Digital Cameras >>10 Tips To Consider When Purchasing

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ARG, Feb 15, 2006.

  1. ARG

    ARG Guest

    Digital Cameras >>10 Tips To Consider When Purchasing

    Thinking of buying a new Digital Camera? Here are 10 important things
    you should consider before you purchase your camera.

    Read This Full Article At: http://tinyurl.com/7u3hm
     
    ARG, Feb 15, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ARG

    mrsgator88 Guest

    I disagree. Don't waste your time with this one. Its not dated, but it
    appears to have been written back in the days when an AC adapter was a
    useful accessory and 2-3 mp was considered higher end. Doesn't even address
    field of view, lens quality, startup speed or shutter lag.


    "ARG" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Digital Cameras >>10 Tips To Consider When Purchasing
    >
    > Thinking of buying a new Digital Camera? Here are 10 important things
    > you should consider before you purchase your camera.
    >
    > Read This Full Article At: http://tinyurl.com/7u3hm
     
    mrsgator88, Feb 15, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. mrsgator88 wrote:
    >I disagree. Don't waste your time with this one. Its not dated, but
    > it appears to have been written back in the days when an AC adapter
    > was a useful accessory and 2-3 mp was considered higher end. Doesn't
    > even address field of view, lens quality, startup speed or shutter
    > lag.


    I agree it is dated and lacking a number of important issues. Not that
    what is listed is not important.


    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
     
    Joseph Meehan, Feb 15, 2006
    #3
  4. ARG

    salgud Guest

    Joseph Meehan wrote:
    > mrsgator88 wrote:
    > >I disagree. Don't waste your time with this one. Its not dated, but
    > > it appears to have been written back in the days when an AC adapter
    > > was a useful accessory and 2-3 mp was considered higher end. Doesn't
    > > even address field of view, lens quality, startup speed or shutter
    > > lag.

    >
    > I agree it is dated and lacking a number of important issues. Not that
    > what is listed is not important.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Joseph Meehan
    >
    > Dia duit


    I didn't think much of this list. It's dated, and the poster never even
    mentions overall image quality, which was my first and foremost
    requirement. Not that it is for everyone, but it certainly should be
    mentioned as something to consider.
     
    salgud, Feb 15, 2006
    #4
  5. ARG

    Celcius Guest

    High ARG!

    Many of the of the tips listed are highly arguable or directed to the
    semi-professional and professional. Personally, I don't think they are
    very useful. To talk about cameras that allow aperture value (A/V),
    Time value (T/V), etc. is something, but to talk about what just about
    every camera offers doesn't help one bit.

    For example:

    Viewfinder. Most cameras have either no viewfinder or if they have,
    they are unusable, except for SLR's and DSL'Rs. What'sd the point?

    Resolution. What's the point? Do you know of any camera now that have
    less than 3MP?

    For example, there are cameras that have very good image quality and do
    not have RAW mode. There are cameras that do have it, but have great
    rendition of JPEG's (Rebel XT, for instance). This RAW thing is a
    purist view of photography.

    Batteries. So what's the point? All cameras accept rechargeable
    batteries... Do you mean dedicated VS AA's? That would also be a moot
    point. I've had dedicated batteies on 4 Canons. They last a long time.
    I use them till they go flat and change for a second one and alternate
    while the other is being charged.

    AC adapter. Again, what's the point? I've never used them. Surely not
    for taking photos... During the time you download to the PC? It takes
    very little time.

    Firewire... Now that's another urbam legeng. My Rebel XT has 8MP and I
    can download very fast via USB 2.0. Really no need for a firewire.

    Video output. Practically all cameras have it. So what's the point?

    Cheers,

    Marcel
     
    Celcius, Feb 15, 2006
    #5
  6. ARG

    Bill Funk Guest

    On 15 Feb 2006 11:42:31 -0800, "Celcius" <>
    wrote:

    >High ARG!
    >
    >Many of the of the tips listed are highly arguable or directed to the
    >semi-professional and professional. Personally, I don't think they are
    >very useful. To talk about cameras that allow aperture value (A/V),
    >Time value (T/V), etc. is something, but to talk about what just about
    >every camera offers doesn't help one bit.
    >
    >For example:
    >
    >Viewfinder. Most cameras have either no viewfinder or if they have,
    >they are unusable, except for SLR's and DSL'Rs. What'sd the point?


    Why would you say that?
    Does this mean that all film cameras' viewfinders (except SLRs) are
    also unusable? If not, why not? Isn't a viewfinder more or less a
    viewfinder?
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Feb 15, 2006
    #6
  7. ARG

    Celcius Guest

    Hi Bill!

    Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was talking about viewfinders on non DSLR
    digital cameras. On most (except some, as my Canon Pro I), the
    viewfinders are not very helpful. Most DSLR's however will give 95% or
    so of the actual scene. But, in many cases, reports state that the
    viewfinder is either small or not too clear.

    On point and shoot cameras, most have viewfinder now, but their manuals
    caution the photographer that the viewfinder is not very accurate.

    This is what I meant. Sorry if this seems circumvoluted ;-)

    Cheers,

    Marcel
     
    Celcius, Feb 16, 2006
    #7
  8. ARG

    Bill Funk Guest

    On 16 Feb 2006 04:30:33 -0800, "Celcius" <>
    wrote:

    >Hi Bill!
    >
    >Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was talking about viewfinders on non DSLR
    >digital cameras. On most (except some, as my Canon Pro I), the
    >viewfinders are not very helpful. Most DSLR's however will give 95% or
    >so of the actual scene. But, in many cases, reports state that the
    >viewfinder is either small or not too clear.
    >
    >On point and shoot cameras, most have viewfinder now, but their manuals
    >caution the photographer that the viewfinder is not very accurate.
    >
    >This is what I meant. Sorry if this seems circumvoluted ;-)
    >
    >Cheers,
    >
    >Marcel


    The viewfinders on non-SLRs have always been 'not very accurate.' They
    consist of a lens system that is displaced from the taking lens, and
    see something the taking lens doesn't. The closer the subject is, the
    less accurate the viewfinder is. It's called parallax.
    This isn't new to digital at all.

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Feb 16, 2006
    #8
  9. ARG

    Celcius Guest

    Bill,

    That was my initial point above ("Most cameras have either no
    viewfinder or if they have,
    they are unusable, except for SLR's and DSL'Rs. What's the point?").
    The tip on viewfinders does not pertain to what exists on the market
    nowadays. As well, if these are general tips on buying a camera, why
    mention a particular brand (Kodak make digital cameras with superb
    displays so have a look at those)?

    These tips are not very useful to anyone.

    Regards,

    Marcel
     
    Celcius, Feb 16, 2006
    #9
  10. ARG

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 08:32:54 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

    > The viewfinders on non-SLRs have always been 'not very accurate.' They
    > consist of a lens system that is displaced from the taking lens, and
    > see something the taking lens doesn't. The closer the subject is, the
    > less accurate the viewfinder is. It's called parallax.
    > This isn't new to digital at all.


    Unless the viewfinders are EVF. Mine seems to be 100% accurate,
    or so close as to be indistinguishable when I've made test shots to
    check it out. For traditional optical viewfinders, you're right,
    especially if mechanical parallax compensation isn't used, as I
    think might have been the case with some old rangefinder cameras.
     
    ASAAR, Feb 16, 2006
    #10
  11. ARG

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:26:42 -0500, ASAAR <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 08:32:54 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
    >
    >> The viewfinders on non-SLRs have always been 'not very accurate.' They
    >> consist of a lens system that is displaced from the taking lens, and
    >> see something the taking lens doesn't. The closer the subject is, the
    >> less accurate the viewfinder is. It's called parallax.
    >> This isn't new to digital at all.

    >
    > Unless the viewfinders are EVF. Mine seems to be 100% accurate,
    >or so close as to be indistinguishable when I've made test shots to
    >check it out. For traditional optical viewfinders, you're right,
    >especially if mechanical parallax compensation isn't used, as I
    >think might have been the case with some old rangefinder cameras.


    You're right, I should have specified "optical" viewfinders.
    Even with compensation, the ("optical") viewfinder won't show what the
    taking lens shows, because it's offset.

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Feb 16, 2006
    #11
  12. ARG

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:51:57 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

    > You're right, I should have specified "optical" viewfinders.
    > Even with compensation, the ("optical") viewfinder won't show what the
    > taking lens shows, because it's offset.


    And of course you're right too. There was compensation because it
    was *needed*. :) And the closer the subject is to the lens the
    greater the error, even with compensation. Those rangefinder
    cameras I spoke of made it even more difficult because they used the
    same viewfinder no matter what lens was attached, and you'd choose
    one of 2 or 3 translucent rectangles (framelines) in the viewfinder
    that most closely represented the field of view of the attached
    lens. The Nikon S3 had them for 35mm, 50mm and 105mm lenses. I
    wonder which lens could focus most closely and what the distance
    was. Surely not as close as the average halfway decent digital P&S.
     
    ASAAR, Feb 16, 2006
    #12
  13. ARG

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:53:46 -0500, ASAAR <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 13:51:57 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:
    >
    >> You're right, I should have specified "optical" viewfinders.
    >> Even with compensation, the ("optical") viewfinder won't show what the
    >> taking lens shows, because it's offset.

    >
    > And of course you're right too. There was compensation because it
    >was *needed*. :) And the closer the subject is to the lens the
    >greater the error, even with compensation. Those rangefinder
    >cameras I spoke of made it even more difficult because they used the
    >same viewfinder no matter what lens was attached, and you'd choose
    >one of 2 or 3 translucent rectangles (framelines) in the viewfinder
    >that most closely represented the field of view of the attached
    >lens. The Nikon S3 had them for 35mm, 50mm and 105mm lenses. I
    >wonder which lens could focus most closely and what the distance
    >was. Surely not as close as the average halfway decent digital P&S.


    I dunno. My only non-SLR 35mm was an Oly 35RC.
    I *LIKE* digital!

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Feb 16, 2006
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. zxcvar
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    937
    (Pete Cresswell)
    Jan 4, 2004
  2. RCrossOcean

    Purchasing digital cameras

    RCrossOcean, Dec 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    298
    Robert Barr
    Dec 4, 2004
  3. Nicola W via PhotoKB.com

    Help!! What Digital SLR camera should I consider???

    Nicola W via PhotoKB.com, Jul 18, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    261
    Jim Townsend
    Jul 18, 2005
  4. wagwheel

    Cameras--Cameras--Cameras

    wagwheel, Mar 31, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    474
    Mark B.
    Apr 1, 2007
  5. wagwheel

    Cameras--Cameras--Cameras

    wagwheel, Apr 1, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    457
    Ken Lucke
    Apr 1, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page