Help w/ choosing a digital camera...

[dazed&confused]

I've never been much of a photography buff, but I do enjoy working in Photoshop and I'm pretty good at it, if I do say so myself. However, the cheap camera that I use (actually it was a FREE gift from my ISP) make the job of photo enhancement VERY difficult and I've come to realize that if I start with a better photo, I will surely end with a better one.

Trouble is: I know nothing about how to choose a camera. All I know is that I see these slick photos in magazines or websites that capture an entire person from head-to-toe with amazing clarity. If I wanted that kind of clarity, I'd have to stand 5-feet from the subject, but then I'd only get a shot from the chest-up. Could anyone make a suggestion for a purchase? By the way, my budget is limited ---- I can't afford more than about $200.

[YODA74]

I can't afford more than about $200.
Your not going to get much for that....not one that will be good for pc use any way's your better off with a 35mm for that kind of money...

if you can afford a little extra i would suggest

http://images.pricegrabber.com/product_images/610000-610999/610943_50.jpg

FinePix 3800 (3.2MP, 1600x1200, 6X Opt, 16MB)
(Fuji) - (FP3800)$308.99 you may be able to get it a little cheaper

I have seen this one in action and for the price you cannot beat it.

[pc useless]

HI I JUST BOUGHT A NIKON COOLPIX 2000 ,A LOT OF BROCHURES SAID ITS THE BEST DIGITAL CAM U CAN BUY FOR UNDER £200 I,M IN ENGLAND IN CASE YOU DIDNT GUESS.
PS CAM IS GREAT !

[Budfred]

If you are mainly viewing your pictures on the computer, a 1 megapixel camera works fine. I have a Kodak that get 1.1 megapixel and I bought it for about $80 after rebate. I was using the highest resolution initially, but I found that since I am only using the images online, I can use the lower setting and still get good pictures. For $200 you can probably find a decent 2 megapixel or even discounted 3 megapicel camera that will even produce decent photo prints.

A new photo technology has just been released called Fovean. This is supposed to revolutionize digital photography, but the only cameras available so far are very pricey, so it will be a while before prices become reasonable. The reason this is important is that it may put some downward pressure on prices of current cameras.

Budfred

[Whyzman]

It very much depends on what your final objective is with the photos. If you're going to stay in the virtual realm (i.e., viewing on your computer), web development, or print, your needs for a camera will vary.

As Budfred pointed out, if your needs are web related there's really no need to push the mega pixel envelope. The screen resolutions that the images will be displayed on won't need to produce much more than 1024 X 768. Many folks surf at lesser resolutions....

Most important factor is pretty much download times.

If you're planning on putting your virtual work into hard copy, then you need to definitely address the pixel issue......and add printers to your wish list...unless you already have that resolved.

If you're staying virtual and only displaying on computer then it depends on the resolutions you want to use...and harddrive space you want to chew up.

If you would give us an idea how you plan to use the images, then it would be easier to focus in! ;)

[dazed&confused]

Thanks, everyone. I will be doing some of both: Internet and printed images. I've already got a *pretty* good printer & scanner. But I just find that I have to do alot of touch-ups and image-enhancement to photos that shouldn't need it--- photos I've just taken. (You know: the GIGO effect).

But more importantly, I want to find out what tool or technique is used to get such a broad (but sharp) view of the subject. Is it a zoom lens? A wide-angle lens (which I haven't seen for digital cams)? What will make my pics look less like a family photo album and more like a travel brochure, or the cover of a rock album?

[Whyzman]

Is it just me, or does there seem to be an attempt by camera manufacturers from the outset to obfuscate a comparative relationship between 35mm and Digital cameras?

Most folks involved with even basic 35mm cameras understand film speed and zoom lenses. Suddenly were dealing with features like optical zoom and digital zoom numbers... in the same sentence.

When reading digital camera advertising I can count the number of times on one finger where there was actually a comparison to 35mm zoom characteristics I could relate to.

I would say in order to not have your face in someone elses to get a close up, you're going to have to go with something along the lines of a Sony F707 where you have a 10X optical zoom. I saw some distance photos done with this particular camera and objects were pulled in clearly without being toe to toe with the subject!

However, this is a $1000 camera.

I know that Rick and Kay work with photos....perhaps they could shed some further light on the subject for you...

[dazed&confused]

So, am I hearing you say that I should forget about a digital camera and just go with a regular 35mm instead? I suppose that scanning a picture of such high quality *might* be better than uploading a digital picture of lesser quality. Hmmmm?

[Budfred]

There is an ariticle about the fovean technology in www.pcworld.com that talks about how even a high end digital camera using either of the current commonly available technologies will produce an image that will degrade when it is blown up to something like 8x10 size. The fovean technology apparently maintains its integrity at this size, making it more comparable to 35mm SLR cameras. Apparently this is expected to improve to the point that it will eventually blow 35mm away too. However, right now the only cameras available in in the thousands of dollars.

The problem with taking 35mm pictures and copying them with a scanner is that you still end up limited by the limitations of the digital media. A file that would provide pretty good detail when blown up and printed would be huge to start with and would still not look as good as one you could get down at your photo shop. If you go the 35mm route, I would urge getting the pictures in the highest resolution they offer on CD so that you can easily use them, in addition to getting a nice hard photo and the negatives.

Budfred

[Whyzman]

Hmmmmmmm....The gentleman who owned the Sony F707 (5 Megapixel) took some photos of his glass tables for me and printed them up on Kodak photographic paper. They were 8 X 10 and they were as clear and vibrant as any 35mm quality photos I've seen....

Oops, gotta run and take a call....I'll get back to ya later...

[Budfred]

Check these articles:

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,107483,00.asp

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,84223,00.asp

Budfred

[YODA74]

http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/0/0,3363,sz=1&i=1249,00.jpg

Digital


http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/0/0,3363,sz=1&i=1250,00.jpg

Film