|
|
| Author |
Message |
beeswing
|
|
Digital Cameras
| 
Mar 30 23:15 UTC 2000 |
I am wanting to buy a digital camera, to likely foray into the land of
Ebay. (And because after all my years on Grex, no one has a damn clue
what I look like).
I do not want to spend more than $500, but I would like a camera with
the floppy receptacle in it (no cable connection). I did see one at
Best Buy, a Sony, for $500, but I feel I should shop around.
Is there anyone who has a floppy disk digital camera who can give some
advice on this?
|
| 74 responses total. |
yandle
|
|
response 1 of 74:
|
Mar 30 23:26 UTC 2000 |
I dont own a floppy disk camera, i have a cable one. If you are planning to
use your camera with just one computer then a cable adapter is just as good
as the floppy disk. but, i have no real opinion about either, sorry :)
|
bdh3
|
|
response 2 of 74:
|
Mar 31 00:09 UTC 2000 |
If you want high quality digital images then use a conventional camera
and get the PictureCD(C) (or PhotoCD(C) - costs more and is not always
available but very high 'photo' quality images) from Kodak when you get
the film developed.
If you really want a portable digital camera, get a video camera and
hook it up to your computer with the Hauppage TV card (or other frame
grabbers). If you really want a video camera for your computer then get
any number of those available (mostly USB but some parallel port models
- generally in the 30-80 dollar range).
The Barbie Camera is actually a pretty good digital camera deal - about
50 bucks. (Try Sam's Club)
All the lower cost 'digital cameras' do not produce very high quality
images. In order to get the same resolution as a PictureCD and
conventional camera you have to spend well over a grand (so called
'megapixel' cameras). Last time I looked, the digital cameras producing
PhotoCD quality images were in the 5 to 10 grand range.
|
jshafer
|
|
response 3 of 74:
|
Mar 31 00:14 UTC 2000 |
(Spring '00 Agora #61 <--> Graphics #11
|
twinkie
|
|
response 4 of 74:
|
Mar 31 00:44 UTC 2000 |
I can't resist techspeak...
The Sony Mavica digicams are the only ones that save pictures to a floppy
internally. And, they're VERY slow.
What you might want to consider, is getting a camera that accepts SmartMedia
cards, and get a floppy adapter for it. You can easily score a 1.3 megapixel
camera that will accept SmartMedia cards for under $300, if you buy online.
And the floppy adaptor is about $30, last time I checked.
Of course, and 8mb SmartMedia card is significantly more expensive than 8
floppies. (They run about $50) But they're exponentially more reliable and
versatile.
|
ric
|
|
response 5 of 74:
|
Mar 31 02:15 UTC 2000 |
And more convenient.
But if you want to try to WIN a digital camera... :)
http://www.familyshoebox.com/family/games
We're giving one away :)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 6 of 74:
|
Mar 31 07:44 UTC 2000 |
I got a 1.3 mp, 8 mb Smartmedia Olympus on ebay <$300 (including s/h). I
see no need for a floppy adapter - the camera itself adapts to a serial
port. I did get a couple of extra 8 mb cards of $18/ea - you have to look
around. I also got an AC adapter on ebay, but mostly because I couldn't
find the required voltage and current capacity for the camera until I got
it - now I'm also adapted to an external battery pack.
One does not need better resolution than 1.3 mp provides for almost
any web use.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 7 of 74:
|
Mar 31 08:51 UTC 2000 |
Ok. Lets define a few terms here:
PictureCD quality image = 1024X1536 pixels (24bit color depth?)
PhotoCD quality image = 4096x6144 pixels (Trucolor?)
megapixel = one of those slippery marketing terms.
(640x480 is 'megapixel' even if it is black and white.
'sub-pixel rendering' of 300x300 to 600x600 is a 'megapixel')
Now, what do you want to do with the 'image'?
For best quality and economics a conventional camera and PictureCD to my
mind is the way to go. You get high quality images at a low cost, but
it may take as long as 4 or 5 days to get the CD with the pictures
back. However, it is a tad expensive over time.
A video camera and frame grabber board for your PC is more expensive
initially, but gives very good quality images and allows for a lot more
flexability in application.
A digital camera gives you generally the same 'instant' images as a
video camera/framegrabber but the image quality and cost is all over the
map (and rarely approaches video camera quality).
Your average 'web user' has a 640x480 at 16bit color depth display.
(For what its worth, I own two K1000 Pentax and one SF10 Pentax camera
bodies with a number of different lenses/filters, a VHS-C video camera
with 3 different frame grabber boards of different vendors, three
different 'cheap' digital cameras. and a number of other video cameras
for PCs (USB, Parallel, and composite video), plus a 24bit color flatbed
scanner, and BW paper scanner(HP Officejet).)
|
md
|
|
response 8 of 74:
|
Mar 31 13:20 UTC 2000 |
My HP camera is a terrible battery hog. I have to
use lithium batteries.
|
ric
|
|
response 9 of 74:
|
Mar 31 13:38 UTC 2000 |
As usual, bdh is so far out in left field because of his tech background.
Most people want digital cameras so they can put stuff on web sites or email
pics easily to their friends. Without having to spend money for film
development.
So, bdh's idea of using a convential camera would not only be overkill on the
image quality but a waste of money.
As for the video-camera idea hooked up to a frame grabber.. are you kidding?
That's great.. if you HAVE A video camera, and don't mind only taking pictures
while it is attached to your computer. Doesn't exactly work out in the back
yard or at the neighbors house or while on vacation.
Digital camera's are wonderfully convenient. As long as you get one that does
1024x768 pixel resolution at the minimum you'll be fine.
I'd also recommend picking one up with OPTICAL zoom (it works much better than
digital zoom)
|
keesan
|
|
response 10 of 74:
|
Mar 31 14:30 UTC 2000 |
Where does one find a lower-resolution used digital camera? What do used ones
cost?
|
beeswing
|
|
response 11 of 74:
|
Mar 31 16:31 UTC 2000 |
Sigh. I don't want anything complicated. That is why I would prefer a
camera with a floppy drive, even if it is a bit slower. I don't need one
with a zillion options on it either. My cousin sells a lot on Ebay and
once stomped a $1000 Olympus camera in frustration. He now has the
floppy disk camera and says it's a zillion times easier. He just
downloads it on the camera, pops the disk in the hard drive, uploads the
photo and BAM he has his Ebay page ready to go. He sells watches and
such, so a camera that has intricate detail is important.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 12 of 74:
|
Mar 31 16:42 UTC 2000 |
Assuming you have a USB port, check out the Kodak DC215 Millennium Edition.
It does 1.3 megapixels, has optical zoom, comes with an 8mb CF card, Adobe
PhotoDeluxe, and a USB CF card reader. With the card reader, all you have
to do is plug it in to a USB port, and install the software. Windows and
MacOS will "see" the card reader as a disk drive. It's very easy, and it's
REALLY fast.
I've found the camera to be easier to use than my Minolta APS camera.
You can usually find the 215 Millennium Edition for $299. You could also go
with the regular 215, but it doesn't include the USB reader, and it only has
a 4mb CF card.
|
md
|
|
response 13 of 74:
|
Mar 31 16:51 UTC 2000 |
She said she wants a camera with a disk
drive, shitdick.
|
mdw
|
|
response 14 of 74:
|
Mar 31 17:00 UTC 2000 |
There probably isn't any difference between "24 bit" and "TrueColor".
The floppy disk version is likely to be a lot more fragile & unreliable
because of all the moving parts. The solid state memory + floppy
adapter is likely to be just as convenient and a whole lot nicer.
Besides, if you can deal with grex, you probably have a lot more brains
and patience than your cousin.
So far as the video-camera goes, the obvious way to deal with that is a
camcorder. Resolution won't be as good as a good still camera.
Unless you plan to zoom in on things, bdh's "photoCD quality" above
(4kx6x) is overkill. You would really want to reduce the size of that
image down to something a lot more manageable (and quicker to download)
before using it on a web page.
Another way to get good results would be any ordinary camera of your
choice, a 24 hr film developer, & a flatbed scanner. It would be best
if the camera takes 35 mm film and can focus (isn't just a box camera).
The quality of the pictures could be as good as bdh's "PhotoCD" above,
and will certainly be cheaper & faster.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 15 of 74:
|
Mar 31 18:38 UTC 2000 |
I decided against a floppy adapter because it has moving parts in a
structure easy to knock around or drop - not good for mechanisms. Besides,
the serial connector plug is sitting next to my computer and is very
convenient. I agree that I can't download to a computer away from home but
I'm not away from home so much that that is a problem (if you were on a
world tour and had to send your photos somewhere as you went, a floppy
disk might be the most universal interface).
I could plug the camera into the composite port on the video card on my
computer, but I understand the resolution is poorer. I use that port for a
camcorder to grab frames.
I find it both interesting and surprising how quickly floppy disks are
becoming obsolete for me. I use one maybe every few months, and most
recently because my daughter's i-Mac doesn't have one and someone without
a printer wanted her to print a document for them. The file exchange could
have been done over the net, however, which I find is 98%+ of my file
exchange use. I use my ZIP drive for backup more often than I use the
floppy drive.
|
jazz
|
|
response 16 of 74:
|
Mar 31 20:26 UTC 2000 |
Beady's idea isn't out in left field at all. Truth be told, you'll
get nearly the same quality out of an instamatic Polaroid with a decent older
film size and a good digitizer as you will out of a multi-thousand-dollar
consumer digital camera, and you can haul the former around without fear of
breaking it. It's a solution worth noting for those ocnsidering a digital
camera.
|
drew
|
|
response 17 of 74:
|
Mar 31 22:17 UTC 2000 |
A couple of things bdh seem off the wall to me:
* 640 by 480 "megapixel"??? 640 times 480 is 307,200. A bit more, or less,
than a quarter of a megapixel depending on whether you're using a base 2
or base 10 "mega".
* A video camera for good quality??? I had thought that video format was a
bit more piss-poor even than VGA - something like 300 hrozontal lines?
(I like the idea - you get motion picture recording *and* TV viewing on
the monitor in the process.)
|
other
|
|
response 18 of 74:
|
Mar 31 22:38 UTC 2000 |
digital video (PAL format) is the way to go. of course you won't be able to
watch it on any american televisions (unless they're brand-spankin' new)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 74:
|
Apr 1 06:49 UTC 2000 |
You can haul a digitizer around without fear of breaking it? (Re #16)
|
jazz
|
|
response 20 of 74:
|
Apr 1 18:04 UTC 2000 |
Digital video still captures at ~ 640x480 (I'm not sure of the exact
specifications), though, doesn't it?
|
janc
|
|
response 21 of 74:
|
Apr 2 05:24 UTC 2000 |
I second twinkie's recommendation of the Kodak DC215.
|
other
|
|
response 22 of 74:
|
Apr 2 06:32 UTC 2000 |
to find a digital camera that meets your needs, and to learn about the options
between which you'll have to choose, check out:
http://www2.activebuyersguide.com/
I used it when buying my digital camera, and was very pleased with the
service. I still had to search for the best price, but I knew exactly what
i was looking for by then, which is key.
|
aruba
|
|
response 23 of 74:
|
Apr 2 16:37 UTC 2000 |
Thanks Eric, that's good to know about.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 24 of 74:
|
Apr 2 20:03 UTC 2000 |
That's an interesting site. I liked its lists of features of products to
consider, but the questionnaire system for finding a product to match your
criteria is rather crude and incomplete. I happen to be choosing a pair of
binoculars and the choices I was led to by my contacts - birders -
included models not even in the site's database. It is nice, though, to
get tables of features of many different products at one site.
|
