Previous Topic | Next Topic

Hey all,I'd really like to buy a digital camera around Christmas time for railfanning but the bad part is I know nothing at all about digital cameras. Could somebody point out some tips in buying them for me, maybe price ranges, functions, etc? What I like about them is that you can easily upload them via USB to your computer, so no more processing fees. Thats always been a big drawback. Anyway, any help would be really appreciated, thanks.

Looks Like a Pony RUNS LIKE A STALLION

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RE: OT: Digital Cameras, calr, Oct-03-03, 11:09 PM, (1) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, cn_bayview, Oct-03-03, 11:42 PM, (2) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, ssw, Oct-04-03, 00:01 AM, (3) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, BNSF4723, Oct-04-03, 00:08 AM, (4) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, LaughingVulcan, Oct-04-03, 00:28 AM, (5) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, jlucero4, Oct-04-03, 00:45 AM, (6) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, Hack, Oct-04-03, 02:13 AM, (7) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, smp11512, Oct-04-03, 02:40 AM, (8) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, shoskins, Oct-04-03, 10:42 AM, (9) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, smp11512, Oct-04-03, 03:56 PM, (10) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, sniper297, Oct-04-03, 05:49 PM, (11) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, shoskins, Oct-04-03, 11:58 PM, (13) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, rpicardi1, Oct-05-03, 10:01 AM, (16) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, Baldwinbob, Oct-04-03, 09:19 PM, (12) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, rpicardi1, Oct-05-03, 10:34 AM, (17) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, dvdhoven, Oct-05-03, 03:43 AM, (14) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, Tim Frost, Oct-05-03, 08:49 AM, (15) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, Macster, Oct-05-03, 10:54 AM, (19) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, dgauci, Oct-05-03, 01:46 PM, (20) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, jfroth1, Oct-05-03, 07:43 PM, (23) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, CARex, Oct-05-03, 10:41 AM, (18) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, rpicardi1, Oct-05-03, 02:06 PM, (21) RE: OT: Digital Cameras, rpicardi1, Oct-05-03, 02:06 PM, (22)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Having just bought one about two months ago, I can highly recommend the Minolta Dimage S414. It is 4 megapixel (don't settle for anything less) and costs $300-400 depending on where you buy it. It is packed with features yet is compact. On the downside, it is a real battery hog. It uses 4 AA NiMH or Alkaline batteries. Don't waste time with the alkaline. I always keep two spare sets of batteries charged and ready to use.Cal Rasmussen
Beaverton, OR
(My email is in my profile)Columbia Gorge Route (Phase 1 UP side 95%, BNSF side 90%)

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Digital is the best way to go
I bring my digi everywhere and take as many pics as i wish, without having to worry about money for film.I've heard that the 1500 dollar ones have the same features as the 1000 dollar ones. And Apparently the $1000 are the best way to go...
Alot of money i know... but taking good care of it, you can have the camerra for many years to come....
My dream camerra is SLR, good zoom, fast saving/phototaking, sharp, auto and manual focus, exposure controls, Shutter speed and LCD on back.Thats my ideal camerra- Next xmas im planning on replacing the old one.

Rob
Great North Rails

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

YAh.. Canon EOS Digital Rebel (digital 6.1 megapixel SLR) is supposed to be pretty darn good for $1000

Bradley Linda
Waco, Texas

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I was looking more in the $300 range actually... lol I had no idea they're so expensive.

Looks Like a Pony RUNS LIKE A STALLION

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

There are a lot of good ones out there; mainly it boiled down to memory type for me. I have a PDA that has a compact flash; there aren't many cameras out there that use CF anymore. It was only 2 megapixel, but it does take some great shots. (And I have an SLR film camera if I need anything better.) Other things to consider: As mentioned above, what kind of batteries? Do you want the preview screen? (Most of them can be turned off if you don't need them.) And mine can act as an ersatz video camera as well (about 700 seconds worth at 128 MB.) Anyway, I'm satisfied with mine, and hope you can find one that works for you. (BTW, mine is the Canon A-50.)

Signature
Signature that you wish to use in your messages

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Oct-04-03 AT 00:46 AM (EDT)

Just a couple weeks ago, I bought my first digital camera, a Canon A70 which runs about $300. It's a 3.2 megapixel camera with 3.0 optical zoom. For $300, it's an excellent buy.It's a good idea to make sure the camera is at least 3.0 megapixels, and also make sure the camera has good optical zoom. Pay no attention to digital zoom at it is basically worthless.Jordan L.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I'm in the same boat as you, but I like the shots Macster's been posting of his trips in and around Seattle (look for the posts regarding "Sounder" in the Screen Shots forum). You might ask him which he's using. Let us know what you find and/or buy. Cheers!
Marc - 3DTrains
http://www.3dtrains.comPro Series SuperPacks

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I am going to get this one as soon as I get some money http://www.ecost.com/ecost/shop/detail.asp?action=detail&dpno=214900#scrollSouthern Pacific will live on forever in the hearts of the Red and Gray Railfans

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I decided to go digital about two years ago. That was when I had the old computer -- so the first thing I learned was how much it was gonna take to get it all upgraded. Cheaper to buy a whole new computer, and then donate the old one to a charity.Anyhow, I did start with a low-end digital camera, the Canon A20, in February, 2002. I am satisfied with it. It is only a 2.1 megapixel camera -- but I have been satisfied with the results.As Calr mentions...digital cameras can be real battery hogs, and as he suggested, get TWO sets of NiMH batteries, and keep one charged. Also, for some odd reason, when transferring your digital photos from the camera to the computer, it will drain the batteries in one fell swoop -- always use the AC adapter. The best way to shoot the photos is to use the largest resolution available on the camera (mine is 1600x1200) and set the compression to the finest possible (on mine, "Superfine"). Do any adjustments of size, etc., with the computer, not the camera.One thing the digital cameras take a lot of getting used to -- and I don't know if the situation has gotten better with newer technology -- there is a slight delay from when you press the trigger to the actual capture of the photo. It does make it hard to shoot high speed trains this way. It took me a couple of weeks to get used to this situation.I have posted many of my railroad-related digital photos at alt.binaries.pictures.rail if you care to see any of them. They usually only stay around for a couple days at the Usenet group; there is an archive that saves each day's photos, and it goes back a couple years. http://abpr.railfan.net/

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I am not going to go all digital for a while , Just want something to be able to take a pic and put it on the internet quickly and to save money on Developing , There are still a lot of nice features that I won't stop using on my Video Camera and my very nice 35mm that was a gift from a friend Southern Pacific will live on forever in the hearts of the Red and Gray Railfans

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproduct.asp?DEPA=1&submit=Go&description=MVC%2DCD350I paid $430 for that one a couple months ago, now it's down to $368 with free shipping.Comes with a rechargable battery good for a few hours, and instead of expensive memory sticks it uses mini CD-R or CD-RW disks, couple hundred high res pictures on a disk, then pop it out and pop in a new one. Programmable with automatic or manual settings, including a rapid snapshot mode. Mini CD-Rs are less than a buck each (I've had as many as 250 high res pics on one, I don't know what the max is since I haven't hit it yet), so I use those instead of the CD-RWs.

Attachments

http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/User_files/3f7f3fac4eb2c7e0.jpg

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

You're making a wise decision to keep using the 35mm even if you go digital.The 35mm film camera will do things that a digital simply won't.....the zoom on my digital only goes to 100mm (or so it says,can't prove that by me, it's awful weak...) but with my 35mm I can go to 210mm zoom. And then there's the question of depth of field; sometimes it is nice to take pictures with variations there.And then there's thepossibility of night time exposures. 35mm can do, haven't been able to do so with the digital.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Oct-05-03 AT 10:14 AM (EDT)

>And then there's thepossibility of night time exposures. 35mm can do, haven't been able to do so with the digital.If you want the features of controlling things, such as shutter speed, apature setting, ISO settings, flash fill, slow flash on night shots, good zoom range, interchangable lenses, time exposure, all the stuff 35mm users are used to using including through the lens viewfineer, you need to look into some of the higher end digital cameras.My E-10 has all of those features except interchangable lens, it does have additional add on lens designed for it. Some newer high end models coming out will use interchangable 35mm lens and some have a resolution and CCD elements that are the same size as 35mm film. With a shutter release cable, I can take time exposures up to several minutes. (10 seconds without it.) And, I can even use manual focus if I so desire.While currently quite expensive, those cameras are rapidly dropping in price as the cost of the electronics continue to drop. The E-10 that I paid two grand for three years ago is now down to half of that price. Still, like a preimum 35mm SLR camera, the digital equivelent is going to cost much more.It's difficult to compare focal length of digital to 35mm as the CCD pickup is about 1/2 the area of the 35mm film. Therefore, the effective focal length in most consumer digital cameras is about twice that of 35mm and the depth of field much higher. If 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 optical zoom is not enough, there are a couple of good digital cameras out there with 10 to one, or more, optical. And, of course, ditigal zoom is crap unless you are shooting in low resolution settings.Edit.On the E-10, battery life is about 200 pics for the fully recharged NMH AA battery, or 500 shots for the lithum battery. A pair of them is far cheaper then the equivlent number of AA batteries it replaces. Note, Ni-Cads and Nickel Metal Hydrides will lose their charge over a period of a few weeks. Recharge them before going on any trip.The download time using the camera's built in USB port is mostly in seconds. (A few minutes if dumping 128 meg of pics.) I don't use the LCD viewfinder on the E-10 except for checking pictures. All camera settings are set using easy to understand buttons and the adjustment dial which coorsponds to the exposure setting on a 35mm SLR.I do use the optional AC adaptor if I am doing copy stand work. I need to set the white balance when doing so and I have the LCD display on to check this.SRV Ron

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I would think digital cameras are like computers, by the time you get it better ones are available.Back in the fall of 00, on my conductor’s suggestion, I bought a HP C200 digital. His brother said this camera took better pictures than his much more expensive one. I think it was under $300 but is no longer available unless you can find one on E-Bay.As mentioned above, the preview window and downloading into the computer will suck your batteries dry in no time; get an ac adapter. Another good point is if you want prints you can upload them to shutterfly, or something like that, and get excellent prints in the mail.I disagree on the megapixel, unless I’m missing something. My camera is only 1 megapixel and it seems to take great pictures, set on the medium setting. If you want to go cheap this might be for you if you can find one.Bob & O'Riley

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

A mini lesson in resolution for picture size.320x200; Thumbnail prints only.640x480; Suitable for e-mail only.1024x768; Will make an acceptable 3x5 print.1280x1024 - the 1.2 megapixel camera. Excellent for 4x6 prints. If you don't need anything larger or plan to crop a photo, this is all the digital power needed for most pictures. And, in bob's example above, more then acceptable for his post.2.2 megapixel camera; Good for up to 5x7 prints.3.3 megapixel camera: Good for up to 8x10 prints.4 megapixel camera; Will print up to 11x14 photos. You can also crop the picture if printing in smaller sizes.5 megapixel and above; Will print high quality 13x21 photos. Will also allow for cropping images and still retain high image quality.All of the examples above assume that the camera that you are using uses actual pixel resolution and not interpolated to the equivelent size as some camera makers were doing a few years ago.Another item used by digital cameras is the compression setting. TIFF or RAW is the best, but, very storage hungry.JPG 2.8 or JPG 4 are very good settings for storing pics on the memory card with no noticable loss.JPG 8 should be the acceptable setting for medium quality. You might notice a little fuzzing on high contrast such as lettering on a sign.JPG 15 or JPG 32, as was used by Sony on the floppy disk camera, is totally unacceptable. Those pictures are highly artifacted and look blurry.When you download your pics for processing, always keep a set of the originals. If you do repeated load and saves using JPG compression during editing, you will continue to lose picture quality. Pay attention to the paint program JPG setting when you finally save an edited photo in JPG. It is usually defaulted at an unacceptable 15 or higher.SRV Ron

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Oct-05-03 AT 03:43 AM (EDT)

Hi,I have a Canon Powershot S40. It has been succeeded by the Canon Powershot S45.
Resolution is 4 Megapixels.
I am very satisfied about the camera.
But as is stated before, it needs time to get used to it. You have delays, that the old 35mm doesn't have.About capacity, buy a bigger memorycard. I now have a SanDisk Ultra 512Mb CF card. Not that cheap, but it can take about 300 pics.About draining your batteries by transferring pics from camera to pc, well don't do it that way. Simple use a card reader that is attached to a USB port, no battery draining any more.
I have a HP 2210 all-in-one device (printer/scanner/fax) that have a built-in card reader for all types of cards.
The only thing the camera has to do, is deleting the pics after transfer.And here is a picture from the Canon, reduced at 640X480:Dick van den Hoven

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I must rather disagree with the more megapixels the better. When you get down to the nitty-gritty yes more is better but for textures and general picture-taking my 1.3 megapixel Sanyo does me just fine. I got it for about $40 used with three memory cards (2-32mb and 1-16mb)and to date have taken 3179 pictures with it.I took 1774 on my 10000-mile rail trip, or one picture for every 5.63 miles. It uses regular AA batteries. I use rechargables to save money, but I only get about 1/4 as many pictures out of the rechargables as regular batteries.The main limitations for this camera for me are:-No real settings for exposure.
-Can't handle SmartMedia cards larger than 32mb.
-Too easy to turn on the screen while it is in your pocket, eating up battery life.
-It's heavy.In 1280x960x16 mode, the camera takes 146 pictures onto a 32mb card.It really depends what you want to use it for. Since my family borrows my camera a lot to take pictures of family events, etc, it's better for me to have one that is easy for everyone to use, even if it lacks some features I would like.Also, I can't really complain for the investment I made. I watched for something that was simple and inexpensive on ebay for a long time and finally found it. If you want something new and complex and hi-res, then you should go get it, but if you do want something simpler, used may not be a bad idea. Just make sure it's quality equipment. Junk works poorly no matter what. Tim Frost
NVTA Subway routes for BVE:

The Union Atlantic Railroad: Your stuff's important!

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Well, there is now 3 Digital Cameras I am in love with now.Olympus C-740UZ 3.2MP Digital CameraOlympus C-750UZ 4.0MP Digital CameraMinolta DiMage Z1 3.2MP Digital CameraInstead of writing a 15 page review on each camera, I'll let the experts tell the story on these cameras...All I can say is.. even though I have the C-740, I want that Minota.. I shouldn't have used it yesterday Steve's Digicam Review
C-740: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/c740uz.html
C-750: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/c750uz.html
Z1: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/z1.htmlDPReview
*C-740: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Olympus/oly_c740uz.asp
*C-750: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Olympus/oly_c750uz.asp
*Z1: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Minolta/minolta_dimagez1.asp* No Offical Review made - User Reviews is open however. And.. if you have the money to blow... these will be the wave of the future.. low cost SLR Digital Cameras...The Canon Rebel, and now the new Pentax Ist D are the first and lowest comsumer SLR digital cameras on the market...Steve's Digicam Review:
Canon Rebel EOS300D: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/300d.htmlDPReview:
Canon Rebel EOS300D http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos300d.asp
Pentax ist D: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pentaxistd/Hope this helps.

Brian E. Bundridge
NALW Quality Control Manager

--Power For You--

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I'm with you Macster, I've used and liked several of the the Olympus models and will probably continue with Olympus. I also had looked at the Minolta line and also liked what I saw.As far as the discussion over how many mega-pixels a camera needs, it all depends on how you will use the final images.I believe below 2 mega-pixels is insufficient for all but quick snapshots, the image will fall apart quickly if enlarged much.2 to 4 mega-pixels are more than adequate detail for electronic display and modest prints up to 8x10 that rival conventional film.5 mega-pixel and beyond, while a bit of overkill for electronic display, really are best for sharp and detailed prints up to the 11x14 or higher range that equals conventional film.Side note: conventional 35mm is only really usable up to about 11x14 size prints after which the limitations of the small negative size degrade the image quality noticeably. I still own my 4x5 view camera.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Those new Olympus 10x optical zooms should be terrific, Mac. I've had the (discontinued) predecessor C-2100 for over 2 years with excellent results. It covers the 35mm equivalent of 38mm to 380mm. The 3x digital zoom to 1140mm (!) is 'almost' acceptable due to built-in image stabilization. It can probably be had at the right price on the used market.http://www.steves-digicams.com/c2100.htmlJohn Roth
<--- D&H Lives!

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Oct-05-03 AT 10:43 AM (EDT)

I’ve had my Sony DSC-S50 for a couple of years now and absolutely love it. It also generates Mpegs, but I discovered that is a feature I don’t really need…, oh well.Three times optical zoom, three times digital zoom with a close up macro feature (as close as 3cm from the lens). At the time of purchase, its 2.1 Mega pixels were state of the art. It came with a 4MB Sony Memory Stick. I purchased an additional 8MB Memory Stick as well as an extra battery. And of course the proverbial case. The whole shooting match, at Best Buy (about two years ago), was around $700. I really don’t remember the exact figure.The 8MB Memory Stick is good for about 130 images @ 640x480. And the 4MB Stick about half of that. The Memory Sticks simply insert in to the Sony Vaio for easy download. Or through the USB connection on other computers. The batteries, depending on flash use, will last upwards of 200+ minutes each. I was rather impressed with that.I use it nearly every day. It has proven to be an extremely durable piece of equipment. I won’t go into length, but it has suffered a couple of falls. One from nearly 10 feet high. “……and it keeps on ticking”.On the Sony, you can overcome the “shutter delay” mentioned by others. Simply by partially depressing the shutter release and a green indicator appears in the viewfinder/screen. When you’re ready to take the picture…, fully depress the shutter release and the photo is taken instantly. I really enjoy this camera…, but I too, still have my aging Yashica 35mm SLR.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>On the Sony, you can overcome the “shutter delay” mentioned by others. Simply by partially depressing the shutter release and a green indicator appears in the viewfinder/screen. When you’re ready to take the picture…, fully depress the shutter release and the photo is taken instantly.This is true for all digital and many automated 35mm film cameras. This is the camera setup for the picture, light metering, auto focus, shutter speed, apature presetting, flash charging. Push the rest of the way to take the picture.Someone not used to that slight delay will complain about losing the shot. But, you should squeeze the button anyways to avoid jerking the camera and blurring the picture.Actually, the real complaint is having to wait for the camera to set up, usually 5 to 20 seconds, depending on the memory card, before you can take that first picture, or, you have waited so long that the camera goes into sleep mode to conserve the battery, then, it has to set up again. You can then snap off 3 or four pics in rapid fire, then you have to wait for the pics to be stored. The higher the quality, the more time needed to store them.SRV Ron

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Oct-05-03 AT 02:08 PM (EDT)

>On the Sony, you can overcome the “shutter delay” mentioned by others. Simply by partially depressing the shutter release and a green indicator appears in the viewfinder/screen. When you’re ready to take the picture…, fully depress the shutter release and the photo is taken instantly.This is true for all digital and many automated 35mm film cameras. This is the camera setup for the picture, light metering, auto focus, shutter speed, apature presetting, flash charging. Push the rest of the way to take the picture.Someone not used to that slight delay will complain about losing the shot. But, you should squeeze the button anyways to avoid jerking the camera and blurring the picture.Actually, the real complaint is having to wait for the camera to set up, usually 5 to 20 seconds, depending on the memory card, before you can take that first picture, or, you have waited so long that the camera goes into sleep mode to conserve the battery, then, it has to set up again. You can then snap off 3 or four pics in rapid fire, then you have to wait for the pics to be stored. The higher the quality, the more time needed to store them.
Edit; sorry about the double post. This crummy cable modem shut down during the upload.SRV Ron

Alert | IP

[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | File Library ] Copyright © 2002 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.