can only see it if you print it on something as big as A4...
5 Mpixels is an overkill, and it takes up too much memory anyway.

 

[chroot]

i think the camera's optics are the limiting factor, not the CCD resolution.

It's possible, but resolution never hurts.

5 Mpixels is an overkill, and it takes up too much memory anyway.

The SD450, on its highest-resolution setting, can put something like 400 pictures on a 1GB SD card, which runs about $35 retail. I'm not that concerned about the file size.

- Warren

 

[wolram]

Actually wolram, fargoth brings an interesting point to the table. You should probably give us a list of desired characteristics first before we start throwing camera models at you. Do you want something tiny? Or are you okay with a camera that needs a carrying case with a shoulder strap, yet takes phenomenally good pictures? The market is saturated with cameras of all shapes and sizes.

- Warren

Thanks Chroot, fargoth, i will be be documenting the restoration/conversion of my motorbike, so i need a camera for that, and i
would like some pics of local beauty spots ,those are the two main reasons for wanting a camera.

 

[larkspur]

The camera I mentioned, the SD450, is not a Rebel.
- Warren

I probably should have worded it differently. I meant that in addition to the Fuji I mentioned in my previous post, I also have a Digital Rebel. I did not mean to imply that I thought your Canon was also a Digital Rebel nor that all Canons would not be reliable.

 

[Moonbear]

After a *lot* of research, I bought a Canon SD450, which is a very small (mostly) point-and-shoot kinda camera. It has a beautiful display, a very easy and intuitive interface, and takes incredibly good pictures for its very small size.

I have the SD400, which is just a few bells and whistles less than the SD450, and I love it. It fit both of my criteria...small (or else I'd never use it...my old camera was too big to want to carry around, so I never had it with me when an interesting photo opportunity popped up), and point-and-shoot with some ability to change the settings as I learn more about how to use it or want to play with those sorts of things.

For my needs, I probably could have gone with just a 4 megapixel camera, but since I don't buy cameras very often, and every once in a blue moon I might wish I had the bit extra resolution, and the 5 megapixel wasn't out of my price range, I decided to go for it.

But, Wollie, you might not need or want that much if you just want pictures to share online. More megapixels are mostly useful if you want to make large prints without them turning grainy looking. 4 megapixels might be plenty enough for you, and will be a bit cheaper.

I think the best way to start out is to just go to your local electronics store and see the range available. Pick them up, play with them, see if you can figure out the controls enough to get a picture easily, see if you like the size and feel, factor in the cost of the memory stick (though, keep in mind that while that seems expensive at first, it's a one-time purchase...you don't have to shell out more money every time you need a new roll of film), and then you'll have an idea of the features that are important and ones that aren't, and maybe even a particular brand or model you really like best, and what's generally in your price range. Then you can take that information and shop for the best price for what suits your needs.

 

[wolram]

Do most of these cameras adjust automaticaly to different light levels?

I guess i will not need super quality and the less gizmos the better, i just need a solid dependable one.

 

[NoTime]

Does no one take life seriously any more? such an esteemed forum and all i get is noise :rofl:

I wasn't being entirely a noise source.:rofl:
What you can get for $10 is good enough for most things.
And you might actually find one as a box prize.

The higher resolution multi megapixle cameras really won't make much, if any, difference in what you see displayed on your computer screen.
In particular because most computer displays are way less than 1 megapixle.
It's only worthwhile to get a high megapixle if you are planning to do extensive cropping or large format prints.

 

[fargoth]

for documenting a bike transition, x3 optical zoom is okay, and i think you don't need more then 3Mpixels for it if you're not going to enlarge it digitally, or print it on a big piece of paper.

for catching local beuty spots, again if it's for posting them on the net, 3Mpixels are more then enough...

but if you intend on getting decent face shots, without sticking the camera in your subject's face, i think x6 zoom or better should be considered...
(but remember, as Warren pointed out, that more zoom will make your camera bigger)

and for your question - yes, i think all the entry-level and budget cameras come with auto-focus and adjust to different light enviorements (with the more expansive ones you get manual control in addition to the automated control, and you can get some really cool pictures if you know how to set it right...)

 

[brewnog]

I consider anything above 4.5MP on a compact 'pocket' camera to be a waste; the limiting factor becomes the lens, and you need to go up to something with a decent bright lens to be able to get the most out of the bigger CCD.

 

[Moonbear]

Do most of these cameras adjust automaticaly to different light levels?

I think most do. You should check specifically for anyone you're thinking of buying though before you buy it.

I guess i will not need super quality and the less gizmos the better, i just need a solid dependable one.

Chances are, from what you're describing, you don't need much of anything special.

For example, the photo I posted in the "Country Roads" contest was taken with my old camera, which was only 1.3 megapixels (I think...I can double check, but it's not too relevant...the point is that EVERYTHING on the market now is better than that, even the very cheap cameras). I had a few problems with that old one that were the reason I got a new one: 1) it was big and clunky, so I never wanted to carry it anyplace, 2) it sucked the juice out of batteries like mad...I could get about 12 pictures using a flash before the batteries were dead, 3) it was really slow to get ready for a second picture, especially if using a flash, so if I wanted to get a couple photos in a row of something, I could only get the first one...it was as slow as recharging a flash on a disposable camera, 4) the color was a bit "off" at times, usually giving everything a more reddish appearance, especially in lower light that it really couldn't compensate for.

So, regarding those issues:
1) Size isn't as important to everyone. If you don't need to toss the camera in your pocket when headed off somewhere, and are okay with putting it in a carrying case over your shoulder or on a wrist strap, etc., then any camera is fine.

2) Look for rechargeable batteries. If you're just going to take a few pictures here and there, it's less important, but if you take a vacation and don't want to carry an extra suitcase for batteries, getting something that has a long battery life and is rechargeable is going to be important for most users. (Very few of the cameras I looked at still required regular batteries, most came with the rechargeable battery.)

3) I don't think ANY camera on the market now is that slow. If you're mostly taking photos of things that are standing still, it's not too much of an issue anyway, but if you're likely to go out and try to capture some action shots, you would probably want to test any cameras to see how quickly they recharge the flash and how much delay there is between pressing the button and getting the photo taken.

4) I haven't seen this problem with newer cameras, but you could just check if they have an automatic white balance (AWB) feature. That should automatically adjust the colors for varying light conditions so they don't come out too red or blue and look more true to the actual colors. I find this mostly an issue on indoor photos and not much of an issue if you're only taking outdoor photos, where you have full-spectrum sunlight.

From what you're describing, probably even the least expensive camera on the market will suit your purposes.