Digital Camera Suggestions?

[homer]

Folks:

I'm finally taking the plunge and going to go digital! I'm leaning towards at 4.1 MP HP Photosmart M407. Does anyone have any input on this camera? Are they really that easy to use, and what about editing software? I'm not trying to do anything fancy, just want a reasonable, easy to use and reliable camera. Thanks for you help!

Homer

 

[xix]

web site to help you

try this review web sites for an opion

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

http://www.dpreview.com/

Think what you really want to do.
For example if you want to take pictures one after another one. Then don't go for something less than $1200 I think. Some cameras take a bit to save the file or picture before you can take the next picture. That in a way is my mistake.
There are so many tricks that it would be hard for me to list them. I asked a co-worker since I knew he started this hobby and read quiet a few magazines and web sites. IT is no like buying beer/alcochol at the store.

 

[peteeey]

If you like your film camera, go to a reputable place like Henry's and ask to see that company's line of digitals. Chances are the layout of the digital will be very close to its film counterpart.

If you're looking for just a point and shoot digital, you won't go wrong with any of the well-known companies. They're pretty well all the same.

 

[Rezdog]

Resources

www.imaging-resource.com.

Complete list of reviews of digital products.

 

[Damondean]

Another review page

I like this review page:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/

As noted above, you should consider what you want to do with the camera and then make a choice. There really is a very wide choice now and the prices have come down.

Good luck!

 

[Berlin]

Folks:

I'm finally taking the plunge and going to go digital! I'm leaning towards at 4.1 MP HP Photosmart M407.

For a beginner, the recent HP's work fine and you get pretty great bang for your bucks. I have family members and friends using both M407,and R707.
According to what I saw (hard/soft output) and heard, there isn't any complaint and they are all very happy for the value they got with those HP.

R707 got rather good rating at http://www.dpreview.com/, so if you have a bit more budget to splash, try that one out at the shops.

Here is one from Pentax, 5 mega pix, on sale at future shop for 250 quid.

http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/pr...ACF6BD311A15824583A26BC00A7D5039A327FCC8B54A1

Mind you, if you can stay within your budget, do it. Prices of them digisnappers drop almost 30% per year. Within 2 , 3 years you'll yearn for cheaper and more powerful, higher res units so keep that in mind.

I have used sub 5 megapix Fuji, Sony , and Canon. So far Canon, my current one, is my fav, for pics result and user interface. It's a bit more pricy then the Canon lens is better.

 

[Meister]

I wouldn't look at Kodak or Sony. I would look at Canon and Nikon. Nikon is great for true colours, Canon is easy to use with great quality.

 

[Speedo]

Homer, everything depends on what you want to use it for.
If it's for family portraits, parties, occasional vacation landscape shots and you only want small prints and/or internet use, then the point-and-shoots are great. If you want to shoot say, sports -- especially indoor like hockey -- and then blow them up large, you'll find them sorely lacking.

I started with a Canon G2 a few years ago and have just graduated to a Digital SLR (Canon 20D, with various lenses).

If you're just starting out, then you're probably on the right track with a P&S, but Meister's right -- Canon and Nikon are the best. The media pros use them almost exclusively and their products are excellent right down the line.

As XIX suggests, this is an excellent website for you to check out:

http://dpreview.com/

 

[homer]

Thanks!

Wow!

thanks for all the help people! I'm pretty much just looking for a simple to use point and shoot type camera, nothing too fancy or complicated. I really appreciate all the help and links!
Thanks again!

Homer

 

[C Dick]

I bought an M407 a little while ago, it was $200, I just wanted something better than my phone to keep in the car. I was amazed at how good it was, it takes nice clear pictures, it even takes video.

 

[canucklehead]

IMHO I would buy a camera from a company that deals with imaging for a living...... Epson Nikon Canon Kodak Olympic .... just to name a few. Others use great technology such as Sony HP and sorts.
But would you buy a computer from a camera company or from a photocopier company?

 

[shakenbake]

Sorry to disagree, but...

I wouldn't look at Kodak or Sony. I would look at Canon and Nikon. Nikon is great for true colours, Canon is easy to use with great quality.

Hey Meister;

Sorry to disagree with you about Kodak. I have bought a DX series camera with a Scneider lens. It comes painfully close in colour rendition and contrast range to my venerable Leica M4-P with the 50/2 Summicron lens. Kodak makes low end and high end stuff. If they don't know about imaging, who does?

Another thing to look at is, which computer and printer will you be using with your camera? Choice of paper also has a dramatic effect on your results, even with the same hardware. I could go on and on about the lousy results I got with one paper on both printers I own and how things turned around with another paper used to print the same 'disasterous' image.

shakenbake, missing the old sulpher smelling darkroom.....

 

[Homer07]

Homer, I just bought the CanonA95(5Megapixel) recently...... I did extensive research and felt this model gives you the best bang for the buck!!!

It's on sale for $399 at Future Shop........ But I picked it up for $299 plus taxes and shipping from EBAY........

http://rate.pricenetwork.ca/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30982&highlight=canon+a95

Hope this Helps!!!

 

[Meister]

Hey Meister;

Sorry to disagree with you about Kodak. I have bought a DX series camera with a Scneider lens. It comes painfully close in colour rendition and contrast range to my venerable Leica M4-P with the 50/2 Summicron lens. Kodak makes low end and high end stuff. If they don't know about imaging, who does?

I think the guy is not looking for high end stuff.

The difference is that even in low end stuff the Nikon is very good, whereas the Sony tends to be grainy. Kodak got into the digital game too late.

Also, just because Kodak knows a thing or 2 about making film paper and films they were never big in making cameras.
With digital cameras you have 2 components:
The lens
The digital processing

The Schneider lens is good.
The processing is important too. The analogue to digital conversion is not something you can ignore.

I would suggest to the guy to go to a camera store wearing some bright orange shirt with a brown jacket. Have the store guy take pictures of you with a couple of different cameras. That's what I did when I compared Sony and Nikon. I chose the Nikon because my brown jacket was reproduced exactly by the Nikon. The Sony turned my brown jacket into some orange brown.

 

[Bill the Pirate]

batterys

All I can say is buy one that recharges. not one that uses AAA 's. I made that mistake. When I am using it especially if you are trying to take action shots like ski pictures you need to change the batterys daily.

 

[shakenbake]

...

Also, just because Kodak knows a thing or 2 about making film paper and films they were never big in making cameras.
With digital cameras you have 2 components:
The lens
The digital processing

The Schneider lens is good.
The processing is important too. The analogue to digital conversion is not something you can ignore.

...

Actually, they made very good cameras in the distant past, but maybe not as famous as the more popular names. Anyway, I won't be getting rid of my film cameras any time soon. With the proper processing, I feel that the old analog technology is better. That is just my opinion and from what I can see. Admittedly, the digital camera is more convenient, just as the CD is compared to the analog recordings of years ago.

However, each to their own! This is what makes life interesting!