Frank M. Gaydos on fri 29 oct 99
This overview of digital cameras was in the local Knight/Ridder newspaper
this Thursday. I think it gives some down to earth advice and reinforces
what some Clayarters were saying.
Digital cameras no longer just for 'professional alpha geeks'
The prices are coming down, the quality is improving. The technology is
likely to be a hit for holiday gift-giving.
By Mike Langberg
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE
On the topic of digital cameras, it's time for me to put up or shut up.
I've been loudly touting the rapidly improving quality and falling prices of
digital cameras for the last three years, while having lots of fun with a
succession of models borrowed from major manufacturers.
So, by this time, you'd be entitled to question my enthusiasm if I wasn't
willing to shell out my own money to buy one.
That enthusiasm, I can now report, is genuine: I've just spent $861.49,
including shipping, to purchase a Nikon Coolpix 950 digital camera from
Amazon.com, which recently expanded its online retailing empire from books
to consumer electronics.
Of course, I'm a professional alpha geek who just has to own the fanciest,
top-of-the-line gadgets. More rational buyers can now get high-quality
digital cameras for as little as $300, and toy digital cameras for children
cost well under $100.
Digital cameras, which record pictures electronically instead of using film,
aren't yet a major threat to the huge market for 35mm point-and-shoot
cameras. But that could change next year, and digital cameras are going to
be high on a lot of holiday shopping lists this year.
Why are digital cameras so compelling? Instant gratification.
You see the picture you've snapped on the camera's LCD display screen just a
few seconds after taking it. As the memory gets close to full, you can
review the images you've shot and delete those you don't like to get more
space.
It takes just a few minutes to transfer images from the camera into a
personal computer, where you can immediately share them with friends and
family worldwide through electronic mail or World Wide Web pages. And
standard inkjet printers can produce beautiful prints on special photo paper
costing just 50 cents to $1 a sheet. All this flexibility makes film look
seriously lame. You spend almost $1 every time you push the shutter button
on a 35mm camera, counting the cost of film and processing. You don't see
the pictures until hours, days or even weeks after taking them. And you can
share the results only by sticking an envelope of photos in your friends'
faces - unless you take the additional step of scanning the pictures into
digital form.
If you're getting the itch for a digital camera, let me give you a quick
buying guide. Just remember, the market is changing so fast that much of
this information will be out of date within a few months.
First, there are two important features to keep in mind when shopping for a
digital camera: resolution, measured by the number of "pixels" in the CCD
imaging sensor, and the quality of the lens. One million pixels, also known
as one megapixel, is sufficient to deliver near-35mm-quality prints up to
5-by-7 inches. Two megapixels will produce 8-by-10 prints that are almost
indistinguishable from film. Cameras under one megapixel might produce
images suitable for sharing by e-mail or the Web, if kept small, but should
otherwise be avoided. As with film cameras, the image quality is heavily
dependent on the lens. A 1-megapixel digital camera with a carefully made
multi-element lens can outperform a 2-megapixel camera with second-rate
optics. Two-megapixel cameras, including my Nikon Coolpix 950, are available
from more than a half-dozen manufacturers at $600 to $1,000. There's even
more selection in 1-megapixel cameras, priced at $300 to $600. Cameras under
one megapixel run from $60 to $200.
Second, be prepared for a certain degree of buyer's remorse if you make the
leap today. Sources inside the industry tell me good-quality 1-megapixel
cameras should drop to $200 early next year, while 3- or 4-megapixel cameras
should be available at the high end. Of course, a good digital camera
purchased now won't become obsolete just because prices go down. And you'll
get that much more picture-taking pleasure by starting earlier. If you want
to wait, there are other ways to stick your toe in the digital water. My
favorite at the moment is Kodak's Picture CD service. When you drop off a
roll of 35mm film, you can get high-resolution scans of your pictures on
CD-ROM for just $9 extra.
Third, shop around. The digital camera market is moving so fast that
retailers aren't consistent in pricing. I recently visited one major
electronics chain where the new Olympus D-450 zoom digital camera was
selling for $499 - right next to its predecessor, the now-discontinued
Olympus D-400 zoom, selling for $599. I cringed at the thought that some
hapless customer might mistakenly pay $100 extra for last year's model.
Watch out, too, for Web retailers offering suspiciously low prices for
cameras that never seem to be in stock. The Nikon Coolpix 950, for example,
is in very high demand and somewhat short supply. A few Web sites are
offering the camera for more than $200 below the official price of $999. But
I couldn't beat Amazon's price of $849 with any Web retailer that actually
had the camera on hand.
Fourth, consider the extras. Most digital cameras are powered by four AA
batteries and can burn through regular alkaline batteries the way teenagers
go through popcorn at a horror movie. For about $50, you can get
rechargeable nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries. Avoid the less-durable
nickel cadmium (NiCad) rechargeables.
It's also a hassle to plug a camera into a computer and slowly transfer
images. For $50 to $100, you can buy an external memory card reader - for
either the Compact Flash or Smart Media formats used in digital cameras -
that connects to a PC's parallel or USB port. You then quickly move images
off the memory card in the same way you work with files stored on floppy
disk or CD-ROM. Laptop owners can buy adapters, at $15 to $50, to plug
memory cards into the PC Card slot.
In the last two years, I've tested digital cameras from Epson,
Hewlett-Packard, Kodak, Nikon, Olympus and Sony, while keeping a close eye
on reviews of other cameras in a number of computer and electronics
magazines.
Here's one important lesson I've learned: Camera companies - particularly
Kodak, Nikon and Olympus - are offering the best optics, and therefore the
highest image quality. But I also have to concede I haven't looked at every
camera on the market. Keeping that in mind, I'll finish with a few specific
recommendations.
Photo fanatics eager to join me in 2-megapixel nirvana can't go wrong with
the Nikon Coolpix 950 (1-800-526-4566; http://www.nikon usa.com). I'd rate
the $899 Olympus C-2000 (1-800-347-4027;
http://www.olympus.com/digital) a strong second. Another intriguing
possibility, due in November, is the new Nikon Coolpix 800 at $699 - it's a
scaled-down version of the 950, with a 2X zoom lens instead of 3X and a few
other reductions, but with the same image quality.
In the 1-megapixel class, I'd go for the Olympus D-450 zoom at $499, the
Kodak DC215 zoom (1-800-235-6325; http://www.kodak. com) at $399 or the
Olympus D-340R at $299. As I said above, I'd avoid cameras with less than a
megapixel. If you don't want to spend $299 or more, wait until next year to
buy a digital camera.
I looked at two bargain models for this column. The $129 Agfa ePhoto Smile
(1-888-281-2302; http://www. agfahome.com) produced unacceptably blurry
images with distorted colors.
To my surprise, the $89 JamC@m version 2.0 from KB Gear (800-926-3066;
http://www.kbgear. com) delivered sharper images than the more expensive
Agfa. Even though the JamC@m is intended for children, the picture quality
is minimally acceptable for e-mail and the Web - although not good enough to
print. The JamC@m is also missing several standard features in grown-up
digital cameras; there's no LCD screen, for example, and no flash.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Frank Gaydos
510 Gerritt St.
Philadelphia, Pa.
19147-5821
HTTP://home.earthlink.net/~fgaydos/
Tom Wirt on sat 30 oct 99
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> This overview of digital cameras was in the local Knight/Ridder newspaper
> this Thursday. I think it gives some down to earth advice and reinforces
> what some Clayarters were saying.
>
For those who are interested, the current PC Magazine (Nov. 16th) has a
review of 19 digital cameras...also some very interesting sidebars on how to
read the specs and how the manufacturers use various technical tricks to
make their cameras appear better than they are. One note....if the optics
aren't any good...the photos won't be any good.
Tom Wirt
Richard Jeffery on sun 31 oct 99
I saw the results of a Nikon Coolpix 950 recently - the shop I buy camera
bits from were using it for their own publicity shots, partly for the web,
partly for a printed catalogue. This is a shop that sells mainly plate/roll
film studio cameras. First time I have seen a professional photographer use
a non-professional digital - albeit with a decent lighting set up.
I'm converted...
Richard
Bournemouth, UK
(winter seems to be so long coming this year the second crop of figs are
almost ripe - crazy)
-----Original Message-----
From: Ceramic Arts Discussion List [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU]On Behalf
Of Tom Wirt
Sent: 30 October 1999 17:51
To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: Digital cameras article-long
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> This overview of digital cameras was in the local Knight/Ridder newspaper
> this Thursday. I think it gives some down to earth advice and reinforces
> what some Clayarters were saying.
>
For those who are interested, the current PC Magazine (Nov. 16th) has a
review of 19 digital cameras...also some very interesting sidebars on how to
read the specs and how the manufacturers use various technical tricks to
make their cameras appear better than they are. One note....if the optics
aren't any good...the photos won't be any good.
Tom Wirt
| |
|
