Subject:
|
Re: Choosing a Digital Camera/New Photos Up
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.pirates, lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Dec 1999 20:27:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
52 times
|
| |
|
|
Frank Filz wrote:
>
> Mr L F Braun wrote in message <38496885.5739D2F4@pilot.msu.edu>...
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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 camera fairly steady, but it may still move when you click the shutter.
> One trick which would probably work is to use the self timer if it has one.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Well, I think I've just sold myself on a Sony Mavica FD73 (I think that's
> right). I went to Best Buy today to look at the $130 camera they had. It
> looks ok, but not real super. I also played with the Mavica. This model is
> $499. It has a really good macro mode. It looks like it can focus on
> something as close as touching the front of the lens housing. In the store,
> it got enough light to take a good picture from less than 1" away.
> Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) they didn't have them in stock.
>
> Frank
The only thing I don't like about the mavica is if you aren't under
florescent or halogen lights (which btw turn blonde hair green in
photos) you aren't going to get that great of a shot indoors even with
the flash, it's too hot. I have to cover 2/3rds of the flash in order to
get a picture that isn't wiped out by the flash :(
--
Keep on Bricken'
-Tamy
Follow the bouncing boxes!
http://home.att.net/~mookie1/jambalaya.html
http://home.att.net/~mookie1/
http://mookie.iwarp.com/ (mirror site)
Lego isn't a toy, it's a way of life!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Choosing a Digital Camera/New Photos Up
|
| I use the original Kodak DC-200 (not even a plus). Several tricks I have found: I keep a little piece of wax paper taped over the flash (it helps difuse it a bit) I always take the box shots at highest-res, then set my html to display them at 50% (...) (25 years ago, 7-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 <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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
