Subject:
|
Re: Choosing a Digital Camera/New Photos Up
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.pirates, lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Sat, 4 Dec 1999 19:16:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
45 times
|
| |
|
|
Frank Filz wrote:
> Mr L F Braun wrote in message <3848B160.33487CE2@pilot.msu.edu>...
> > Well, I went out and found a camera that was under $200. It's only 850K
> > pixels, but it seems to work all right, and what's more it's in colour
> > and it's no worse than my horrible film photography. At least this way
> > I don't waste film or time.
> >
> > Oh, and don't hesitate to tell me if spending another $100-$200 would
> > really be worth it; I'm new to digital cameras and their problems, but
> > already I see an improvement. That's the real question here right
> > now--whether to return and trade up or rest with what I've got. (Only a
> > couple of pictures, notably the ironclad foredeck, are at the "fine"
> > resolution.)
>
> Picture quality looks pretty good. One thing you do need to do is either not
> use lights so the camera will use it's flash, or get yourself some photo
> floods. A tripod might help also.
I've thought of a tripod, just for stability's sake--I have arthritis and it's
bad enough that I just can't elminiate camera shake.
> What brand is it? I just saw a camera in Best Buy for $129. Mike Walsh has
> been telling me to watch for a new camera, and I think the Best Buy camera
> might be the one (hope to ask him today before running out shopping this
> evening).
It's a Fuji DX-10; CompUSA has them for $199 right now (but there are no
rainchecks, and when they're sold out they're sold out). You can get a rebate
on the media reader so it's effectively free with the camera (after you wait
three months to get your rebate, naturally). 1024x768 is pretty good, it's got
a 1.6x digital zoom (I wanted 2x optical, but I'll take what I can get). If
you're interested in the camera, you have to ask about it--I stumbled upon them
last night, the flyer came out today, the "sale" starts tomorrow--but I got it
for $199 last night.
> I suspect that you would have to spend quite a bit more to really
> significantly improve your picture quality. Now spending in the $300-400
> range will get you more features like zoom, and perhaps better macro
> capability, but I suspect that for most uses for quick processing of images
> for web use, that your camera will do just fine. If the camera you've been
> taking the black and white shots with is a good SLR, you can always use
> color film in it to take your real close shots (assuming you have or get a
> good macro lens) and other tricky shots. You can take the "best picture
> possible" with the digital camera to serve as a place holder while you wait
> to get your film back (of course this then assumes you have a scanner, or
> get a Photo-CD with your film).
That's a little more involved than I really want to get. :) I know so very
little about photography in general, save astronomical photography, which quite
patently is *not* close-up work...I just want to fight blurriness and get some
decent shots.
best
Lindsay
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Choosing a Digital Camera/New Photos Up
|
| Mr L F Braun wrote in message <38496885.5739D2F4@p...su.edu>... (...) not (...) it's (...) You can get a decent tripon for about $20. Unfortuanately it won't totally eliminate camera shake unless your camera has a remote. The tripod will hold the (...) (25 years ago, 5-Dec-99, to lugnet.pirates, lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Choosing a Digital Camera/New Photos Up
|
| Mr L F Braun wrote in message <3848B160.33487CE2@p...su.edu>... (...) Picture quality looks pretty good. One thing you do need to do is either not use lights so the camera will use it's flash, or get yourself some photo floods. A tripod might help (...) (25 years ago, 4-Dec-99, to lugnet.pirates, lugnet.publish)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
