Ot? .. digi-cam upgrade

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:19:14 -0400, Charlie Choc
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:10:17 GMT, "Larry L" wrote:

NOW I just want a 'good camera' to take
digital pictures for hard copy printing at a decent size and high standard )

I've got an Optio Wp I carry in my vest, and it's a handy camera but I'm not
sure the optics are up to the kind of prints you want to make. Above about 4MP
or so it's more about the optics than the sensor, and I'd look at the Nikon
Coolpix line or some of the Canon models - I think they've got the best optics
of the 'shirt pocket size' group. fwiw

FWIW, based solely on personal experience, between what I've personally
owned, as well as what friends and family have, I've not noticed a
tremendous difference in _image_ quality among the "majors" in the 4-5
MP range PnS/shirtpocket models. And while I cannot recall any
(purposeful) "high-end" prints from any of these images, everything I've
seen in the "basic" output/prints from these has been more or less the
same. So there's no confusion, what I'm saying is that we've had images
from a veritable host of PnS type/size cameras, printed many of them,
although most are viewed via various panels/monitors/frames, and I've
noticed no significant quality difference among them. Now, where I have
seen an obvious difference is comparing them to images made with either
my or my BinL's SLRs with high-end lenses with output on high-end
printers/papers, but that isn't surprising, nor, given that you don't
want an SLR, all that relevant.

TC,
R

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:39:09 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:19:14 -0400, Charlie Choc
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:10:17 GMT, "Larry L" wrote:

NOW I just want a 'good camera' to take
digital pictures for hard copy printing at a decent size and high standard )

I've got an Optio Wp I carry in my vest, and it's a handy camera but I'm not
sure the optics are up to the kind of prints you want to make. Above about 4MP
or so it's more about the optics than the sensor, and I'd look at the Nikon
Coolpix line or some of the Canon models - I think they've got the best optics
of the 'shirt pocket size' group. fwiw

FWIW, based solely on personal experience, between what I've personally
owned, as well as what friends and family have, I've not noticed a
tremendous difference in _image_ quality among the "majors" in the 4-5
MP range PnS/shirtpocket models.

My comments are based on PnS cameras I have owned.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:44:24 -0400, Charlie Choc
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:39:09 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:19:14 -0400, Charlie Choc
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:10:17 GMT, "Larry L" wrote:

NOW I just want a 'good camera' to take
digital pictures for hard copy printing at a decent size and high standard )

I've got an Optio Wp I carry in my vest, and it's a handy camera but I'm not
sure the optics are up to the kind of prints you want to make. Above about 4MP
or so it's more about the optics than the sensor, and I'd look at the Nikon
Coolpix line or some of the Canon models - I think they've got the best optics
of the 'shirt pocket size' group. fwiw

FWIW, based solely on personal experience, between what I've personally
owned, as well as what friends and family have, I've not noticed a
tremendous difference in _image_ quality among the "majors" in the 4-5
MP range PnS/shirtpocket models.

My comments are based on PnS cameras I have owned.

Fair enough. I've just not noticed much if any difference among a
moderately large group of cameras (both mine and others') as far as
their images and prints from those images. I'd offer that the camera's
owner is not all that important in such a review, but YMMV.

TC,
R

Charlie Choc wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:10:17 GMT, "Larry L" wrote:

NOW I just want a 'good camera' to take
digital pictures for hard copy printing at a decent size and high standard )


I've got an Optio Wp I carry in my vest, and it's a handy camera but I'm not
sure the optics are up to the kind of prints you want to make.

Who make prints? :-)

I don't think I've printed more than a half-dozen photos in the past
year, but I'm not as seriously into photography as you are, Charlie.

To me, prints are things that eventually goes into the trash or into a
cardboard box in a closet. Digital is forever, as long as you back up.

A 5 megapixel camera with so-so optics is good enough for me. My biggest
problems with the Optio WP are the lack of a viewfinder and the somewhat
unusual battery. Both are mere annoyances compared to the compactness
and waterproofness (is that even a word?) of the Optio WP.

It's a lot better than my cell-phone camera. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:10:02 -0700, rw
wrote:

Charlie Choc wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:10:17 GMT, "Larry L" wrote:

NOW I just want a 'good camera' to take
digital pictures for hard copy printing at a decent size and high standard )


I've got an Optio Wp I carry in my vest, and it's a handy camera but I'm not
sure the optics are up to the kind of prints you want to make.

Who make prints? :-)

I don't think I've printed more than a half-dozen photos in the past
year, but I'm not as seriously into photography as you are, Charlie.

That's sorta my point - a shirt-pocket type 5ish MP camera really isn't
for anyone seriously into photography. As the technology has
progressed, and "tricks" have been employed to get the claimed MP rating
up, the "end-user" _effective_ quality (consumer-grade stuff) hasn't,
IME, increased all that much because the display options are about the
same as they were 2-4 years ago. IOW, unless you're using high-end
display stuff and/or high-end output stuff for prints, somewhere around
5 MP is enough for anything less than production stuff. Which is why,
IMO, none of the variety of cameras from which we regularly see images
is all that different, again, as far as image and output on "basic"
devices.

To me, prints are things that eventually goes into the trash or into a
cardboard box in a closet. Digital is forever, as long as you back up.

If you haven't seen such, we got digital picture frames for friends as
presents this past Christmas (there were on sale all over for around
$50USD or so), and all have been shickled tickless with them. You
simply slip in the memory card/stick, and it's a slide show.

A 5 megapixel camera with so-so optics is good enough for me. My biggest
problems with the Optio WP are the lack of a viewfinder and the somewhat
unusual battery. Both are mere annoyances compared to the compactness
and waterproofness (is that even a word?) of the Optio WP.

Man, the proprietary battery thing is, IME, a whole lot bigger thing
than a mere annoyance - obviously, YMDV, but I'd offer that if Larry is
planning on taking this thing down south, it might be a deal-breaker for
him - I'd stick with standard battery types (AA, AAA) - again, YMMV.

It's a lot better than my cell-phone camera. :-)

A whiteboard, markers, and a moderately talented 5 year old child are
better than most cellphone cameras...

TC,
R

wrote:

Man, the proprietary battery thing is, IME, a whole lot bigger thing
than a mere annoyance - obviously, YMDV, but I'd offer that if Larry is
planning on taking this thing down south, it might be a deal-breaker for
him - I'd stick with standard battery types (AA, AAA) - again, YMMV.

I thought it would be more of a problem than it is. Two fully charged
batteries (I carry three) are adequate for a week-long float trip in the
wilderness, taking hundreds of photos. Those lithium-ion batteries are
powerful and compact.

If you're somewhere that you can buy AA or AAA batteries, you're
probably somewhere that you can recharge your "special" batteries.

It's really a matter of priorities. My number one criterion is that the
camera be waterproof. I've ruined a couple of cameras by taking
unplanned dips. I especially don't want to be carrying a camera that
inhibits my already marginal wading skills.

My number two criterion is that it fit into a shirt pocket. Lithium-ion
batteries easily have the highest energy density, so they're the natural
choice for compactness.

I don't know of any generic-battery cameras that fit those criteria.
Maybe there's one. I don't know of it.

BTW, I also dislike the lack of a range finder, but that's another story.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

wrote


That's sorta my point - a shirt-pocket type 5ish MP camera really isn't
for anyone seriously into photography.

that is very true ... but I have been seriously into photography ( made my
living selling artsy fartsy b&w prints for a couple years, had shows in
galleries etc ) and I never want to go there again.......

My wife has a Cannon digi SLR she got late last year, that would do the
quality, but I don't want to "go looking for photos." I do want to
take the ones that jump out at me and I do want to print them in hardcopy at
decent size and resolution. They will simply be "purdy" pictures, none
of the attempt to be arty of my youth. I'm simply looking for the best
technical "quality" images available in a small water resistent package.

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:59:06 -0700, rw
wrote:

wrote:

Man, the proprietary battery thing is, IME, a whole lot bigger thing
than a mere annoyance - obviously, YMDV, but I'd offer that if Larry is
planning on taking this thing down south, it might be a deal-breaker for
him - I'd stick with standard battery types (AA, AAA) - again, YMMV.

I thought it would be more of a problem than it is. Two fully charged
batteries (I carry three) are adequate for a week-long float trip in the
wilderness, taking hundreds of photos. Those lithium-ion batteries are
powerful and compact.

If you're somewhere that you can buy AA or AAA batteries, you're
probably somewhere that you can recharge your "special" batteries.

It's really a matter of priorities. My number one criterion is that the
camera be waterproof. I've ruined a couple of cameras by taking
unplanned dips. I especially don't want to be carrying a camera that
inhibits my already marginal wading skills.

My number two criterion is that it fit into a shirt pocket. Lithium-ion
batteries easily have the highest energy density, so they're the natural
choice for compactness.

I don't know of any generic-battery cameras that fit those criteria.
Maybe there's one. I don't know of it.

I'd think you'd be right as far as the smallest of the small ones, but
unless it has swung back to all "special" batteries, Canon, Olympus and
Nikon all had? smallish PnS's that used AAs. Another possible reason to
look at used cameras. And I'd agree that lith-ion AAs are the way to go
when possible. I didn't realize that the "special" batteries had gotten
to the point of hundreds of pictures per charge. My experience with
them was that they seemed to go when you at the most inopportune time,
but that is with cameras 2-4 years old.

If that is the case, I'd not worry about it, but take at least one extra
and make sure to take adaptors that might be needed to recharge, or, if
you're camping and/or spending lots of time outdoors, think about one of
the solar chargers.

TC,
R


BTW, I also dislike the lack of a range finder, but that's another story.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:19:10 GMT, "Larry L"
wrote:


wrote


That's sorta my point - a shirt-pocket type 5ish MP camera really isn't
for anyone seriously into photography.

that is very true ... but I have been seriously into photography ( made my
living selling artsy fartsy b&w prints for a couple years, had shows in
galleries etc ) and I never want to go there again.......

My wife has a Cannon digi SLR she got late last year, that would do the
quality, but I don't want to "go looking for photos." I do want to
take the ones that jump out at me and I do want to print them in hardcopy at
decent size and resolution. They will simply be "purdy" pictures, none
of the attempt to be arty of my youth. I'm simply looking for the best
technical "quality" images available in a small water resistent package.

Well, if it matters/helps, I regularly see such "snapshots" from about
8-10 people using 8-10 different cameras, and IMO, there isn't enough
difference in them, when viewed via "standard" displays or printed on
mid-grade but business-grade printers (DT color lasers, proof-class DT
IJs, etc.) or via Wal-Mart/"drug store" type of printing. As you
probably know, once you step to something like your wife's camera and
print out at on lab-type/production-class printers, there is a
difference. And AFAIK, there's nothing that would be even marginally
justifiable, from a monetary standpoint, that combines the small size
and that level of quality, nor is there a reason to try.

TC,
R

wrote

difference. And AFAIK, there's nothing that would be even marginally
justifiable, from a monetary standpoint, that combines the small size
and that level of quality, nor is there a reason to try.

TC,
R


I feel sure you are right. And I'm far less interested in the photos to
( maybe ) be had than in maintaining freedom from the enslavement of
'serious photography' ...


My reason, btw, for shopping isn't really to upgrade ... I'm giving my kid
my Pentax to take to Chile so he can send us photos ... I need a new fishing
camera and it might as well be as good a one as 'fishing camera' allows


thanks for all your input ... all you input-ers