Digital cameras

[+Postie]

After reading the topic on PDA's I wondered how many cachers used a digital camera and can anyone recomend a cheap one (under £100) for posting pics to logs?

[Rob & Lisa]

If cheap is what you are after (and small to boot) then you could look at the l'espion at £40. We personally use a Canon Digital Ixus but it looks like fun.

 

http://www.digitaldreamco.com/shop/espion.htm

 

Ok, 10 metres. It's somewhere around here...

[+McDeHack]

For £100 you can get a good second hand digital camera such as an Olympus Camedia 1.2 megapixal (I sold one for that price, my first one I owned)

look around but those cheap ones that sell for £60 - £80 are rubbish, ask around before you buy.

[el10t]

I got a 3.1 megapixel Kodak DX3700 for just £100 (thanks to the recent Kodak online shop cock-up)

 

-----------

el10t

mobilis in mobili

[Moss Trooper]

If you just want to post pics to Web pages then a cheap cam with 640 x 480 pixels will do..

 

If you want better quality then go fer mega pixels.. the more the merrier.. balanced against spondoolicls of coures.. ( Money to the uniniciated)

 

Moss de Boss... Sorta

[Moss Trooper]

If you just want to post pics to Web pages then a cheap cam with 640 x 480 pixels will do..

 

If you want better quality then go fer mega pixels.. the more the merrier.. balanced against spondoolicls of coures.. ( Money to the uniniciated)

 

Moss de Boss... Sorta

[+Masher]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Postie:

After reading the topic on PDA's I wondered how many cachers used a digital camera and can anyone recomend a cheap one (under £100) for posting pics to logs?

---

 

The l'espion that Rob&Lisa mention is also available from Tesco, I am told. I have seen some pics from one, and they are not terribly good, but for the price and the size - small enough to hang off your keyring - you can't expect too much.

If all you want to do is post pics to the web, then you don't need an expensive megapixel jobby. My mate bought a cheapy one from Dixons for 80 quid and the resolution on it is fine for web use.

 

Mark

----------------------

I was technical once

[Runemaster]

I have a l'espion and they are fine as long as there is good light and you're not expecting miracles highest res is abour 322 x 240 ish pixels wich to be honest is good enough for web snaps. No good for takin piccies of black cats in coal cellars though

[Runemaster]

I have a l'espion and they are fine as long as there is good light and you're not expecting miracles highest res is abour 322 x 240 ish pixels wich to be honest is good enough for web snaps. No good for takin piccies of black cats in coal cellars though

[+McDeHack]

Now come on people. If a cheap camera is got all it will do is to be able to post pics on the web. But even these will not be very viewable.

When the camera purchaser realises what the potential is of digital photography, they will want to make more use of it.

So I say get the best you can afford.

I am into my 4th digital camera and I learnt the hard way..

[Runemaster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by McDehack:

Now come on people....

So I say get the best you can afford....

---

Have you considered that £40 to £80 may the most that can be spared in some cases to buy what is after all nothing more than a toy.

[JasonW]

quote:

---

Originally posted by McDehack:

When the camera purchaser realises what the potential is of digital photography, they will want to make more use of it.

---

 

When the same purchaser realises that to get images of greater or equal quality to a reasonably-priced (~ £60) 35mm Silver Halide camera they need to spend more than £400 they turn around and stick with the old technology..... I'm certainly not chucking my £3.5k worth of 35mm equipment out for anyone - hell I can even get instant slide film for it and I can get a lot of it for the price of a decent quality digital SLR body (lenses extra).

 

Digital photography will have it's day, just not yet.

 

[+Walker Dan]

Just been reading a review of Digitals in Dec. 2001 issue of PCPro(Yes I know I'm a bit behind - too busy caching to read all these mags). They rated the Toshiba PDR-M61 as a canny budget buy. It was £199+ vat then, but dunno if it's still available now at and what cost

[+John Stead]

Can't say I blame Jason for not wanting to chuck away his expensive camera gear - but digital cameras do have their place and even quite a simple one can produce results adequate for a lot of people. I also have some quite decent 35mm equipment. I tried a "L'espion" but that was too crude and as it also became faulty I took it back and spent £200 on a Fuji Finepix A101 - I could now get the same for £130! I can produce up to A5 prints resonably but covet a zoom lens as cropping 1.3 megapixel photos means that anything over a postcard is a bit iffy. But the big advantage is that of being able to come in from a cache and post a perfectly good photo on to the web page and if necessary play about with the contrast and colour balance as I have just done with one for my newest cache {Lonesome Pine (S Notts)} It may not look so good - but you should have seen the original!.

[+jeremyp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JasonW:

 

Digital photography will have it's day, just not yet.

 

---

 

It's later than you think....

 

Yes, for any given level of quality, digital cameras are *much* more expensive than siver halide film cameras, but for the purposes of most people you can now get a digital camera that gives adequate quality for a few hundred pounds. The quality of the photographs I get from mine (which cost £500 new) is not significantly worse than with my old Olympus Mu Zoom (which cost £200 new). Taking into account the cost of film and developing, it shouldn't be long before I've made a net saving. And I can do things like cure red-eye, crop photos, enlarge photos, produce copies and publish them on the Internet without the need for any special equipment other than a PC and a printer.

 

I have an acquaintance who used to be a photographer on the Sun and he confessed to me that all the newspaper photographers that he knew, now use digital cameras (albeit expensive ones) also for reasons of convenience.

 

I'd say, right now it is the day of digital photography although still early in the morning.

 

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

[+Slytherin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JasonW:

Digital photography will have it's day, just not yet.

---

 

When you come down this way next (to find the Mission Impossible Stash) you should try one of our other local caches. Luddites#1. It's just made for you.

 

Alex

[+Slytherin]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JasonW:

Digital photography will have it's day, just not yet.

---

 

When you come down this way next (to find the Mission Impossible Stash) you should try one of our other local caches. Luddites#1. It's just made for you.

 

Alex

[+mdshamilton]

I use a Sony DSC-P5 digital camera (currently about £400). I also have a Nikon SLR which I used for a number of years when taking photos for my university newspaper. I could not do without my Sony - it's smaller than my Garmin Vista (so I carry it everywhere), I get instant results, the quality is fantastic, and it's a doddle to upload the photos to Kodak.co.uk to get them printed on photo paper etc. If you're interested in photography and digital photography the technology is available - even if it is marginally more expensive than a good SLR. Check www.zdnet.com and www.zdnet.co.uk for reviews.

 

Mark

 

Mark, Matthew & Christopher

We'll get there eventually....

[+mdshamilton]

I use a Sony DSC-P5 digital camera (currently about £400). I also have a Nikon SLR which I used for a number of years when taking photos for my university newspaper. I could not do without my Sony - it's smaller than my Garmin Vista (so I carry it everywhere), I get instant results, the quality is fantastic, and it's a doddle to upload the photos to Kodak.co.uk to get them printed on photo paper etc. If you're interested in photography and digital photography the technology is available - even if it is marginally more expensive than a good SLR. Check www.zdnet.com and www.zdnet.co.uk for reviews.

 

Mark

 

Mark, Matthew & Christopher

We'll get there eventually....

[f-stop]

O.K Here goes,

 

Having used 35mm gear for a good few years now (collecting some City & Guilds "sticky foots" along the way), I still revert to this equipment for Weddings, holidays portraits etc.

 

I also own a Ricoh RD5300 2.3 million megapixel digital camera (500 quidsworth 3 years ago).

 

As for photos for the web, I use the digital purely for the convenience, however I always have to compress the file to publish it.

 

The point I'm trying to make is ...its horses for courses. If I was sure I only wanted a camera purely for taking photos to publish on web, then I would spend JUST enough to enable me to do that.

 

After all you wouldn't use a sledgehammer to crack a nut would you?

[+McDeHack]

JeremyP said it all.

when I left school way back in 1952 I entered the Press photography game. 35mm cameras were laughed at as toys. 5X4 plate or cut film was the norm. as were Speed grafics cameras. Telephoto lenses were six foot long black boxes called "Long toms"

2.1/4 square roll film were at times acceptable.

I would have to meet the train to collect the film or plates, and a rush back by taxi too the office.

Now days the picture is taken by digital camera and sent via the mobile phone to the office. Arriving minutes after it was taken.

My film cameras are now in the loft collecting dust. Digital cameras are now..

But I will agree the quality has still a way to go compared with film

[+Postie]

If anyone is intrested, I have finaly got a digital camera.

My family all chipped in and bought a Fugi Finepix

1.3 for my birthday.I think it cost around £80 as it was factory re-furbished.

I hope to be putting lots of pics. on cache sites now!!

 

(Every one needs a bigger letterbox!)

[+Lassitude]

That's a good camera. Up until the beginning os this wek I have been using my Sont DCR TRV-30 Camcorder for Ditial Photography(1.5 Megapixel). It's a little big (and expensive) to be carrying around all the time so I purchased a Sony 2 Megapixel camera which is great. My work collegue purchased a Finepix 1.3 Megapixel the same week and we compared photos. It compared well with my Sony 2 Megapixel. The fuji did not look so good when zoomed but we are talking about image sizes A4+ here. The fuji will be fine as long as you don't want really big pictures. I would suggest taking pictures at maximum resolution and resising them using something like Paintshop Pro on your PC. That way you can have smaller pics suitable for the web that are pleasant to the eye.

 

Thanks

 

Chris

 

LASSITUDE- (noun) Tiredness and apathy: a state of weariness accompanied by listlessness or apathy[15th century. Via French from Latin lassitudo , from lassus 'weary'.]

[phredd]

I still have both my Pentax SV and Pentax 110.

I use both but also use a KODAK DX3600 digital for work on the net and e_mail.

 

Each camera as its own use.

 

Keep them clicking.

[phredd]

I still have both my Pentax SV and Pentax 110.

I use both but also use a KODAK DX3600 digital for work on the net and e_mail.

 

Each camera as its own use.

 

Keep them clicking.

[+Chris n Maria]

I've got a Fuji Finepix 2m Zoom and I think it is supurb. Infact in the short time I have had it I've had much better results than with my analogue camera.

 

Maybe It's because I don't have developers messing things up now

 

Chris

"We're not lost - we just don't know where we are"

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

[+Chris n Maria]

I've got a Fuji Finepix 2m Zoom and I think it is supurb. Infact in the short time I have had it I've had much better results than with my analogue camera.

 

Maybe It's because I don't have developers messing things up now

 

Chris

"We're not lost - we just don't know where we are"

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

[GeoDean]

I use a digital Kodak DC3200 for my cache pics .

It cost about £150 about a year ago and it has been great . I dont think I could survive without a digital because of how easy it is to get and edit your photo's .

I think I may upgrade to one of the new Kodak with about 3m pixels or something similar though .