Cameras - Recommendations?

[+Katydid & Miles Stone]

Thanksgiving sales are soon upon us and we are looking to buy a camera. We'd like to download photos from some of our adventures and share them with fellow cachers. Please give us your thoughts to help us make the best choice.

[+planemaker]

Get a camera with as many MegaPixels as you can afford. As for the other toys to have on it, that all depends on what you want to do with it. Most digitals have two types of zooms. A "Physical" zoom, where the lens moves and brings the picture in closer or further away. Some also have a "Digital" zoom, where the camera will take the picture and change the image sensitivity to simulate the picture coming in closer. Some camera have both. In deciding what you need, you need to decide whether you are going to print enlargements from you images. If you are then the Physical zoom is more important. With the digital zoom you will loose picture quality. Make sure you get a camera that accepts the memory cards. most of the camera have an internal memory, but once that is reached then you either have to stop taking pictures, download them, or start deleting them. With a memeory card, you can change the card out and keep on taking pictures. With most cameras a rule of thumb is a picture per megabyte. if your GPSr can accept memory cards, see if you can find a camera that accepts the same kind of card.

 

Now the big question.....which camera do I recommend? I have a Nikon Coolpix 4100 (the cameras desgination in Canada). I am quite happy with it, it is small enough that it slips into my pocket when I am out caching, and is quite easy to transfer pictures between my camera and my pc.

 

If you want to talk some more about them post the question here, or email me though gc.com.

 

Cheers!

 

Planemaker

[+briansnat]

I have a Canon A70 and like it. I wanted a little more than just an auto focus, auto exposure point and shoot and the A70 was the only camera in its price range that offered the ability to use shutter priority, aperature priority and full manual modes in addition to the automatic mode.

 

Another important thing to me was that the camera use AA batteries, instead of those expensive camera batteries.

 

I strongly considered the Nikon Coolpix 4100 that Planemaker mentioned. It was a nice camera but didn't have the manual controls that the A70 had. It was my second choice, but a distant second because of that.

 

Edited November 24, 2004 by briansnat

[+ValleyRat & TillyMouse]

For posting on forums and websites, it's extremely important to keep the picture size very small. Most photo manipulation software allows for image sizing. A picture that's reduced in size to a width no more than 300 pixels gives good resolution on computer screens; monitors seldom reproduce more than 92dpi, and that size is easily handled by dial-up connections.

 

Higher resolution pictures serve no purpose but to cause frustration in folks who have only a slow dial-up connection -- many 56k modems get under 20k transfer rate because of poor copper lines between their computer and the central office. The phone company is only required to provide 19.4kbps; if you get more than that, consider yourself lucky.

 

With this in mind, a high-megapixel camera can be set for lower resolution if computer/forum/website publication is your aim. Usually the setting in the camera is stated as "400x300" or a similar designation.

 

Most newspapers also use a lower-resolution photo for publication because of press and newsprint (paper) limitations. If you send high-resolution photos to a newspaper, they (usually) will reduce the LPI (lines per inch) to their press/newsprint requirements.

 

Slick magazines, on the other hand, require much higher res photos; send them the highest-res photos your camera can produce.

 

If your aim is prints from your printer on glossy paper, use high-resolution.

 

I solve the dilemna of multiple needs by shooting the picture at high-res, then saving it to my computer, then loading it into PhotoShop and using IMAGE|IMAGE SIZE| and reducing the size and SAVE AS a different name. Most of my pictures have three copies saved; as [pictureoriginal.TIF], [pictureeMail.jpg], and [pictureNewspaper.jpg].

 

If possible, the camera should be set to produce pictures in .tif format because .jpg and .gif are "lossy" formats, and lose some detail each time you load, change, and resave them. This includes every time you DEFRAG your hard drive.

 

I know this is a long answer to the question, but. . .

 

I've owned several cameras, all Sony because, Sony produces so many cameras for so many different purposes. My requirements are at least 5x OPTICAL ZOOM, plus 10x digital zoom. My Sony DSC-F505V has 10x Optical Zoom plus Digital Zoom, 3.3 Megapixel. Several are available on eBay for a couple hundred dollars.

 

IMHO a second-hand camera with the features you want is better than the same money spent on a new one that doesn't have those features. This is it:

 

Edited November 24, 2004 by valleyrat

[+dunos]

Thanksgiving sales are soon upon us and we are looking to buy a camera. We'd like to download photos from some of our adventures and share them with fellow cachers. Please give us your thoughts to help us make the best choice.

I have been very impressed with the Canon Ixus range if you are looking for a sub compact camera. I have had my Ixus 400 for over a year now. The quality of the photos is fantastic and the camera is small enough to even fit in the pocket of a pair of jeans. Very handy. The build quality also feels like it is going to last a while.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Dan

[+planemaker]

Another important thing to me was that the camera use AA batteries, instead of those expensive camera batteries.

 

Briansnat brings up a good point. AA compatablity is a good feature to have. Make sure you get good quality rechargable batteries. Good to have incase your GPSr dies on you!

[+Eswau]

I have a Canon A75 which I'm very happy with. It may or may not have all the features that the others mentioned have, but it does everything I need it to. I think I paid ~ $275 and not it looks like they are around $175. I would expect the Christmas sales will be good to anyone wanting a digital camera this year.

 

E

[+briansnat]

I have a Canon A75 which I'm very happy with.  It may or may not have all the features that the others mentioned have, but it does everything I need it to.  I think I paid ~ $275 and not it looks like they are around $175.  I would expect the Christmas sales will be good to anyone wanting a digital camera this year.

 

E

I've often wondered what the difference between the A70 and A75 were since they look identical to me. The price really has come down. I paid just under $300 for my A70 and see them now for $175.

 

Edit: I just did a Google search to answer my own question and found:

The Canon PowerShot A75 is the successor to the popular Canon A70, adding a larger LCD screen, a direct print button, and an image-orientation sensor to the A70's successful design.

Edited November 24, 2004 by briansnat

[+Team Sydster]

Go to http://www.steves-digicams.com/ and find out everything about digital cameras. Excellent site, also has links to other review sites.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I'm hoping Santa brings me a replacement for the okay functional Samsung Digimax 240 I have. In a new camera I'd be looking mostly for more optical zoom and a camera that accepts 4 AA batteries. My current camera is 2 mega pixel, which is just fine for online photo posts, especially to GC.com, and prints an okay 4x6 photo.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I use a Panasonic DMC-LC43. there are a few of reasons I purchased this camere. First, it has a Leica lens which is a big plus for me, and second as Brian mentioned, it use AA batteries, it came with two rechargable AA and a charger. Forget about the cameras with "Special" rechargeable batteries, if your battery dies out on a hike you are not going to be able to use the camera if you cannot drop in a set of new batteries. the batteries in my camerea have died when I have been on a hike, I was able to drop in a set of fresh rechargable batteries, I have had to also us reg AA's when I forgot to recahrge the batteries, Also go to a camera store where you can find someone who knows about cameras, the prices are all the same as there is not real markup in cameras. I went to a best buy with my sister when she was looking for a camera, the so called photo dept guy was an idiot, he even said it made no sence to buy a camera that used AAs, he just looked bewildered when I asked him how you recharge a battery on the woods.

As far as pixals, my camera has 4 mega pixcels and I have done 12X16 prints that great. regarding loading photos onto cache pages, you do not want a high mega pixcel photo, check the instructions for loading pics. Lg mega phots will have to be edited to load properly.

 

My other camera is use is a Nikon 35mm SLR, SLRs do have major advantages over the small dig cameras.

[+tirediron]

While a little on the pricey side for routine 'cache snaps, I love my Nikon D70. It really does cross the boundry from taking pictures to taking photographs.

 

Get a camera with as many MegaPixels as you can afford

Valid, to a point. An 8 megapixel camera with a substandard lens is only ever going to produce substandard results. Pay very careful attention to the quality and make of the lens on the camera you buy. There's no point in have a high-res CCD if the lens is of poor quality.

 

With this in mind, a high-megapixel camera can be set for lower resolution if computer/forum/website publication is your aim. Usually the setting in the camera is stated as "400x300" or a similar designation.

Rather than taking low-res originals, I prefer to take all my photographs at the highest possible resolution, and resize them as required for the application. The Image Resizer Powertoy (If you are running WinXP) is an awesome little utility for quickly pairing down a large image to "web-size".

[+Ambrosia]

For a nice little portable digital camera, we have the Minolta Dimage Z1.  Hey, we've tried a few different cameras, and this one was the best in portability, zoom, low light conditions, and shutter speed.

 

Get it at Costco.  It's cheaper, and they have a wonderful return policy. 

[+Jamie Z]

I wanted to throw a few thoughts in here since I am very interested in photography.

 

I wish you'd told us more about your intended use for the camera, as well as your photography experience. Those factors play a big role in your camera choice, not to mention price range.

 

I disagree with Planemaker when he said to get as many pixels as you can afford. I own a rather modest 4 megapixel camera. Nowadays, you can easily find 5, 6, 8, 10 and even more megapixel cameras. I've made 8x10 prints on my home printer with 4 megapixel images, and they came out very good. Unless you plan to produce very large pictures, even the cheapest cameras will have adequate resolution. I've found that most people I've run into usually set their camera to a setting other than the highest quality of their camera. Having a 5 megapixel camera is pointless if you have it set to take 2 megapixel images.

 

More important is the lens, in my opinion. You want a long optical zoom. Digital zoom, despite it being a necessary feature for ValleyRat's cameras, is really a useless thing. By using digital zoom, you are artificially constricting your final image.

 

Example: you're taking a picture of a flower. It's small so you use the digital zoom to get in close. When you get home, all you have is the image of the closeup of the flower. Without digital zoom, take the same picture with the flower and its surroundings. You still have exactly the same image data of the flower as if you used the digital zoom, plus you have all the image data from the surroundings. Now you can crop the picture as you'd like. Digital zoom is a misnomer. It doesn't "zoom," it just makes part of the image bigger, and quality reduces proportionally.

 

That's all my thoughts for now.

 

Jamie

[+Ambrosia]

The minolta I mentioned takes great micro pics, for a camera that's not neccesarily a micro type. I've got some really cool micros of moss, lichen, tiny mushrooms and such while out caching.

 

It's a 3.5 megapixel, but that's fine with me. You can take it to wal-mart and get 8 by 10s that look just like a standard camera. I don't think I need anything bigger than that.

 

And, it has automatic features, or manual, whichever is your fancy. That way, you have a lot of options as a photographer, but it doesn't overwhelm a point and shoot person.

[+Mopar]

Thanksgiving sales are soon upon us and we are looking to buy a camera. We'd like to download photos from some of our adventures and share them with fellow cachers. Please give us your thoughts to help us make the best choice.

I'd like to follow up Jamie's excellent suggestions.

 

You stated you want the camera for caching pics. If this is the main reason, don't go crazy. Remember digital camera usually aren't all that durable, or weatherproof. You're probably going to be dropping it on rocks, and falling in streams with it. Even a $75-$100 digital camera with probably take pictures at a higher resolution then the website will display. Then you won't cry when you kill it caching.

In other words, look for the cheapest camera that has the features you want (like AA batteries and an interchangeable memory card) for caching. Save the rest of your money and buy one of those nice cameras mentioned above later for the vacation and birthday party pics.

[koz]

I have a Canon A75 which I'm very happy with.  It may or may not have all the features that the others mentioned have, but it does everything I need it to.  I think I paid ~ $275 and not it looks like they are around $175.  I would expect the Christmas sales will be good to anyone wanting a digital camera this year.

 

E

I've often wondered what the difference between the A70 and A75 were since they look identical to me. The price really has come down. I paid just under $300 for my A70 and see them now for $175.

 

Edit: I just did a Google search to answer my own question and found:

The Canon PowerShot A75 is the successor to the popular Canon A70, adding a larger LCD screen, a direct print button, and an image-orientation sensor to the A70's successful design.

i've got the a60..really nice...don't know if they still make it or not...

[+greende]

I wanted to throw a few thoughts in here since I am very interested in photography.

 

I wish you'd told us more about your intended use for the camera, as well as your photography experience. Those factors play a big role in your camera choice, not to mention price range.

 

I disagree with Planemaker when he said to get as many pixels as you can afford. I own a rather modest 4 megapixel camera. Nowadays, you can easily find 5, 6, 8, 10 and even more megapixel cameras. I've made 8x10 prints on my home printer with 4 megapixel images, and they came out very good. Unless you plan to produce very large pictures, even the cheapest cameras will have adequate resolution. I've found that most people I've run into usually set their camera to a setting other than the highest quality of their camera. Having a 5 megapixel camera is pointless if you have it set to take 2 megapixel images.

 

More important is the lens, in my opinion. You want a long optical zoom. Digital zoom, despite it being a necessary feature for ValleyRat's cameras, is really a useless thing. By using digital zoom, you are artificially constricting your final image.

 

Example: you're taking a picture of a flower. It's small so you use the digital zoom to get in close. When you get home, all you have is the image of the closeup of the flower. Without digital zoom, take the same picture with the flower and its surroundings. You still have exactly the same image data of the flower as if you used the digital zoom, plus you have all the image data from the surroundings. Now you can crop the picture as you'd like. Digital zoom is a misnomer. It doesn't "zoom," it just makes part of the image bigger, and quality reduces proportionally.

 

That's all my thoughts for now.

 

Jamie

I agree with jamie. I have an Olympus with about 4 megapixels because it's all I could afford at the time. It does all I need and more. Also, when the batteries wore out that came with it, I put in regular alkaline batteries and it works like a charm. the batteries last quite awhile and alot cheaper than NiMh batteries.

 

Edited to correct typo.

Edited November 24, 2004 by greende

[+joefrog]

I have a Sony Cybershot a few years old now, but if I were to get one today knowing what I know now (and assuming you don't need a top-line), I'd get an Olympus Stylus 410, or a 400.

 

They're relatively weatherproof (part of the marketing), have a sliding lens guard, and are pretty tiny. You could easily slide one in your front pocket.

[+fizzymagic]

I disagree with Planemaker when he said to get as many pixels as you can afford.

I agree with JamieZ here: more megapixels does not necessarily translate into better pictures. My 4-MP camera makes 16x20 prints just fine, with plenty of headroom to crop and still get good 8x10s.

 

Higher megapixel-count CCDs (and CMS sensors, too) have higher noise levels. So pictures taken in low light will look grainier for high-MP cameras than low-MP cameras.

 

For snapshot-type pictures with an occasional print at 8x10, 2 MP is plenty. If you regularly crop your images significantly, go for 4. If you consider yourself a semi-pro, and are going to make prints at 20x30 or greater, then consider a higher pixel count.

 

Remember, the linear resolution of a camera goes as the square root of the number of pixels. So an 8-MP camera is only twice as clear as a 2-MP camera. A 5-MP camera has only about 10% higher resolution than a 4-MP camera.

 

Don't get sucked into the hype. I purposely chose the Canon S410 (highly recommended!) over the Canon S510 for the lower noise at essentially the same resolution. I am very happy with my choice.

 

(Edit: spelling)

Edited November 24, 2004 by fizzymagic

[+Katydid & Miles Stone]

When I think of the number of times I've droped my GPS, I'd hate to think what I could do to an expensive camera while jumping across a creek. Durability and compactness are most important for our application. Katydid and I probably need more of a "starter" - highest picture quality is not the most important factor at this time. Thanks for all of your good input!

[Jeremy]

I would stay away from Sony cameras (or Sony products in general). The proprietary Memory Stick, special battery and their silly restrictions on what you can stick on your memory card makes it a poor choice overall. I have owned one since they started making them and although they took good pictures I would not recommend them for the above reasons.

 

I agree that megapixels aren't the end all, but do consider that whatever picture you take will only end up at the highest resolution that you shot. If you ever intend to use your pictures for much larger prints, pay attention to the megapixels. Also, consider that technology will improve and take advantage of your image quality but your images will always remain at whatever resolution it was taken.

 

Digital zoom is crap. I turned it off on my camera. Just take a larger picture and crop it in your image software to get the same result. It just gives you a false sense of "zoom" when all you are doing is cropping images. Definitely look for some decent optical zoom. You'll find that many lower priced cameras sacrifice optical zoom and make up for it in digital zoom - it doesn't even come close.

 

I think some choices listed above are great (I am looking for a replacement camera as well). I would suggest to anyone with a digital camera - if your camera has a clock on it make sure to set the time. Each picture is time stamped and a great record of your trip. Some software will even match your GPS track data with your images, which is extra cool.

 

So, in summary (and stuff I forgot but others have added):

 

1. Don't buy a Sony camera

2. Get one that takes AA batteries

3. Get one with memory cards (SD is best, IMO)

4. Skip the dightal zoom and get as much optical as you can.

5. Megapixels are important but not the end all.

 

The obvious items are quality of the optics and overall quality of the product. epinions.com is a good place to get feedback.

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

The camera I use is a Minolta DiMAGE 7i. I really like it. It's in the mid-range (not pro, not snapshot-only).

 

My sincerest advice -- start with a good book on Digital Photography. They almost all start with a chapter on how to buy a camera and will get you thinking about how you will use it.

[+kd7rvh]

The general rule is to buy a digital camera from a company that also makes regular film cameras, and makes them well. I just bought a Canon EOS 20D and I couldn't be happier with it, but since it is a prosumer-level camera, it's probably not what you're looking for.

 

In short, you can't go wrong with the Canon Powershot A series.

 

Check Digital Photography Review for a lot of good info on various models.

[+Moore9KSUcats]

Last year, we bought a really nice digital camera, and enjoyed taking it on caching trips. (We paid about $400 for it, I think.) It took great pictures! We got a nice padded case, that also had enough room for the GPSr. A few months later, we were walking along a river (low water, exposed rockbed all the way... we were looking for the dinosaur trackway in the river), when my husband slipped on some moss. He fell pretty hard, but didn't think anything about it at the time. We continued geocaching the rest of the day. The GPSr was in the padded case at the time, but survived just fine.

 

Several weeks later, he got the camera out for some reason, but it wouldn't turn on! We never could get it to turn on. Something happened in the fall. No visible scratches, or anything.

 

We have since gotten another nice camera that stays where it is safe, and have bought several Minolta Dimage X cameras off E-bay... one for us, and one our oldest daughter took to England and Taiwan, and now one for daughter #2 (I hope she doesn't see this... it is for Christmas!) We have paid around $100 for each of them, and while that is still pricey, it won't hurt as much if it gets damaged. They take great pictures for our purpose, and if we want a really nice picture, we get out the Oly.

 

Just remember where you will be possibly taking it... up steep slopes, across creeks, slippery rocks... they are prone to getting damaged easily!

[+Snoogans]

1. Don't buy a Sony camera

You make some valid points, but all Sonys don't use the memory sticks.

 

I have a Mavica 3.34 megapixle, CD-300. I love it and would recommend it to anyone.

 

My main considerations in buying this camera were media and resolution. I bought it to hike with in the Sierra Backcountry. I needed something that held allot of pictures and didn't NEED to be downloaded, so mini CDs were the way to go. I bought 6 batteries which was way more than enough for a 7-10 day trip.

 

It's going on 4 years now and I've only had one minor problem. The T.V. interface no longer works. It was in warranty and then I got the news that probably will have me buying a different make next time. The ONLY center to repair MY camera is in BOSTON! Oh, and by the way, it will take 90 days. No thanks, I'll live with it.

[+Searching_ut]

The recommendation to do some research on DPReview, and steves digicams is a good one. There are a lot of good choices out there depending on your budget, and needs. Just remember, like computers, digital cameras loose their cash value quickly, and in about 3 years you'll probably find the new stuff so much better than what you bought today, you'll find you have to shell out for something else. Prior to doing the research, figure out what sized photos you think you might want to print, and what sort of subjects you’ll be photographing so you can make some wise choices on the pixel count required, and type of lens you’ll want on the camera.

 

One other thing to consider is the cost of additional items you'll need. For instance, when I bought the Drebel, it cost about $1,000 with one lens. To go with the camera, I needed some more lenses, a flash unit, some filters, wireless remote, bags to carry everything, memory cards, spare battery etc. That added up to over $2,000 additional dollars. Then of course I needed a card reader/battery powered cd burner for road trips. All the photos with their large file sizes resulted in my needing to upgrade my computer and shell out more money for the photoshopCS software I decided to get to make the most of my prints. I then got tired of taking the photos to Sams club for printing, so I ended up buying an Epson R800 to print them on, and of course to maximize results from it, I needed optical calibration hardware and software for my monitor etc. etc. All told, the $1000 camera ended up costing about $5,000. Of course you could probably make do with something simpler, but it’s kind of like hunting caches with a basic eTrex. Once you get started, it’s easy to get the bug for the toys…………

 

Good luck avoiding the stampedes during your search. Shopping after Thanksgiving is tougher than a 4/4 cache in my opinion.

[+Etrex Pirate]

I take a lot of pictures, many of them while geocaching so I will add my 2 cents.

 

First I have a Canon 300D 6.3 Mega Pixel Digital SLR. I have a few lenses and the stock one is best while geocaching.

I have had it for just over a year and have taken over 3600 pics with it.

 

I have had 3 other digital cameras including a Nikon 800 3 MP and a HP 1 MP.

 

I agree with others that have said to buy a camera from a company that builds cameras as their main product. They have more to invest than a company that also builds vaccum cleaners or washing machines.

 

The priority I would go by.

 

1. Lens.

Optical Zoom good Digital Zoom Bad

A good quality lens will make much more difference than any amount of mega pixels.

 

2. Mega Pixels

Although posting pictures on a website may require much less than your camera can create, you can always crop or reimage a picture down to fit it. With a lower mega pixel you are stuck with what you got.

With a higher mega pixel you have a choice of how much of the picture you want to present. You are also more likely to have a better lens and CCD with a higher mega pixel camera so you will get better fucus

and better colors while you are at it. I think of the old saying "You can't polish a terd"

 

3. Power type

Make sure the camera uses either a standard battery like AA or has a removeable rechargeable that you can easily purchase a second or third to charge when your current one is dead. Stay away from A camera that use a propietary battery.

 

4. Media Type

Compaq Flash or a Mico Drive is the most popular. CF is the most sturdy. You can have it in your pocket and not worry about damaging it. Micro Drive is simular to a CF but is an actual hard drive and can be damaged by aggressive handling.

SD is the second most popular but is limited in size and while thinner is less sturdy. There are many more types of removeabe media. All have there pros and cons. I only used the most common types.

 

The main differences I have noticed is that the better digital camera you have the better pictures you will get. I'm not saying that every picture will come out perfect but you will more likely to be satisfied than if you go cheap. I have retaken pictures with my latest camera and there is a major difference in quality between cameras. Whenever I am geoching I take about 3 pictures of every cache I come accross. I am going to get at least one that looks good. I then reimage/crop it and add it to my list of found caches.

[+Alan2]

When I was shopping for a digital camera, I considered ones with AA batteries to match my GPS but did not like the selection. So I went with a Canon S400 with 4 MEga pixel and 3x zoom that uses a Canon battery. (They now have the same size camera in 5 meg and 4x zoom). I can get 50-60 pictures or more inluding half with flash on a single battery charge. Although I have a spare battery that I take with me when I use the camera for business, I haven't needed it yet while caching. Unless you plan on taking more than 50-60 pictures in one day, you ought to be OK with cameras that have proprietary batteries.

 

Like some others have said, go for as many pixels as your budget allows. You'll need them when you finally decide to print them out. Also, the extra pixels allow you to crop more. while 2 Megs sounds good if you keep the whole picture, if you only want a quarter of it as you only want to print your kids face, you're now down to 500K, not enough for a decent print.

 

ANother reason I selected my camera is because its tiny yet provides superb pictures and comes with great software for transfering, filing, archiving, printing, editing, etc.

 

With Canon's leather case, I wear it on my belt. It's always there to use on a moments notice while caching (or any other time when I'm out and about)and doesn't weigh much. The larger units are nice and can have more features, but a pain on the trail. WHen I wouldn't take a larger unit, the small belt worn unit is always there.

 

Good luck

[+JohnnyVegas]

A word on memory sticks when purchasing a camera. You might want to consider what other devices you own that require a memory stick. When I bought my Camera, I made sure I bought one that used the same memory stick as my Meridian gold GPS (SD Card) When I bought my pocket PC, agian it uses an SD memory card, when I bought my MP3 player, again an SD memory card. I just makes sense to use the card, this way I always have an extra one.

[+clearpath]

... I'd get an Olympus Stylus 410, or a 400.

 

They're relatively weatherproof (part of the marketing), have a sliding lens guard, and are pretty tiny. You could easily slide one in your front pocket.

Last year I purchased the Olympus Stylus 400 because it is weatherproof. When I'm caching, canoeing, hiking or whatever, I no longer worry about the rain damaging my camera. Plus, this unit takes excellent pictures. The downside is it uses up battery power faster than I would like ...

[+Mopar]

Here's the $100 caching camera that's taken most of my gallery pics for the last year.

 

Fuji A205

 

About the only downsides to it is it's fairly weak flash (minor since most caching pics are outdoors in daylight), and it uses XD cards which are more expensive then the more common SD card, but even that isn't so bad since we have more then one camera that uses them. It's only 2 megapixels, but that's still way more then you can upload to geocaching.com, even after cropping.

 

On the plus side, I love the 2 stage power switch (keeps it from accidently turning on in my pack) and the fast access to macro mode for close ups of the cache and TB's.

[ubievol]

as someone stated, what you choose is based on your needs, expectations, and budget. you should consider whether you most desire the final product to be a print, or an image on your computer.

 

if you only take a couple hundred photos or less annually and/or mainly want prints, i would go with an olympus stylus epic for about $70 from bhphoto.com. this is a film camera. load it with fuji 800 speed film, and you will have a combo that can make great photos equivalent to about a *20* megapixel digital camera! but the biggest plus of this combo is its speed, meaning that you can take good photos in much lower light. digicams make their best images when set at about 100 speed, which is quite slower than 800 (requires more light, or use of flash). take your film to sam's club (or equivalent) for processing, and you will get a set of prints better than you can print yourself from digital PLUS they scan the film and upload the images to the www site so you can post on the www or email or whatever.

 

the oly stylus is small, rugged, and weatherproof, plus if you trash it you are only out $70. its f2.8 lens has quality equivalent to lenses costing several hundred dollars.

 

if you want the convenience of digital, i think the most bang for the buck is in the canon powershot Axx series (i think the current model may be the A90).

 

good luck with your choice!

[ThePup]

Get a camera with as many MegaPixels as you can afford

Valid, to a point. An 8 megapixel camera with a substandard lens is only ever going to produce substandard results. Pay very careful attention to the quality and make of the lens on the camera you buy. There's no point in have a high-res CCD if the lens is of poor quality.

Also remember that more pixels in the same sized CCD = More noise, especially in lower light levels. The Canon A80 and A95 both have the same size sensor - 1/1.8", the A80 is 4MP, the A95 5MP. The A80 is considered to be the better, and take better photos. (The A95 is still very good, I own one and love it)

 

"Megapixels" is sales speak, and a way for a salesman to sell you expensive junk. Also remember to look at Battery type / price (AA and proprietry Li-Ion batteries both have advantages and disadvantages), Memory type / price, shot to shot speed, noise reduction (some cameras have too much noise reduction, which results in a softer image, which some people don't like), JPG compression levels, RAW mode (if it intrests you)... Theres a LOT more to a camera than it's MP rating.

 

There's no point getting an 8MP camera, if you're only ever putting pics on the web, and printing 6x4 size photos, 3MP is plenty for that. 4MP will happily print an 8x10 shot.

 

Do some research on steves digicams (link already provided) and just google for "Digital camera reviews" for other sites to help out. Also look for photography forums and newsgroups. Basically, if you want a camera, go ask photography type people, who know what they are talking about. If you want a GPS, ask here

Edited November 26, 2004 by ThePup

[+GeoRoo]

It's easy to get caught up in the mega pixel game. More is not always better. You'll need to determine what your needs are with the camera. Price, size and intended use will narrow the choice down some. Read the reviews. Steves Digicam is an excellent site as is Digital Photograpy Review Olympus is always rated among the top cameras in both compact point and shoot through SLR type cameras. I'm on my 4th Olympus camera and get compliments on the quality of my photos all the time. My current 1.5 year old SLR type camera is the Olympus C-5050. Aurguably the most versatile digital camera to hit the market in the past 3 years. As Jeremy mentioned and others, Sony and other makers have propriatory batteries and cards. Read the reviews and opinions. My 5050 takes AA batteries, has card slots that will take 3 different type of storage cards. I have a 128 mb XD card and a secondary 256 mb CF card. Both cards are in the camera and can be easlily switched back and forth. This allows about 300 plus photos in high quality. The 5050 will handle a micro drive that could allow gigabyte storage and I see CF cards are up to 8 gb. Smaller cards are a bit more hassle to haul around, but something will go wrong eventually, so I like to minimize the losses if that should happen. I've taken over 20,000 pics with my 5050 and can say it's been bullet proof and as close to the perfect camera for all of my needs. I've used the Oly 400 and it's a excellent point and shoot pocket camera. I would suggest staying with one of the major players in digital cameras. Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Fuji and Pentax. Kodak has lagged some in the digital market, but have some new cameras that look excellent. The digital market is relatively new and like computers is rapidly advancing ever upward. Many buy what they think is the most fancy, up to date, best camera out there and then 6 months later another newer, fancier, better one comes out. I've been bitten by the update bug several times, but my 5050 won't be replaced any time soon. There are many excellent deals on used cameras on E-Bay, but you'll have to do your homework before hand. Check out the dig cam websites and go from there. Good luck.

[+Birdsong-n-Bud]

A "Physical" zoom, where the lens moves and brings the picture in closer or further away. Some also have a "Digital" zoom, where the camera will take the picture and change the image sensitivity to simulate the picture coming in closer. Some camera have both

 

While we have a camera, were I to buy another one given what I know about using one already, these are some of the features I'd seek:

 

* Get one that can handle close-ups well. Many can only take photos from 4 feet or further. That's good in many cases, but when you try to get a picture of that TB up close, it'll blur.

 

* small in size.

 

* water resistant if possible

 

* megapixels are only important if you want to end up printing the pictures. If it is something you'll only use for online purposes, this is an unnecessary feature that will just add to expense.

 

There was some discussion about making sure the software could convert to .jpg, .tiff, etc. That is also another feature that needn't come with the actual camera. We don't use our camera's editing program. We have Paint Shop, and use that. It does everything the camera software never dreamed of doing!

[+Bear_Left]

The most important requirement for a camera is for it to be there when you want it!

I have a small, cheap no-name 3megapixel camera that takes OK photos, but some of them have been much better than the lack-of-photo from my wife's fancier Sony!

 

One thing to consider: if what you're after is basically a camera for snaps of cache locations and events, and if you don't already have a PDA, consider a camera-equipped one to kill two birds with one stone.

 

Things like the Palm Zire72 have a 1.3megapixel camera, and the benefits of paperless caching have been oft-discussed here. Put it in a good hardcase and you've got yourself a good multi-purpose tool.

 

Not a state-of-the-art camera by any stretch, but since your PDA will become indispensable, you'll always have it with you!

[Team GeoHoy]

We have the Nikon Coolpix 4300

 

 

It's a great camera. We paid $350 for it.

[+leatherman]

The most important requirement for a camera is for it to be there when you want it!

This is the most important feature. Unless you're a pro photographer, size is what will make you take more pictures. For me shirt pocket sized is important.

A high end pro camera that is inconvenient to haul around and take out for snap-shot photos, most likely will not get used.

 

I currently use a Cannon s400. I gave up a Cannon s40 for the smaller lighter elph design of the s400. Not much of a difference, but enough for me to give up some menu features.

I went the same route with the camcorder I just bought. I got the Sony hc-40. It's darn near pocket sized. In fact it will fit just fine in my ski jacket.

[+joefrog]

A word on memory sticks when purchasing a camera. You might want to consider what other devices you own that require a memory stick. When I bought my Camera, I made sure I bought one that used the same memory stick as my Meridian gold GPS (SD Card) When I bought my pocket PC, agian it uses an SD memory card, when I bought my MP3 player, again an SD memory card. I just makes sense to use the card, this way I always have an extra one.

Very good point! In fact, that's one reason I got the Sony camera I have used for two+ years -- I can also use the memory sticks in my palmpilot (Sony clie).

 

And FWIW, I've never had a problem with Sony's memory sticks at all!

[+Katydid & Miles Stone]

Just wanted to say thanks for the tremendous response and advice from everyone, including the links. Wer'e definitely liking the Canon (just watching for a sale, now). Our regular camera is a Canon and it's proven itself very worthy. In addition to caching photos, it'll be fun to share pics of the kids online with friends. ~katydid

[+bradandangela.com]

I have a Canon Powershot G5 and really like it. It is a little bigger than some of the others though.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I find the "digital zoom" feature to be useless. If you need to "zoom in" on a portion of your picture, just use Photoshop or some other photo-editing program.

 

Optical zoom, on the other hand, is the most useful feature (after megapixels, of course). With optical zoom, you don't have to get closer to your subject, the lens does that for you. Using optical zoom to get closer to your subject doesn't "blur" the image like a digital zoom does.

 

Many cheap cameras have 3x optical zoom and 3x digital zoom. Some have one or the other. The more expensive ones ($400 and up) have 10x optical zoom and 3x digital.

[+bradandangela.com]

I hadn't really considered that but you have a point. I am usually able to crop my photos in Photoshop to center them better, etc. I have an 8x10 of my wife and I that I took myself and cropped and resized and our wedding photographer commented on it... She didn't realize it was from a digital camera and assumed it was a professional print. It is amazing how you can have a picture of you standing on a landscape and it looks like a landscape, then you can zoom in and crop and you have a beautiful portrait type picture. My photographer with all of her professional equipment couldn't even crop the pictures the way we wanted them when we looked at the proofs, and I will end up scanning them and cropping them myself when I get around to it.

 

Note to others... if you are gonna pay $500-1000 for wedding pictures don't settle on your photographer, do some shopping around first so that when you do get your pictures you feel like you have something better than what you could have done yourself.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

You can't beat the Canon Powershot A75 at 3.2 mps. It can be bought for less than 200 dollars. Best reviewed in the 3 to 4 megapixals range.

[Jeremy]

Note to others... if you are gonna pay $500-1000 for wedding pictures don't settle on your photographer, do some shopping around first so that when you do get your pictures you feel like you have something better than what you could have done yourself.

I know this is going dangerously off-topic but I would like to add that you should make sure to ask for the negatives as part of the agreement. Many photographers force you to to through them for extra prints.

[+Abby's Family]

I'd add my vote for the A75... Heres why

1) 3.2 megapizels is great if all you print is 4x6 most of the time anyway.

2) 4AA's mean long life, yet faster flash recharge than 2 AA

3) CF for storage.. slightly bigger, but the cheapest of the memories.. watch for 512MB at about $30 on the web

4) Great overall camera (I have the A70, and have had 5 people buy the a70 or a75 from my recomendation and love it.

5) SMALL size still (especially given the power & batteries)

 

As for those who say go higher megapixel - that means bigger filesizes and slower writing to disk... 3.2 is plenty for 99% of the people.

[+TrailGators]

I spent forever investigating digital cameras and decided to go with this:

 

 

This puppy has a 12X Optical zoom and has image stabilization.

That means it doesn't blurr the photos if you move!

It has 48X overall zoom with 5 megapixel resolution.

It is also very fast so it is great for action shots!!

 

Edit: I got 1GB SD memory card for it! I also forgot to mention that it has a decent price tag. You'd have to pay at least double to move up to an digital SLR.

Edited December 10, 2004 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

Here is a great digital camera review site!

[+welch]

I'd add my vote for the A75... Heres why

1) 3.2 megapizels is great if all you print is 4x6 most of the time anyway.

2) 4AA's mean long life, yet faster flash recharge than 2 AA

3) CF for storage.. slightly bigger, but the cheapest of the memories.. watch for 512MB at about $30 on the web

4) Great overall camera (I have the A70, and have had 5 people buy the a70 or a75 from my recomendation and love it.

5) SMALL size still (especially given the power & batteries)

 

As for those who say go higher megapixel - that means bigger filesizes and slower writing to disk... 3.2 is plenty for 99% of the people.

I was looking up the A70, and it says that it accepts type one or type two CF memory cards? what is the difference in type one and two anyways???