Digital Cameras

I know we've had a couple of digi cam related threads in the past, but
times move on and I'm sure they are pretty outdated by now. Anybody got any that they are particularly happy/unhappy with?

I'm looking to spend about ?250 on a digital camera (it will be my
first) and a few basic accessories such as extra memory/batteries,
mainly for using to take reference pictures and perhaps a little bit of
texture work. The one I have my eye on just now is the Fujifilm Finepix
S5500 (also known as the S5100 in some countries), which seems like a
bargain at ?175. Its a 4MP camera, and has a 10x optical zoom as well
as a host of manual controls.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Fujifilm/fuji_finepixs5100z.asp

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

Im not into digital cameras super much but i can give you some tips from a good friend of mine:

I can say that your choise of megapixels is great.

4-5 MP is the best. Anything less will give you bad quality, and
anyting above will give a "grainy" picture. 10x zoom is more than
sufficent, you will probalby not even use that high zoom anyway unless
you might be photoraphing birds (etc..) with a tripod.

---

God got tired waiting all sunday for the world to compile and finaly had it.
On the Eight day, god created func_details, and he saw that it was fast.

Get an SLR type, well not an actual SLR type, but one thats the same shape. I have a fake SLR type camera, and I can fit other interesting lenses onto it...

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-

Did you take a look at the one I'm considering Myrk? It fairly closely
mirrors the appearance and style of an SLR. Actual SLR's are definately
out of my price range, but I do like the style :smile:

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

Reno, that fujifilm camera is nice man.. good specs.

I have been drooling over a Cannon EOS Reble SLR Digital camera for months now.. only problem is they are around a grand US to buy.

I have however found that the Sony cybershot does a fantastic job, only thing no exchangable lenses. But its small... goes anywhere, can get really sharp images of them secret documents.. and it has a great macro for getting up close on small objects like Tabletop Miniatures.

SONY CYBERSHOT LINK

CYBERSHOT 7.2mp

CANNON REBEL

Im leaning more towards the Cybershot now.. its a good all around camera and easy to use.. when I get more situated to where I can afford the digital SLR, and get lenses for it.. I will get the SLR camera.

My brother owns a Cannon Rebel digital. Yes, he did pay a grand for it, but he loves it.

---

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." -- Toulouse-Lautre, Moulin Rouge

The rebel is down to [ulr=http://www.pricegrabber.com/p__Canon_EOS_350D_Digital_Rebel_XT_Digital_SLR_Camera_Kit_w_18_55mm_Lens_Black,__7139451/search=digital+SLR]$800[/url] I am going to buy this sucker once I have the cash, if you really want to get into photography (that includes textures) this is a great first step.

If that too much, I dont know much about point and shoot. I've used a Canon supershot S30 3.2mp for almost 4 years. Here is what I think you should look for in a good point and shoot.

• build, get a nice strong metal camera that will take a beating. Your going to have this in your pocket alot, so you want something that can stand a few knocks.
• Battery life, not only life, but recharge time and battery alternatives. Look for a camera with a long living battery pack that can also hold a few AAA for emergancy use.
• Turn on speed, my Canon took 3-5 seconds to turn on and that felt like a life time. This is something you'll have on hand but not always on. When that once in a life time shot rolls by you'll want to whip that sucker out and fire it up ASAP.
• 3-4 mp, dont waist your money on anything more. Unless you plan to make large prints (anywhere above 3x5) you dont need more than 3 mega pixels.
• Good picture modes, Auto mode is standard but make sure you also get a manual setting. Look for M, P, AV, TV, & Auto modes, dont worry about those other modes, like landscape, night, etc. I never use them and you wont need to if you learn some basics about photography.
• Auto Focus, fast (and accurate) auto focus is a must! It goes hand and hand with fast start up, you dont want to wait forever to focus.

Thats about it, my camera uses Compact Flash cards and I think this is the best storage. Your camera will come with a small card, so go out and get a 512mb card at the least. They can hold about 200 max quality or almost 600 medium qulity pictures. Stay away from micro-drives, you dont want a small card with moving parts in it. My cousin said that he lost 2 micro drives by setting them down too hard on a table. CF are strong, small but not too small that you'll lose them. If you want more pictures buy more cards rather than larger cards, all memory can get messed up and it much better to have 4 512mb cards and lose one than lose one 2 gb card.

hope that helps.

Thanks for all the advice guys, especially that fair host of knowledge
DrGlass :smile: I don't think I'm the type to particularly carry my camera
everywhere I go, but more the sort who would go out with the particular
intention of taking some pictures on a nice day or whatever. For that
reason I'm not hugely concerned about the camera's size, focus speed,
turn on speed, or rigidity. Obviously I'm not gonna be annoyed if the
camera has these things, but they aren't top of my priorities.

I've read in reviews that the camera I linked to has good battery life
(partially due to having a pretty tiny LCD screen) and uses AA's...for
better or worse. It also apparently has lots of mode variety to let you
get a bit creative, though most of it was a bit too complex for my
current knowledge of photography to grasp :biggrin: One of the possible
downsides with it was uses XD cards, which seem to be a fair bit more
pricey than other competing standards, but its only a one off
investment most likely anyway, and its only ?15 or so more expensive
for the same capacity.

I had a look at that Canon Digital Rebel while I was researching some
cameras, but unfortunately it is definately out of my price range. ?250
is the most I'm willing to spend, and its over ?500 :biggrin:

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

In that case I would go with a larger camera. Dont shop for a brand new camera, look for some older brands they will be cheaper becuase they wont be as small or fast. So you can get better quality and more options out of it.

I'd sell you my camera if shipping was possible.

Check out a generation or so back, the only thing that really changes is size and speed, so it thats not a problem for you, you can save your money and get higher mp (note that you'll need a larger card if you get a higher mp camera, becuae if you dont shoot and max size your just waisting the extra mp)

I take my camera with me everywhere I go, thats why I like the compact size.. but I want to get some great scenic shots, that I see on Webshots all the time.. my little olympus does ok.. but it could be so much better..

My current camera is an olympus D-380.

I don't like buying things like this second hand to be honest. The
camera I'm looking at (the Fujifilm Finepix S5500) isn't OLD but isn't
a new model. Its RRP is around ?230, but I can get it for ?175 online
which seems like a good bargain. Reviews said it is great for its
price, so considering I'm saving on that price, I think its probably a
good choice. As I'm not intending on making prints, I don't think I'll
need any higher than the 4MP it offers.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

my only advice reno is get one with like a four year warranty then break it a few months before the warranty expires and hopefully by then they would have stopped making that typ of camera and have to give you a brand new one!

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Pentax/pentax_optios5i.asp

This is mine. Very small / compact but still a good amount of manual
features for a "consumer market" camera. Basically it's so I won't look
like TOO much of a freak when I'm taking pictures of the floor tile at
a mall for texture reference. :wink:

Outdated? Perhaps but I am proud to own this baby..

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

That's funny...I just stumbled upon this thread right after I spent an hour looking the Internet for the next camera I want to buy. I take lots of pictures of bugs and such and love making scenery panoramas.

I am thinking seriously in saving up to by the Canon PowerShot S2 IS. It is a digital SLR camera. Around $400 USD. It has what I need:

Decent amount of MegaPixels (5)
Records up to 640x320 video w/ sound (limited only by card space)
Image stabilization (semi-important)
Fully manual controls over flash, focus, etc (very important)
12x Optical Zoom
One of the highest battery lifes in the industry
Flip-out LCD screen



<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting RaPtoR</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>I can say that your choice of megapixels is great. 4-5 MP is the best. Anything less will give you bad quality, and anything above will give a "grainy" picture.</DIV></DIV>


Anything above 5MP is grainy? Maybe you are thinking of the ISO amount. ISO amount is exposure you adjust usually for night shots. The higher ISO setting you have it at (200, 400, 800, 1,600) the more detail you might get out of a night shot...but adding grain. As for more megapixels=more grain....that isn't true.

The only reason you would get more grain out of a 7MP camera and not a 5MP camera, is because that 7MP ISN'T REALLY A 7MP camera. Some cameras are labeled 6MP cameras, when really, they are just 4MP cameras. They are allowed to say 6, because the camera takes the 4MP shot, then interpolates the rest, giving the illusion of a bigger, higher quality picture, when in reality, it is just blown up with a smart censor.

Granted, a 4MP camera with image-enlarging-interpolation is better than a 4MP w/ out interpolation, but it is still no camera with 5 or 6 effective megapixels. Research the camera before you buy it (and don't go to its homepage: Kodak, Canon, Fuji, etc., unless you just need basic general info.)

Whoops didn't notice the link. Well I've got the Fujifilm S5000! It's a pretty good camera, but for todays specs of other cameras its a little overpriced. Also its not actually 6mp, its 3mp and can double the image up, so take into account if it says something about 6mp theoretical or something, your paying for 3mp. Good camera though, I've hit it and dropped it and everything, and it still works...

If anyone wants to buy an original SLR I'm selling one of mine-

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7530869859&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-

Yeah, the S5500 (the updated version) is an actual 4MP camera rather
than interpolated higher res, like your one. There are a few other
improvements on what reviews said were sort of niggling issues, but
otherwise its quite similar I believe. Good to hear its fairly rugged,
as the design hasn't really changed so this version probably still is.
Its always made out to be great
for its price range (?230 retail it seems), but since I can get it for
?175 I think its more "bargain" than "overpriced" :smile: I'll most likely
order it in the next few days.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

do the S5100 and S5500 not have optical zooms? i can see digital zoom in the list of features, but digital zoom sucks donkey testicles.

---

i eat paint

I would like clarification on the "grainy" comment.

Perhaps I am such a n00b, but my camera takes perfect pictures at all Mega-Pixels (1.2-5.0).

Please clarify "grainy"

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

The S5100/S5500 has 10x optical zoom and, I believe, 3.6x digital zoom.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

Digital Zoom is a marketing gimmick. It does nothing useful. It's
probably better taking a regular photograph and zooming into it using
Photoshop or somesuch.

3MP is fine for texture work and small prints, unless you do large prints 8x11+ you will never use the 5MP. Infact, most people dont use max image size (thus they dont use max MP) to save space. My 3.2 MP camera prints great 8x11 or even 9x12 photo's.

For texture work your not going to use over 1024x1024 unless it is some kind of rare super big texture.

Reno, I would get a nice 3MP canon powershot off e-bay. I have the S30 but you should look for a later generation. Camera's hold up really well and if the seller has a good score you'll be safe.

also, frag is right about digital zoom, there is no need to use it.

just dont waist your money on mega pixels your never going to use. If you need 5+ MP you might as well get a digital SLR at 8MP for a few extra $$$ and have something that will last you a long time.

I do in fact use my digital zoom.. I have noticed that on a few occasions my picture was blurry, prolly due to my jiggling at the moment of taking it. I zoom in to check its clarity and delete it if its bad. I travel a lot, and take quite a few pictures. I do not want to get home and find out that I missed the picture of a lifetime because it was blurry.

Digital zoom has that much use at least.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I'm still not happy about buying things like that over ebay though
DrGlass - I'd far rather spend a bit more and have the peace of mind of
a warranty to back me up. I've had plenty of things screw up on me in
the past - games consoles, mp3 players, etc... - and being able to send
them back freely for repair or placement is a nice thing for both
unfortunate occasions and just peace of mind. It's not really that it
is ebay that is my problem, more that it isn't going to be new. I'll
keep ebay for my rare/cheap games and whatnot :smile:

Even if you do think that the 4th megapixel is pointless, ?175 isn't
exactly that much more than what you'd be paying for a decent 3
megapixel camera. I'm not really buying it for the sake of its 4
megapixels (though I'm not complaining, its nice to keep up with the
standards), but due to the fact it gets good write ups and is
apparently a bargain at that price.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

a nice camera and a bargain it may be, but i think if you're using it mainly for reference pictures and textures it could be a little bit over the top.

---

i eat paint

A fair point to be sure, but I think its probably worth getting
something capable of doing a bit more. I've never gotten into
photography in the past (never really bothered taking photos ever), so
you never know, maybe I'll end up loving it and so having a good camera
will be a benefit :smile: On the other hand, maybe I will just use it for
texture and reference use, and never touch the more advanced features.
In the end though, I guess I'd prefer to spend a little more cash and
get something that CAN do things I may one day want to do. Its not like
I could get a reasonable camera for that much less anyway. It's still
made out to be a great point and shoot camera - it doesn't HAVE to be
complex to use, but the options are there if you want them.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

fishy said:
and textures it could be a little bit over the top.

Besides that, how many of us now has stated that as soon as we get a quality camera, we would make some textures?

There have been damned few, and.. I have found it extremely difficult to take a picture thats worthy of a texture so far. You think someone could make a tutorial on photographing texture material? Simply pointing and clicking doesn't seem to cut it. :/

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

2D art is one of the areas I'm still completely unskilled in, but its
something I'd really like to get some amount of ability at. I'm not
planning on becoming a great texture artist, but being able to do some
fairly competent basics would be useful. I can create games entirely
from scratch now and that's a great feeling, but I still have to steal
textures, and being able to do everything 100% myself (well...maybe not
the sound effects) would be even better.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

So it seems that I am not alone. Taking pictures destined for textures is hard. :/

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

You should make a simple mod next reno, something nice and easy.

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-

You might think thats nice and easy, but from my limited looks into the
HL2 code it looks far more tricky to make any worthwhile modification
than it is to make a (limited and simplistic) 3D game :biggrin: I should
almost certainly do some HL2 coding and I was planning on it, but not
right at the minute. I've gotta think about my honours project first
and foremost :smile:

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

Then make a pong game with killer graphics. :heee:

/runs

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Yeh, check my portfolio at http://forceflow.deviantart.com

---

:: Forceflow.be :: Nuclear Dawn developer

the hardest part of making textures from photo's is dealing with the barrel distortion. there's a good tut here that links to, and explains how to use, a free photoshop plugin that can straighten out your pics for you*.

(*standard disclaimer applies)

---

i eat paint

fishy said:
the hardest part of making textures from photo's is dealing with the barrel distortion. there's a good tut here that links to, and explains how to use, a free photoshop plugin that can straighten out your pics for you*.

(*standard disclaimer applies)

Coolness. Sadly its a photoshop based tutorial. Anyone familiar enough to say if it can be converted to PSP?

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

the tut doesn't look to be specific to PS. it says in it somewhere to open PS, or whatever plugin host you prefer. so i assume it would work with PSP.

[edit] another link to another tut, which has an actual working link to the plugin. :dorky:

---

i eat paint

Hey Reno forget all those 5-6 MP cameras. Go for Canon's 16 MP camera.
Its not out yet (at least I don't think). Anyways I'm not serious about
you getting this camera. I don't really know the increase in quality a
16 MP camera would have against say a 5-6 MP camera. Heres a link
though :

http://digitalcameras.engadget.com/entry/1234000380043330/

Also, an interesting note. I found out (not sure where though) that the
human eye is equal to just over 6 TeraPixels. Now imagine if we
developed a camera that was that powerful.....

Also, an interesting note. I found out (not sure where though) that the
human eye is equal to just over 6 TeraPixels. Now imagine if we
developed a camera that was that powerful.....

Posted that awhile ago after I started the light section in my physics class some months ago. You have to remember it's equal to a 6 Terapixel CCD camera. (Yes, there's a difference)

And there's a huge difference between 6 and 16 megapixels. But, 6 is a very good size for a personal camera, even if you print something out it'll be good quality. A 16MP camera would allow you to print something close to a poster size out with no quality loss. (Then again, that means you can take pictures and compress them down so they look really sharp.)

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

What's thre framerates limitation of the human eye? I guess I could've googled for the answer myself.

---

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." -- Toulouse-Lautre, Moulin Rouge

What's the frame rates limitation of the human eye? I guess I could've googled for the answer myself.

We don't really know. Some people say 150 or something as such, but it's not built that way so. Even saying the "resolution" is 6 terapixels isn't exact, since the human eye is completely organic.

To be honest, we know very little about the eye past basic functionality.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

They say 30fps, but you have to take into account the fact that it doesnt sample frames instantaneously. In each frame sampled, there will be some motion blur, which means that a game at 30fps can still look jerky, since theres no motion blur. Thats my understanding of it at least.

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

The human eye can detect 120 flashes per second.. IE "Incandescent light bulbs"

Whether it can do more I dunno, but I learned that much in school.

Which brings up an interesting discussion I had then. A light bulb flashes off and on. That means that 50% of the time its pitch black in the room. (assuming you have no other sources of illumination.)

Why do our eyes only see the "on" portion? Evolution? Psychological? what?

That also brings to mind, the debate I had here about how fast dark is..

anywho's....

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Accodring to my theory, we only see when the light is on because of how the eye samples each frame. Since it is sampled over time, the light registered as hitting any part of the retina in a sample is the sum of light that has hit that part of the retina in the last 1/30 seconds. So while the light is flashing, the "on" and "off" images are superimposed, and the on image, being brighter, is stronger.

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

the human eye cant tell the diffrence between a 16fps film from a 160fps film.

The only time we notice the slower fps is when there is fast motion (a car driving by or a fast pan) apart from that it makes little diffrence for the eye.

I'm not 100% sure about 16, it may be as low as 13fps... I'll have to ask my dad about it (he was a film maker and all around smart guy)

interesting article about eye framerates and what not:

http://www.answers.com/topic/persistence-of-vision