Most common misconceptions when buying a digital camera, or how much do you need?
Dec 18 '03 (Updated May 01 '06)
The Bottom Line Buy them when you are DESPERATE, otherwise wait. Leisure's proven trick to earn 260 USD in 6 month by doing absolutely NOTHING but drinking tea.
Digital Camera Buyer Guide:
Most common misconceptions when buying a digital camera
1) Digital Cameras are better/worse then analogue
As always in life it depends. A 5 USD throw away camera will give you better pictures then a 50 USD digital camera. A 1000 USD analogue SLR will give you better pictures then a 3 MP digital, which would have cost you 1000 USD in 2001. So choose first what you want to do with the picture, then decide on the camera. Also the 'dynamic range' (dark to bright ratio that can be captured) of digital cameras is still way behind analogue.
2) Digital Cameras are cheaper as I don't have to get prints from pictures I don't like or I don't print them at all.
Think again: You can get a decent analog point and shoot camera for 90 USD today. A similar quality output digital camera (3 Mega Pixel (.. update... 5 MegaPixel...) would run about 300 USD (350 USD) today including one 128 MB (256 MB) memory card or stick, which holds 50 (90-100) pictures.
Difference: 210 USD
If you try to save money, you probably get the 25 cts prints and a 3.5 USD roll of film. That would be 12.5 USD total cost for a roll of film and processing. Your starting investment is about 17 rolls of film and processing. How many rolls do you process a year ? How many prints do you throw away ? Let's say you are really bad in taking pictures and very critical in selecting. We assume you throw 30% away. At that rate you can shoot 57 rolls of films and you come out even, taking into account that actual prints from digital cost you about the same as from analog. Take how many rolls of film you shoot a year and you will probably end up with several years of usage, before you even make up for the difference. That is if you can do with ONE memory stick. If you travel and 50 pictures are not enough, you need another one or maybe two, totaling another 50 - 100 USD, which sets you back another 2 years.
3) Oh OK , so it is NOT cheaper, but I can save money by printing them myself.
AHAA.. let's assume for a moment you have a capable computer and a printer already invested. Have a look at the photo print paper offered in the computer shops. Most of these run around 30 (20 cents ) cts for a 4x6 print paper. (? Really? the paper unprinted is more expensive then the prints I get printed ? ) Well YEAH and that is without the ink, which will run you another 7 to 14 (unchanged... those printer guys...) cts. So pure running cost is higher. Even more importantly, these pictures won't last as long as the 25 cts print you get from your photo shop. If you want to leave pictures to your heirs, better use a photo service that will put them on genuine photo paper. Amongst the photo printers only Epson has with it's Durabrite ink a somewhat longterm ink. But even that won't match your 7-11 or drugstore prints in terms of durability (unless you buy some Epson Durabrite printer).
(If in doubt, print your picture on your printer and get a photo print,then put both of them behind a window on the south side of your home. Check back after 3 month and you will see a difference, check back after 6 month and you will see a BIG difference).
Today you can get photo printers for 4x6 with decent lifetime and a prepackaged printpack at abou 30 cts/ print.
What nobody tells you, for some pictures you print them 10 times until they are 'right', as you can't always tell from the screen, and it is so convenient...
4) I don't own a computer, or I do own an old computer with Windows 95....
Well the digital world is really NOT for you. Your camera won't link to your computer even, as USB is not supported.
Well go buy a cheapo computer for about 400 USD and get a photo printer for about 130 USD. BANG! Another 42 rolls of film, which equal about 120 rolls of initial film for a really bad picture taker.
Another 3 years of payback... we are getting up to a DECADE for payback now. Actually if you print the pictures yourself you save 3 USD for prints that are bad by not printing them and you pay about 4.5 USD (24 pics x 12 cts) extra for the other 22 prints. So NO payback at ALL ! (other then the satisfaction of invoking a lot of work on yourself, but being IN CONTROL, or so you think..)
5)Wow, why would anyone be so stupid then ?
Well because there is more to it then cost. There is coolness, instant check of the picture with the ability to reshoot, fast sharing of pictures with friends, the endless ability of manipulating on the computer....etc. etc.
The cost side most likely is negative right now. I'd be happy to receive comments from readers that point out a profitable scenario. (Actually, I have one. If you have KIDS, that want to start on taking pictures, DIGITAL rules, as they take tons of pictures of their toes, hands, shoes, and other very important things and as long as you can keep them from printing you might come out ahead. They marvel at instant feed back and it is a great tool for learners. If they ever figure out the printer though, you will be so deep in the hole you might file for "chapter 11" bankruptcy protection. As much as they like taking pictures of their shoes they like printing full page color prints at 2- 4 USD a page for every relative and friend of them)
6) I own a computer, it has USB support, I just want to take pictures to mail them to Grandma.
Nope, emailing pictures to Grandma is a bad idea.... Grandma is old fashioned and believe me she wants prints. So to get decent prints, you need about 3 Mega Pixels , 2 Megapixel at least. Take such a camera and email Grandma the 5 nicest shots and her email account is going to shut down for overload... These are HUGE files at (1 - 2 MB) and most email accounts can take about 10 - 20 MB, enough for 5 to 10 pictures. You think Grandma will be smart enough to delete the incoming emails? Even if she would, does she have broadband ? 3 MB take about 10 - 15 minutes to replicate on a conventional dial up modem. That is only 5 pictures of her beloved grand children. And naturally she wants them printed and put them on the cup board. You will get a phone call with two requests: Clean up her computer mail box and send her prints of all the pictures....
7) The most important quality feature is how many pixels a camera has. More is better, so X MP's is the best.
Hell no, that is like buying a car with a big engine and not watching out what you use it for. You want to haul logs, race, mountain climb or plain show off? Everytime you need a different car, while they still might have the same horsepower (or pixelcount in this case)
You want to put pictures up on your website. 1 MP is plenty or your visitors are going to spend hours loading your website. Your TV resolution is about equivalent to 480x640 resolution = 0.3 MP. So if you never ever plan to print the pictures and just show them on screen, go with a small camera. (Beware of CMOS sensors (i.e. the webcam stand alones and sort, as these have same resolution but generally LOUSY image quality)
You want to email pictures. 1 MP is max or you will loose all your friends by clogging their entry box.
Anything that never makes it on paper, you won't need more then 1-2 MP. Look at your computer screen resolution 600x800 = 0.48 MP. 800 x 1200 = 0.96 MP.
I own a 1.2 MP Exilim Z1 and the pictures are fully adequate for anything on screen in TV and computer. Even 4x6 prints are acceptable, allthough I would never attempt to blow them up any larger.
Also beware of the 'enhancers' in this business. They will advertise a 2-4 MP 'enhanced' or 'extended' or 'interpolated' resolution, which is generally a 1-3 MP chip or less, where they calculate pixels inbetween through electronic means. You get a 1-3 MP camera, which is generally slow (as they spend time interpolating) and the pictures do NOT look like a 4 MP. What isn't there isn't there.
Natural resolution and optical zoom are what counts. Every other enhancement you can do equally well and actually in most cases better during post processing on your computer.
8) If two cameras have the same number of pixels 1 MP , 2MP or 3MP their picture quality will be equivalent, so I can go with the cheapest one.
Well, hello ! Why do you think one is cheaper then the other? Most likely because they saved money on the second most expensive piece of the camera: the lens ! Just like in the professional SLR world where you can buy lenses for your camera for 100 USD from one supplier and 800 USD from another, because their quality is different, you do get difference in quality in a digital camera. It is the same as if you look with your own eyes (sensors) through quality sunglasses with coatings on them or some 2.50 USD el cheapo plastic sunglasses. You will SEE the difference.
..and how do I know whether it is a good lens ?
Size matters ! The larger the lens, genuinely the better the optics. Also large lenses are 'faster', i.e. they let more light go through and therefor enable shorter exposure times.
Another indicator is it's aperture. On quality lenses they will note numbers that look like F2.8 - 4.5 or F3.5 -5.4
The first number is aperture for the short focal length, second one is for the full zoom. The smaller the number the better or "faster" the lens. The smaller the numbers, generally the better the lens as well. What cheap lens manufacturers do is cut the aperture ratio down (cut off the outer rays in a lens, which are more difficult to control). Thereby they need more exposure time for low light conditions.
Third indicator is if the lens has a brand name on it. Zeiss is one of the most recognized quality brand manufacturers and they don't put their name on anything but quality lenses.
4th indication is if you buy from a known camera brand such as Nikon, Canon, Olympus. Their expertise started in lenses and it shows. Casio, Kodak, Ricoh and no name brands typically started from the electronics side and not necessarily have access to the best lenses in the market.
So if you see a 4 MP camera with a pinhead lens, be careful. In quite some reviews you will find that these guys put a 4 MP sensor in a camera that was designed for 3 MP without upgrading the optics. Results are pictures that are at best similar, sometimes worse then the 3 MP.
A good 3 MP camera with good optics, will put a 4 MP camera with bad optics to shame.
9) OH OK, if the lens is the same and the sensor size is the same, THEN the picture quality will be the same
Not to be nitpicky, but most likely they won't, as each camera has it's own characteristics.
Ever wondered why Fuji Film and Fuji Paper give all pictures a more greenish color, whereas Kodak Film and Kodak Paper tend to be on the warm and sunny side ?
Because they were developed by two different nations with different skin color tones. Asians want their skin to look natural on film and so do Americans. But the color is different and the lighting conditions are different. (Hollywood is in Hollywood because of the 'good' light).
So what does that have to do with my digital camera decision? Well in a digital camera these characteristics are built into the CAMERA. Ever heard somebody say, he loves his camera as it makes 'good' pictures ? Good is a broad term and does include a lot more then resolution.Most people tend to confuse or assimilate 'good' with 'sharp'.
Most pictures are lost not because the camera isn't sharp but because the picture is 'blurred' either because the auto focus didn't focus right or because the photographers hand shook to much for the exposure time chosen. So for a lot of people when they mean 'sharp' they actually want 'fast' as fast exposure, not 'sharp' as in 'sharp' resolution. After all haven't you gotten a favorite shot in your collection that somebody took with a 5 USD throw away camera ? Those cams aren't 'sharp' by any means. But they are 'fast' as their fix focus doesn't move and 'fast' as they sport 400 asa (lower resolution but higher sensitivity) film.
An analog point and shoot cam will give you contrast on film of about 14 F stops, giving you wide bandwidth and fine details. Good digital cams give you up to 10 F-stops, which makes the pictures look 'hard' and will have the highlights turn white and the dark tones turn black much earlier. This 'hard' quality is a matter of taste and sensors are in continuous development, getting better all the time.
What is the other thing people mean by 'liking' their pictures?
People tend to focus on people and how they look on pictures. Skin tones are what they are most sensitive to. So each camera will give you slightly different color characteristics. You don't have the choice which film to use, although you still have a choice for the prints. Here it again becomes important which paper you are using. Kodak will be on the warm side, Fuji on the greenish cooler side.
Note this is a bit nitpicky for the beginner, as you probably wouldn't care, but watch out for color imbalances created by the camera in changing light conditions.
What you will most likely read about in camera reviews in this area focusses around white balance and how the camera does under various light conditions. You might want to glance through those and get an impression for the color trend and whether you would like it (don't bother so much about the discussion about the faithfulness of color, you will be more put off by a pinkish or greenish face on your picture then worrying about the 'real' rendition of the cyan parasol in the test picture.
The reviews sometimes remind me of the first lobster of my life I was going to eat up in Maine. The waitress and a guest had a discussion about which of the two bays up there produces the better lobster, based on a 0.2C difference in water temperature. When I finally got my lobster it was excellent and I would not for my life have been able to taste that difference.
Same thing with your camera, you will be more upset with a picture lost under tungsten lighting, because the camera can't handle low light conditions, then the fact that the picture is slightly yellowish.
So when choosing a camera be less concerned about color 'errors' and more about what color they trend towards.
In the West people tend to like 'warmer' yellow, red colors, in the East preference tends to lean towards 'colder' green and blueish colors. Generally speaking if you take a camera whose color trends opposite to that preference, you will perceive people looking 'sickly', which doesn't make you lots of friends.
Also in cameras the compression algorithm to compress the data aquired, as well as the "low noise signal" i.e. errors introduced by electronic noise on the sensor do have impact on the picture quality, as well as the speed you can take pictures with. Large SLR digital cameras tend to have larger sensors, which are less susceptible to "noise", thereby providing cleaner pictures. Should you worry about those ? Definitely not with a brand camera. At the very low end of the range, you will still find all of these artefacts, which is why you shouldn't buy there.
10) OK, so Megapixel AND Lens AND color performance are critical and most important in making my decision.
Frankly if you go with a respected camera brand in the 2 - 3 MP range (update 5/2006: take 5 MP which also is the max you need for anything you are likely to print), they will all provide somewhat decent pictures. As long as you stay with 4x6 prints you won't notice much of a difference.
What you will notice though is if the camera is to SLOW!
That is a major nuisance with almost all digital cameras today.
What is your reference point ? Well, your analog point and click. Open the lens cover, take the camera to your eye and shoot.
What is the reality in digital cameras ? Anywhere from 3-5 seconds to boot up and get ready. And when you push the button the SHUTTER LAG strikes. Shutter lag, what is that?
Hardly known to fix focus camera users and somewhat better known to point and shoot cams with autofocus, this number describes the time from when you push the button until the picture is finally taken. This includes autofocussing the zoom. There are some really slow cameras out there..
More recent cameras allow you to push the button down halfway and then the zoom locks in, after that you can push the button and at least you eliminated the zoom delay. The camera takes some time to read the sensor though and that can hugely vary.
Fast zoom and even faster shutter release are key quality features and digital cameras are just in the transition to mastering a decent time here:
If you want to see a camera that shows you how NOT to do it, try Fuji Finepix. One of their cameras when you push the button half down fixes the zoom and freezes the current picture on the screen.. and it STAYS ! which means you can't follow the action anymore.. Whoever designed that camera, should be punished by having to drive a car, where when you flip the sun shades down, the front window freezes up the last scene you saw... (Update, most camera manufacturers have adressed it by now, but there is two things you need to watch for still: boot-up speed (how long until the cam can take it's first picture) and shutter lag, still keep an eye on it).
If you like to see a fast and sharp camera see my more detailed description of shutterlag and the appropriate camera choice in this review: Sony DSC-P92, queen of speed and resolution:
http://www.epinions.com/content_122227887748
or the even faster Sony DSC-V1: The KING of shutter speed.
http://www.epinions.com/content_125044756100
11) I don't really care about xxx, as I can always correct it on the computer later !
Well,you can and you can't. If you have a color error, let's say to much yellow in the picture, you can correct it on your computer by adding more blue. Pretty much every such operation though introduces a slight reduction in quality and definitely a loss in time. Would you want to spend 20 minutes on every film you shot to correct a slight color problem , if you can have a camera that does NOT have it ?
Same goes for any other problem. Better NOT to have it then spending time and money to fix it.
12) Strong zoom is important and digital is better then optical..
Nahh not really, wide angle is important, as about 70% of pictures taken are of groups of people at parties and other events. You can't get far enough AWAY from people. Getting closer to them is usually easier.
Ideal would be the equivalent of a 28mm to 140 mm zoom. Unfortunately all entry digital cams, start at about 35 mm.
Just because all do that doesn't mean it is a good thing, it is just damn hard to make the short focal length work without distortion. And Digital Zooms just cut out part of the sensor pixel array, you might as well do that later. OPTICAL zoom is the only one that counts. Digital Zoom is the equivalent of taking a picture blowing it up to 12x14 and then cut the middle out as a 6x4. Quality suffers with lower pixel count. Say you have a 2x digital zoom, which will show you 1/4 of the original area. Your effective resolution using a 3 MP camera drops to 3 x 1/4 which is less then 0.8 MP. Optical zoom is the equivalent to a binocular, you get what you see !
Digital Zoom is the equivalent to cropping out the middle of the picture on your computer and then blow it up. Quality degrades as you go down in resolution. So if you use your cam mostly for party pictures, look for a strong flash and a wide angle lens)
13) Well hell you are trying to turn me off, but I still WANT a digital camera !
OK, now we are being honest. (As all previous arguments are just trying to rationalize the decision for your spouse, who might see through them if he/she reads this review as well....).
I just bought one myself (actually my second one !, third one by now) and now it is time to introduce the time value of money in this industry. It is equally important WHAT camera you want to buy as well as WHEN!
8 month ago my analog Olympus Epic 35 mm broke down (I LOVED that camera, definitely recommend it in case you do NOT go digital) that my wife uses to shoot pictures of the kids, I went out (happily as I like to buy electronic stuff) and looked at the digital cameras: 3 Mega Pixel resolution averaged around 120 USD per Megapixel, so about 360 USD. 5 MP cameras were in the 600 USD range. (Time in history is February of 2003)
So I decided to buy an analog Olympus Epic Zoom (which introduced me beautifully to the problem of zoom and shutter lag, kids could walk out of the picture while the camera was working through it's motions, NO recommendation) Cost 99 USD. About a 320 USD savings compared to a base digital camera with memory stick. I could not have shot that much film, even if I wanted to, to spend the difference !
Now I bought a DSC-P92 camera for 300 USD that most other reviewers paid about 600 USD for just 8 month ago. Hello, I saved 200 USD in 6 month ? Nope I saved 260 USD at least, as the appropriate memory stick came down some 60 USD as well. So GOOD DEAL! Yeah compared to 8 month ago. Compared to 8 month in the future I payed about 150 USD too much and settled for measly 5 MP whereas then 6 MP is the norm ....
(let's see, the P92 is at 280 USD now and the memory 512 MB is at 140, so at 70 USD for 128MB. Saves 50 USD, both are 'end of life though' so you will typically be able to get a P92 or equivalent for 299 USD INCLUDING memory 128 MB memory stick and probably a free 100 USD printer. There are your 150 USD I promised. Let's look at the higher level 7 MP cameras. The Sony P150 with 7 MP resolution came down from 500 USD to 360 USD and the 512 MB memory stick came down from 200 USD down to 140 USD... 300 USD savings !!, will this ever stop ?)
So when is the right time to buy ? Simple , when you desperately want it ! If you are not desperate, don't buy, you will get much more for much less in as little as 6 month. Best season to buy? Thanksgiving to December. Really not much price movement the first 6 month of the year.
Budget buyer? Look for an expiring model that gets superseeded by new ones. Any brand in the 5 MP range will be just equally good then the previous model. Look at my line up review of Sony T series. The next big breakthrough must have development for this series came with the Sony T9, a full 3 years after introduction of the T1, which had several model iterations inbetween, of which some were steps backwards..
14) I am desperate, I want to buy, can I go now and buy one?
You could, but smart people take a look at all the epinions out there before they do, and definitely test the camera in a store before they buy it. Cameras are tools and need to fit your hands. Most cameras come from Japan and don't necessarily fit the Western Europan fingers or use mode philosophy, although the designers actually do a good job here. (As they are learning with each iteration of models they are bringing out). In any case try to get your hands on the cam. Reviews don't account for user preferences.
15) I can use my old equipment as I already have an XXX brand flash, lenses. etc.
Nope, only some very high end digitals will allow you to use your old equipment. And for flashes there is the issue of hotshoes and white balance preflash....
Late addition: Appreciation for a hot shoe
Anyone ever noticed that the low end cameras have no external flash connector anymore? You have to go all the way up into the 600 USD range to get a hotshoe. Well the Sony V1 has come down in price and features a hotshoe as well as manual white balance. Why is that important?
Countless users of old flashes or external slave flashes as used in studios have run into a hardly broadcasted issue: Digital cameras use a tiny preflash before the major flash to generate their white balance, consequently slave flashes fire BEFORE the main flash, thus not contributing to the picture at all. Ahem... manual white balance such as the V1 has guarantees, that you can use your old slave flashes further. Hot shoes give you the opportunity to add a more powerful flash source away from your lens, thus getting rid of the red eyes.
16) So what is the dummy's rule for deciding on buying a digital camera ?
Here a Leisure's hard facts:
You don't own a computer or don't want to operate one:
Buy analog. You pay for features that you don't want. Your time to buy is when the prices are the same for about a 3 MP camera and an analog point and shoot (99 USD that is including a decent flash memory media (predicted point in time: End of 2005 maybe). Depending on your budget needs you can keep yourself over water with an Olympus Epic style camera which will give you very high quality pictures at a purchase price of 99 USD or less. (If you still want to go digital regardless I recommend looking at the Espon Picturemate a 199 USD stand alone unit that can print 4x6 from your camera, but then be prepared to have no 'negatives' left as sooner or later you will rewrite the memory card.
You own a computer, but it has no USB, you don't know what USB is or it has a Windows of version 95 or older:
For all practical digital cam purposes, you don't have a computer, so see the chapter before.
I got a brand new computer( less then two years old)or have upgraded a computer more then three years old, but less then 4 years, I know what USB means and I got lots of hard drive space (ie. 80 GB for starters)
OH OK , welcome to the digital world
I want to publish pictures on the web or burn them on CD's for TV replay but never EVER print them
A VGA resolution camera (640x 480) will do (but it won't once you get hooked on it, rather go with a 1 MP camera brand camera, which will leave you enough reserves for printing) Don't go for the 70 USD cameras that are offered from WebCam manufacturers. They give you webcam quality pictures, which won't satisfy you on a still picture.
(3MP is what you should buy now 5/2006, with pricing way down, you shouldn't consider anything lower anymore)
I want to publish pictures on the web or burn them on CD's for TV replay but MAYBE print some 4x6.
1 - 2 MPixel will do (2 MP will give you some reserves and decent prints, 1 MP will give you acceptable prints, remember resolution DOUBLES which is noticeable. From 2 to 3 MP resolution only goes up by 50% which is not as big a boost as you expect, allthough also noticeable. 3-4 is only 25% and 4-5 is only 15%, why at that level good lenses can do more for you then extra pixels).
I want to take pictures and am comfortable with manipulating them on a computer, might want larger prints up to 8 x12 and have some reserves for photo editing
3 MPixel will do (This is the current sweetspot of the market and the best balance between cost for camera and memory sticks and picture quality)
I want top of the line,state of the art, cool 5 MPixel camera, and I got a FAST computer with LOTS of Harddrive space (Sweetspot of market has moved to 5MP 5/2006)
5 MP is your choice. Make sure you have USB2.0 or those 50 pictures will take forever to transfer
I want SLR quality that equals my Nikon AF1 that I used for many years.
5 MP (update 7 MP) is your choice in a Digital SLR. Those are bigger sensors and larger lenses. The picture quality is way better then on a point and shoot camera. (You have an even steeper curve for the time value of money, you should be REALLY REALLY desperate !!!!!!!)
One camera that actually defies this statement featureing picture resolution HIGHER then most digital SLR'S is the Sony DSC-V1:
If you wonder how much pixels are enough read this review:
http://www.epinions.com/content_125044756100
In general, when you pick a camera I recommend to go one notch above your perceived needs. Then you have enough reserves and if you want to shoot lower resolution the cameras can be set up to do that for you.
At a couple of 100 USD's for the 3-4 MP range it is a costly mistake to take a camera that is below your real needs if you go into the middle of the market at around 200-300 USD. Chances are you needed the features that would have costed you 50 - 60 USD more, but will never need the features that the 600 USD high end model has which you could get for 300 USD in another two years.
At the low entry end around 1 MP, you can start with a phasing out model at around 100 USD or so, which will give you enough experience to LEARN what you need. That money will come back to you , because the next higher cameras will come down in price over the next 12 month towards what you invested and when you buy the next one you KNOW what you want. (Not recommended anymore, go 3 MP at least but buy a BRAND! There are 3 MP cameras out there that use cheap sensors and sell for 90 USD. You don't want to pay 90 USD for their desparate quality if you can get a decent one for a little over 200 USD).
At the very high end, just accept the fact that the camera will cost less then half in two years with tons of extra features, 2 -3 extra MP's and some other cool 'must have feature' you couldn't possibly know about right now. You need to make sure the camera meets every single one of your needs,so all you moan about is the money spent, but not the lack of any feature you needed. Look at it as a long term investment with some temporary bragging rights, that will transcend into a "yes these others have more resolution, but I love my "old xxx" for these reasons". Selling it off will yield you only 25% of the price you paid for and you will never face up to stomach that loss by "realizing" it.
So don't even pretend that that is what you will do...
And then the next thing is:
Read, read , read , select a few candidates and go to the shop
Test, Test, Test: for startup lag, shutter lag, annoying menu structures or tough to use buttons. Ergonomic handling is key to your satisfaction and good pictures.
Calculate, Calculate, Calculate: Camera + digital media cost. (Again, plan for double the amount of storage media that you initially believe you need, and for a second battery).
Beware of Sony media sticks if you want to be on the budget side. Read here why :
http://www.epinions.com/content_122787827332
and finally, pay pay pay and then
click, click, click !
Welcome to the digital world where actually there shouldn't be anything 'clicking'....(isn't it neat that they have you hear a shutter go, where there is no shutter ? who said that people actually like ALL progress, us humans are still so... analogue !)
And for German readers there is an excellent base line article available in CT 13-03, which you can find here, which I'd like to reference as source for part of my guide here:
http://www.heise.de/ct/03/13/170/
And finally one more pointer for the ones of you that want to decide whether to buy a big SLR camera or a small one.
The 'professional' SLR digital cameras have a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor, which jives with the photo paper at print services. The 'consumer' cameras have 4:5 aspect ratio sensors, which work with your computer screen aspect ratio, but when ordering prints (vs. printing yourself) the photo paper is 4x6 (2:3 aspect ratio) so you will loose a strip of image on the bottom and top (along the longer sides) in the print. Some cameras like the Sony DSC P-92 have a 3:2 aspect ratio setting, others don't. If you designated output is prints and you don't want to spend hours postprocessing your pictures or finding especially close ups and portraits missing some edges either go with a high end camera or use one that can select a 3:2 sensor setting.
Here are the cameras I reviewed:
The sleek and stylish Sony T1, as small as a pack of cigarettes and a very useful optical notebook
http://www.epinions.com/content_167347654276
The new follower to the Sony T1, the T3 and why I think it is a worse choice:
http://www.epinions.com/content_166914657924
The economical party animal camera Sony P92:
http://www.epinions.com/content_122227887748
The camera for the more ambitious photographer Sony V1 with a hotshoe
http://www.epinions.com/content_125044756100
..and my current favorite 'must have' travelling cam Sony T9:
http://www.epinions.com/content_222870474372
.. and if you go for a Sony versus another camera, read this memory pro duo review, that clues you in on some hidden cost in the flash media of Sony
http://www.epinions.com/content_168500629124
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
leisure_larry
|
 - Top 1000 |
|
Member: Leisure Larry
Location: US
Reviews written: 56
Trusted by: 2 members
About Me:
Electrical Engineer. Engaged Computer User. Hobby photographer.
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.