«

I am looking at getting a 4 mega pixel camera, and have been looking at the
Nikon 4300 and the Canon G2. I have also considered other brands, but I'm
not sure, because I have read an heard so many different things.
My finace is into photography and she will be shooting pictures for a local
travelers guide. The guy in charge of printing these guides wants it to be
on a digital camera.
She would like some advance features, but image quality is probably the
most important thing.(Price is also important to me)
Please let me know what you think, or if I need to provide more info.
Thanks,

Jon

"Jon" <> wrote in message
news:Xns93CE6610356AAjjohnson11281hotmail@209.98.1 3.60...
> I am looking at getting a 4 mega pixel camera, and have been looking at
the
> Nikon 4300 and the Canon G2. I have also considered other brands, but I'm
> not sure, because I have read an heard so many different things.
> My finace is into photography and she will be shooting pictures for a
local
> travelers guide. The guy in charge of printing these guides wants it to be
> on a digital camera.
> She would like some advance features, but image quality is probably the
> most important thing.(Price is also important to me)
> Please let me know what you think, or if I need to provide more info.
> Thanks,
>
> Jon

Even though it's not cheap, I'd certainly consider getting an Olympus E10,
particularly if your beloved is an experienced SLR-using photographer
working semi-professionally. As always, check www.steves-digicams.com ,
www.dpreview.com , et al., for sample photos and reviews before making any
purchase. However...

If the travelers' guide producer is only getting picture files, how would he
know if he was receiving images scanned from film or files created by a
digital camera? Yeah, I know--he could look at the EXIF data, but that's not
the point.

No, I'm not one of those film-is-better-than-digital people, just the
opposite in fact, but there's more than one way to skin a cat. In my area,
Fry's Electronics recently had a sale in which a refurbished Epson scanner,
the "Perfection 1650 Photo" sold for a mere $49.00. This scanner can scan
35mm slides and film at 1600dpi--roughly equivalent to pictures produced by
a 3.3 mp camera-- and while it's slow, it does a creditable job. Toss in a
fairly good 35mm camera for a couple of hundred dollars and you're ready to
start producing digital pictures. Or, if you fiance already has a good 35mm
camera, she could get the Perfection 2400 scanner for less than $200 which
would produce 6 mp-equivalent pictures.

If money is *really* tight, there are less expensive ways to get digital
photos without purchasing a multi-mp digital camera. I'm just sayin'...


Disclaimer: I don't work for Epson, but I've used the scanners mentioned
above and have seen results first-hand. They certainly don't generate
output nearly as good as that produced by a drum scanner and they are
S-L-O-W, but they do alright, nevertheless.

And please don't flame me because I still occasionally use film >>gasp!<<
It's already tough enough having one foot on the film dock and the other on
the digital camera boat, as the latter moves out to sea.

I have hundreds of samples from the 4300. I'm really happy with the
camera.
I'm your normal picture taking person so don't judge the camera on my
pictures alone.

Twisterbret

www.coasterreview.com/twister

"Jon" <> wrote in message
news:Xns93CE6610356AAjjohnson11281hotmail@209.98.1 3.60...
> I am looking at getting a 4 mega pixel camera, and have been looking at
the
> Nikon 4300 and the Canon G2. I have also considered other brands, but I'm
> not sure, because I have read an heard so many different things.
> My finace is into photography and she will be shooting pictures for a
local
> travelers guide. The guy in charge of printing these guides wants it to be
> on a digital camera.
> She would like some advance features, but image quality is probably the
> most important thing.(Price is also important to me)
> Please let me know what you think, or if I need to provide more info.

Another alternative is the Nikon Coolpix 4500. Image qualiti is the same as
for the 4300 but you get better macro abilities and you get the swivel lens
that will enable you to take pictures from angles that would otherwise be
impossible.
If you are going to be doing a lot of low light indoor shooting the G2 will
be a better choice.

Jacob
http://www.jacobleedgaard.com

Jon wrote:

> I am looking at getting a 4 mega pixel camera, and have been looking at the
> Nikon 4300 and the Canon G2.

Might as well consider the G3, as it is greatly improved over the G2, and is
already being replaced by the G5 so it just dropped $100 in price.

> If you are going to be doing a lot of low light indoor shooting the G2 will
> be a better choice.

I have been researching the same cameras, and instead of the G2, I would only
consider the G3 when doing the comparisons with the other brands in this list.
I already determined that the G3 fixed a lot of things that the G2 didn't have,
but don't see any real big changed over the G5 from the G3 other than the color
of the camera and that it has 5 megapixels.

I also read several digital photo magazines where 2 megapixel Canons took better
pictures than two 3 megapixel cameras from other brands, so it seems Canon can
do more with the megapixels than other companies can, so far in my research.
I also think the G5 is just an attempt to get a camera with 5 megapixels out for
those choosing over 5 megapixel cameras, since they did not really do anything
else to the camera.

With the G2 to the G3, there are a lot of changes and improvements, and I would
not even consider the G2 anymore, but not enough improvements for me to want the
G5 over the G3.

With the G2, some things require going through menus to change, where on the G3
there are direct access buttons on the camera to quickly do them. They also
have some new technology that makes the same 4 megapixel resolution better in
the G3 over the G2.

This is just what I have figured out as I was comparing all of the other cameras
like the Nikon and such too. Several magazines compared specs on all the other
brands I was interested in, and the G3 always seemed to have more options or
range that whatever I compare it to, unless I want to jump up to an SLR.

So far I am gearing towards the G3, but am still willing to hear other arguments
myself, now, before I go ahead and make the final decision.

Jon wrote:
> I am looking at getting a 4 mega pixel camera, and have been looking at the
> Nikon 4300 and the Canon G2. I have also considered other brands, but I'm
> not sure, because I have read an heard so many different things.
> My finace is into photography and she will be shooting pictures for a local
> travelers guide. The guy in charge of printing these guides wants it to be
> on a digital camera.
> She would like some advance features, but image quality is probably the
> most important thing.(Price is also important to me)
> Please let me know what you think, or if I need to provide more info.
> Thanks,
>
> Jon

I am a new owner of a Olympus C4000Z. So far I love it. No real disappointments yet.

Phil

Philip Walden <> wrote in
news::



Thanks eveyone for the info.
Still debateing the $'s. We are getting married in a month, and money might
be an issue.
-Jon

Jon Wordsworth <> wrote in message news:<>...
> I also read several digital photo magazines where 2 megapixel Canons took better
> pictures than two 3 megapixel cameras from other brands, so it seems Canon can
> do more with the megapixels than other companies can

No. An average 3MP camera will produce better resolution than the best
2MP camera. If you are talking about other things, e.g., color, then
of course it is not related to resolution. An 1MP camera may produce
better color than a 10MP camera, but that does not mean the 1MP camera
is better in every way than the 10MP camera.

> This is just what I have figured out as I was comparing all of the other cameras
> like the Nikon and such too. Several magazines compared specs on all the other
> brands I was interested in, and the G3 always seemed to have more options or
> range that whatever I compare it to

G3 is not bad, but it is not the best in every way.

G3 does not have the largest aperture.
http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#aperture

G3 does not have the highest sensitivity.
http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#senshi

G3 does not have the longest telephoto.
http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#tele

G3 does not have the widest wide angle.
http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#wide

....

> > I also read several digital photo magazines where 2 megapixel Canons took better
> > pictures than two 3 megapixel cameras from other brands, so it seems Canon can
> > do more with the megapixels than other companies can
>
> No. An average 3MP camera will produce better resolution than the best
> 2MP camera.

The photo comparisons and reviews show otherwise. You can't tell the difference between resolution
unless you zoom in to see the pixels, but the quality of the picture is what you see.

> If you are talking about other things, e.g., color, then
> of course it is not related to resolution.

I didn't ever mention resolution.

> > This is just what I have figured out as I was comparing all of the other cameras
> > like the Nikon and such too. Several magazines compared specs on all the other
> > brands I was interested in, and the G3 always seemed to have more options or
> > range that whatever I compare it to
>
> G3 is not bad, but it is not the best in every way.

For under $1000 it is. Sure you can get an SLR that is better.