«

stacey wrote:

> R2D2 wrote:
>
>
>>stacey <> wrote in
>>news:brreuv$6oogd$:
>>
>>
>>>My brother in law was asking me for advice on a lower end digicam.
>>>They want it for printing small prints at home (probably 5X7 max) and
>>>I'm sure they aren't going to like a mega-lag camera. I have a nikon
>>>2100 I use for ebay/work and for my use it's not awful but it's not
>>>what I would call fast shooter either. Any hints on a ~2.0MP camera
>>>that isn't bad on lag or is my nikon about normal for a digicam?
>>
>>2 MP will not give you 300 PPI at 4X6, let alone at 5X7.
>
>
> Sorry but 2MP is the limit of their budget. For family snaps it should be
> good enough for their uses? Maybe I should just convince them that at this
> price point digital is a waste of money and will have too much lag?

Actually, the only time lag is really a pain is getting action shots,
and photographing children in candid situations. One approach is to get
one of the really cheap fixed focus cameras, or to learn to focus on
something within the range, and hold the button down halfway so the
camera is ready to shoot, frame the shot, then push it the rest of the
way down. This works for most cameras and will reduce the time it takes
the camera to focus and set the shutter speed/lens opening.

R2D2 wrote:

> stacey <> wrote in
> news:brrgmp$6qval$:
>
>
>>R2D2 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>stacey <> wrote in
>>>news:brreuv$6oogd$:
>>>
>>>
>>>>My brother in law was asking me for advice on a lower end digicam.
>>>>They want it for printing small prints at home (probably 5X7 max)
>>>>and I'm sure they aren't going to like a mega-lag camera. I have a
>>>>nikon 2100 I use for ebay/work and for my use it's not awful but
>>>>it's not what I would call fast shooter either. Any hints on a
>>>>~2.0MP camera that isn't bad on lag or is my nikon about normal for
>>>>a digicam?
>>>
>>>2 MP will not give you 300 PPI at 4X6, let alone at 5X7.
>>
>>
>> Sorry but 2MP is the limit of their budget. For family snaps it
>> should be
>>good enough for their uses? Maybe I should just convince them that at
>>this price point digital is a waste of money and will have too much
>>lag?
>
>
> Tell them to pick up a nice Olympus Stylus Epic, or if they need a zoom
> they can get the Canon Sure Shot 90U (28-90 zoom). Both of these 35mm
> cameras will cost about $80 bucks and take better pics than any digital
> camera under $300. With the extra money they can buy some 400 or 800 speed
> film (Fuji Superia or Kodak Supra, stay away from Kodak Max) and some
> prepaid Kodak processing mailers from Adorama or B&H. I own both of these
> cameras and I have blown up to 8X10 with no grain.

Yes, and then you have, after a wait of days, or even weeks to finish a
roll, pictures of an event long past, and into the shoe box they go,
never to be seen again. Or, with a digital, they can be on the internet
for all the friends and relatives to enjoy whenever they have the time
minutes after they event.

stacey wrote:

> R2D2 wrote:
>
>
>>stacey <> wrote in
>>
>>>Maybe I should just convince them that at
>>>this price point digital is a waste of money and will have too much
>>>lag?
>>
>>Tell them to pick up a nice Olympus Stylus Epic, or if they need a zoom
>>they can get the Canon Sure Shot 90U (28-90 zoom). Both of these 35mm
>>cameras will cost about $80 bucks and take better pics than any digital
>>camera under $300.
>
>
> That's kinda what I figured. I've used the 35mm f2.8 olympus and they are
> great. You know everyone wants "digital" but maybe I can talk them out of
> it? Have you used the 90U yourself you say? How is the AF speed and picture
> quality compared to the olypus? Is this canon better than the 35-80 stylus
> zoom? TIA and I hope I can convince them at this price they'd be better off
> with film.

Better off, how? See previous post. The choice of film vs digital
depends entirely on how one plans to use the camera, and the pictures
captured with it.

Do you know where the pictures you shot on vacation in 2001 are? Can
you show them to your sister in Germany, your old high school friend in
Michigan? Can the grand parents see the pictures five minutes after
they were taken, even across oceans? Doing that with film just isn't
feasible. Both types of media have their advantages, but for MY
pictures, digital is the ONLY choice. If I never take another film
picture, it will be one day too soon.

Ricoh claim virtually no shutter lag (with or without focus lock) for their
fairly low-end P&S digital cameras.

Sony, Casio etc do fixed focal length cameras and fixed-focus cameras which
offer little or no shutter lag. A compromise perhaps, but if lag is the main
issue, it might be worth it.

Androo

Ron Hunter wrote:


>
> Do you know where the pictures you shot on vacation in 2001 are?

Yes.

> Can
> you show them to your sister in Germany, your old high school friend in
> Michigan?

Yes

> Can the grand parents see the pictures five minutes after
> they were taken, even across oceans?

You got me there, can't imagine why I'd need to..

I do use digital for some thing and they are handy, can't image being forced
to live with a 2MP camera.


--

Stacey

Ron Hunter wrote:


>
> Actually, the only time lag is really a pain is getting action shots,
> and photographing children in candid situations.

Which is what they will be using it for.
--

Stacey

stacey wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>
>>Do you know where the pictures you shot on vacation in 2001 are?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>Can
>>you show them to your sister in Germany, your old high school friend in
>>Michigan?
>
>
> Yes
>
>
>>Can the grand parents see the pictures five minutes after
>>they were taken, even across oceans?
>
>
> You got me there, can't imagine why I'd need to..
>
> I do use digital for some thing and they are handy, can't image being forced
> to live with a 2MP camera.
>
>
And some probably feel the same about not having a medium format film
camera. Good enough is good enough. I don't drive a Rolls Royce either.