Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [HOn3] Digital Camera Recommendations

Expand Messages
  • Rick C Shoup
    I have a 2 meg Fugifilm w/3x optical and 2x digital zoom. Quite satifactory for me. I make 300kjpg pix. The smart card removal memory is 64 Megs. That is a lot
    Message 1 of 30 , Dec 1, 2002
      I have a 2 meg Fugifilm w/3x optical and 2x digital
      zoom. Quite satifactory for me. I make 300kjpg
      pix. The smart card removal memory is 64 Megs.
      That is a lot of pix.
      I bought it because the recharger for batteries was included in $180
      price.
      If you are shooting for Publication get at least a 3 meg
      camera. Today that is about $600. Look at Nikon
      as your 35 mm lenses fit.
      The best practical so far is the 6 meg Nikon and
      they can be had for under $2K. 6 meg is very good.
      Almost all commerical pubs will accept 3meg
      and love 6 meg images.
      I bought the Dazzle adapter for downloading into computer About $30 more
      I think.
      Instruction books are terrible.
      All new language
      and each mfg has his own.
      Bad as DCC instruction books.

      Regards, Rick Shoup


      On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:09:23 -0800 mike <arctech@...> writes:
      > What digital cameras have you guys found to be the best bang for the
      > buck?
      >
      > Any mfg./ models that are particularly good or bad?
      >
      > Mike
      >
      > HOn3 list web pages are:
      > http://www.railwayeng.com/hon3/
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/archive/Hon3/
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/files/HOn3/
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
    • Steffen
      Mike, depends on what you want to do with her, work with a Fuji Finepix 4900 for model photography detail (only 2,5 inches closest range) but will soon get me
      Message 2 of 30 , Dec 1, 2002
        Mike, depends on what you want to do with her, work with a Fuji
        Finepix 4900 for model photography detail (only 2,5 inches closest
        range) but will soon get me a Canon D 1 because I can use all my
        lenses with.



        Steffen


        --- In HOn3@y..., mike <arctech@y...> wrote:
        > What digital cameras have you guys found to be the best bang for the
        > buck?
        >
        > Any mfg./ models that are particularly good or bad?
        >
        > Mike
      • mike
        The specific recommendations are greatly appreciated. At present, I get my photos burned to a CD when they re processed. This gives me ~2Mb images which are
        Message 3 of 30 , Dec 1, 2002
          The specific recommendations are greatly appreciated.

          At present, I get my photos burned to a CD when they're processed.
          This gives me ~2Mb images which are adequate for everything I do.
          I'm looking to get a digicam with about the same capability.

          If any of you are thinking of upgrading to something newer, and would
          like to sell what you've got, then let me know off-list. I'd much
          rather buy from a listmember than play games on e-bay.

          Mike
        • Boone Morrison
          Mike: If you have not, I suggest you read Lane Stewart s article on digi cameras in the Nov/Dec Gazette, which is just out. Good information there. He and I
          Message 4 of 30 , Dec 1, 2002
            Mike:

            If you have not, I suggest you read Lane Stewart's article on digi
            cameras in the Nov/Dec Gazette,
            which is just out. Good information there.

            He and I shoot with the same camera, a Nikon 995. These are "old
            tech" now, but produce great images
            for our magazine uses, but I would not blow one up beyond 8 x10 or so.

            If I had the bucks I would get a Nikon D1H or D1X...excellent
            machines which will accept normal Nikon
            lenses (of which I have a bunch). Downside is the cost, well over $2000...

            So, the 995 it is for now. However, I would think that for most
            non-professional purposes this camera
            would please you.

            Aloha, Boone

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jon Bentz
            All: I would recommend the new Nikon D100. This is a 6.1 megapixel camera based on the N80. It accepts all Nikor lenses and is priced just under $2000. Canon
            Message 5 of 30 , Dec 1, 2002
              All:

              I would recommend the new Nikon D100. This is a 6.1 megapixel camera based
              on the N80. It accepts all Nikor lenses and is priced just under $2000.
              Canon has a comparable camera in the same price range.

              Jon Bentz

              > From: Boone Morrison <boone@...>
              > Reply-To: HOn3@yahoogroups.com
              > Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 07:04:19 -1000
              > To: HOn3@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [HOn3] Re: Digital Camera Recommendations
              >
              > Mike:
              >
              > If you have not, I suggest you read Lane Stewart's article on digi
              > cameras in the Nov/Dec Gazette,
              > which is just out. Good information there.
              >
              > He and I shoot with the same camera, a Nikon 995. These are "old
              > tech" now, but produce great images
              > for our magazine uses, but I would not blow one up beyond 8 x10 or so.
              >
              > If I had the bucks I would get a Nikon D1H or D1X...excellent
              > machines which will accept normal Nikon
              > lenses (of which I have a bunch). Downside is the cost, well over $2000...
              >
              > So, the 995 it is for now. However, I would think that for most
              > non-professional purposes this camera
              > would please you.
              >
              > Aloha, Boone
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              > HOn3 list web pages are:
              > http://www.railwayeng.com/hon3/
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/archive/Hon3/
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/files/HOn3/
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
              >
            • Mike Bauers
              ... I bought one that went out of production a few months ago. I m taking extreme close ups with it at a distance. Shots where you zoom in on the little HO
              Message 6 of 30 , Dec 1, 2002
                mike wrote:
                > What digital cameras have you guys found to be the best bang for the
                > buck?
                >
                > Any mfg./ models that are particularly good or bad?

                I bought one that went out of production a few months ago.

                I'm taking extreme close ups with it at a distance. Shots where you zoom
                in on the little HO girl peeking into the pet store window and the puppy
                is standing up on the glass. Taken from about 15 inches away and the HO
                girl gets cropped by the camera to only the top half. It takes a postage
                stamp sized shot to full frame from quite a few inches and can clearly
                focus on objects that are about 1/2 inch from the lens. It even takes
                polorizer lenses to kill glass reflections

                This is a Nikon 995. Use this link and print out the review specs as
                comparison to other cameras. You'll want most of the features it has.

                http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/C995/C9XA.HTM

                Go for close focus, ability to use filters, user control of speed and
                exposure. The only other critical factor is does it fit your hands. I
                found a lot of cameras that were too small for my medium sized hands. I
                expected to see my hands cramp up on some that were just too small to
                use for more than a brief periods. Extra batteries, extra chips or any
                make are always easy to come by.

                I think I bought a 256 chip for this camera and that lets me take 1000
                shots in the average size range.
                --
                regards,
                Mike Bauers
                Milwaukee, Wi, USA
              • Mike Conder
                I ve been using a Casio 2900UVX from work for about a year now, and think it s great. It focuses down to 1/2 in the macro mode, and has a swivel lens like
                Message 7 of 30 , Dec 1, 2002
                  I've been using a Casio 2900UVX from work for about a year now, and think it's great. It focuses down to 1/2" in the macro mode, and has a swivel lens like the Nikon 990/995. It's a 2.1 mp camera, which is good for 1/4 page magazine-quality photo. It was also only $300 last March.
                  With a 256 meg compact flash card, I can get somewhat over 1000 photos without downloading. Only two drawbacks: uses AA batteries, so I keep a spare set along with the rechargables (but also means I can get batteries anywhere); and only ha a screen viewer, which can be a problem when taking photos in the sun.
                  If I had the $$$, I'd get a Nikon 995. I use the Casio as a poor man's version of the Nikon.
                  Mike Conder
                  mike <arctech@...> wrote:What digital cameras have you guys found to be the best bang for the
                  buck?



                  ---------------------------------
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Mike Conder
                  BTW, Ebay has several on auction, mainly dealers selling off stock. Pricing looks like $300-350. Most list the sme information about the camera, including:
                  Message 8 of 30 , Dec 1, 2002
                    BTW, Ebay has several on auction, mainly dealers selling off stock. Pricing looks like $300-350. Most list the sme information about the camera, including:
                    The camera sports a 2.1 Megapixel CCD with 8x optical zoom and up to 32x digital zoom.
                    The QV-2900UX also sports a feature Casio calls "BestShot."
                    BestShot enables the user to select an icon that best defines the imaging situation
                    The camera then sets itself to one of 64 different aperture and shutter settings automatically.
                    The QV-2900UX also incorporates a Macro mode that enable user to focus up to 1cm away from the target; and "Interval" mode suitable for time-lapse photography; "Bulb" mode for shutter exposures up to 60 seconds; Aperture Priority AE/Shutter and Speed Priority AE/Manual Exposure Settings; complete manual control over settings like light metering, white balance, flash intensity, focus, exposure compensation, image quality; and much more.
                    The Casio QV-2900UX stores images on CompactFlash Type I and Type II media, and is also compatible with IBM Microdrives.
                    The camera is also equipped with a USB interface, has a swiveling lens and is tripod ready.
                    The QV-2900UX can record movies in AVI format (up to 16 seconds long), and stores images in JPEG or TIFF formats.
                    It also features a "panorama" mode that enable users to combine single images into a panoramic shot.
                    Meaures 4.7 by 3.2 by 2.6 inches

                    All this copied from one of the Ebay descriptions. It also fits well in my hand, easy to handle.
                    Mike Conder
                    Mike Conder <vulturenest1@...> wrote:I've been using a Casio 2900UVX from work for about a year now, and think it's great. ...


                    ---------------------------------
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • tcngrr
                    Hi Mike, I found this site helpful for me when I was looking for a good camera: http://www.steves-digicams.com/ I purchased a Nikon CoolPix 880 camera a couple
                    Message 9 of 30 , Dec 1, 2002
                      Hi Mike,

                      I found this site helpful for me when I was looking for a good
                      camera:

                      http://www.steves-digicams.com/

                      I purchased a Nikon CoolPix 880 camera a couple of years ago and
                      have been very happy with it. I would recommend 3 megapixels or
                      higher if you can afford it. Lower than 3 and the images look
                      grainy and less sharp. The review site above has actual images from
                      each of the cameras at a variety of resolutions. His reviews also
                      cover the menus and various settings available for each camera.

                      When you do buy, be prepared to purchase a larger memory card with
                      any of the cameras as one picture can fill the little card they give
                      you when set to the highest resolution. A 128MB or higher memory
                      card would be good, a 256MB would be better. Some of the Compact
                      flash formats (cf2 I think) can also use an IBM micro-drive which
                      may be a plus in the future if you are taking lots of pictures when
                      far from a computer to transfer them to. If travelling the Compact
                      Flash and Smart Media formats are beginning to be like film,
                      available anywhere.

                      Good Luck,

                      Kevin Welsh

                      --- In HOn3@y..., mike <arctech@y...> wrote:
                      > What digital cameras have you guys found to be the best bang for
                      the
                      > buck?
                      >
                      > Any mfg./ models that are particularly good or bad?
                      >
                      > Mike
                    • Steven Haworth
                      ... Having just arranged for purchase of a camera myself, you should know that the 995 isn t made anymore. It s successor is the Nikon Coolpix 4500 - 4
                      Message 10 of 30 , Dec 2, 2002
                        >This is a Nikon 995. Use this link and print out the review specs as
                        >comparison to other cameras. You'll want most of the features it has.
                        >

                        Having just arranged for purchase of a camera myself, you should know that the
                        995 isn't made anymore. It's successor is the Nikon Coolpix 4500 - 4 megapixel
                        and a few more features than the 995, plus some improvements.

                        There's a really good, full review at www.dpreview.com.



                        RGS pages: http://www.rgsrr.info

                        - Steven
                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Steven Haworth HO freelance of what the
                        Mac user RGS might've become.
                      • Mike Bauers
                        ... Well..... I did write that it went out of production a few months ago. As such the specs are still a good comparison list of wants for camera shopping.
                        Message 11 of 30 , Dec 2, 2002
                          Steven Haworth wrote:
                          >>This is a Nikon 995. Use this link and print out the review specs as
                          >>comparison to other cameras. You'll want most of the features it has.
                          >>
                          >
                          >
                          > Having just arranged for purchase of a camera myself, you should know that the
                          > 995 isn't made anymore. It's successor is the Nikon Coolpix 4500 - 4 megapixel
                          > and a few more features than the 995, plus some improvements.

                          Well..... I did write that it went out of production a few months ago.
                          As such the specs are still a good comparison list of wants for camera
                          shopping.

                          >
                          > There's a really good, full review at www.dpreview.com.


                          --
                          regards,
                          Mike Bauers
                          Milwaukee, Wi, USA
                        • Boone Morrison
                          Gang: Not to belabor this subject too much, but there are a couple of caveats with digital that folks need to know. First, any camera you buy today is already
                          Message 12 of 30 , Dec 2, 2002
                            Gang:

                            Not to belabor this subject too much, but there are a couple of
                            caveats with digital that folks
                            need to know.

                            First, any camera you buy today is already on it's way to
                            extinction...the field is
                            moving that fast. Though a given camera may be off the shelves and
                            no longer "current", there are
                            many potential sources where they can be found - ranging from small
                            camera shops who may have one
                            in stock, to e-Bay or the like....and, because they are "old models",
                            the price may be very favorable.

                            Second, as Lane Stewart has noted in his recent Gazette article
                            (Nov/Dec) any of the cameras capable of
                            doing what modelers want is NOT "simple"...in fact, he suggests that
                            you keep the manual with the camera,
                            since you will need it often! Very true...

                            Third, and perhaps most important - One downside is that these
                            cameras (until you get to those which
                            use standard lenses - Nikon D1-X is an example) you will not be able
                            to get to a lower f-stop than
                            perhaps 8 or 11. When working in close, the f-stop is the primary
                            tool for gaining good depth
                            of focus. With my Nikon 995 I can go to full manual mode - so I can
                            focus and also control the f-stop.
                            But, since the minimum stop is only f-8, this really does me no good
                            in getting good depth of focus...
                            it is not near small enough.

                            For comparison, my conventional Nikon camera with a 55mm Macro lens,
                            stops down to f-32....and that is where you achieve the good depth of
                            focus of which I speak.

                            The obvious, though costly, answer is to change to the Nikon D1-X,
                            which will accept that 55Macro lens and thus bring the small f-stop
                            into play again. But, with the D1-X at over $2000, you got to be
                            pretty
                            serious about photography to justify it.

                            Yes, I know there are those who will come forth with a host of
                            "fixes" for this, but if you cannot control the f-stop and get it
                            small enough, there is no "trick" that will help you, other than
                            moving back and
                            shooting an overview....

                            Aloha, Boone

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Paul Richardson
                            Last Spring I bought an Olympus C-4040 Digital camera, 4.3 Megapixels and it is great. Like most, the manuals are a little difficult but not a major problem.
                            Message 13 of 30 , Dec 2, 2002
                              Last Spring I bought an Olympus C-4040 Digital camera, 4.3 Megapixels and it is great. Like most, the manuals are a little difficult but not a major problem. It shoots great pictures and will print an 8x10 VERY clearly, makes short movies, and has a macro lens setting for close up photos.

                              Just my 2 cents worth...

                              --
                              Paul Richardson
                              Purgatory & Devil River Railroad
                              Garland, Texas

                              Ride the P&DR on the web at:

                              http://www.purgatoryanddevilriver.com

                              PLEASE REMEMBER TO SIGN THE GUEST BOOK

                              --
                            • Boone Morrison
                              ... Paul: Just for curiosity, what is the MINIMUM f-stop on that camera? That is the key to depth of focus working close, not the fact that it can focus
                              Message 14 of 30 , Dec 2, 2002
                                >Last Spring I bought an Olympus C-4040 Digital camera, 4.3
                                >Megapixels and it is great. Like most, the manuals are a little
                                >difficult but not a major problem. It shoots great pictures and will
                                >print an 8x10 VERY clearly, makes short movies, and has a macro lens
                                >setting for close up photos.
                                >
                                >Just my 2 cents worth...
                                >
                                >--
                                >Paul Richardson


                                Paul: Just for curiosity, what is the MINIMUM f-stop on that camera?
                                That is the key to depth of
                                focus working close, not the fact that it can "focus close"....most
                                of the time that means you can
                                point it at a flat surface and get it in focus when you are close,
                                but if you are working with a scene
                                that needs depth the f-stop problem will get you.

                                Aloha, Boone

















                                ><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2711418.4084139.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1706533813:HM/A=1327985/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870024;7586687;x?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01>
                                >
                                >
                                >HOn3 list web pages are:
                                ><http://www.railwayeng.com/hon3/>http://www.railwayeng.com/hon3/
                                ><http://groups.yahoo.com/archive/Hon3/>http://groups.yahoo.com/archive/Hon3/
                                ><http://groups.yahoo.com/files/HOn3/>http://groups.yahoo.com/files/HOn3/
                                >
                                >
                                >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                                ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • mike
                                There is one simple fix - shoot film with a camera with a macro lens and have the negative scanned during processing and burned to a CD. This gives a 2Mb
                                Message 15 of 30 , Dec 2, 2002
                                  There is one simple fix - shoot film with a camera with a macro lens and
                                  have the negative scanned during processing and burned to a CD. This
                                  gives a 2Mb image, which may or may not be acceptable resolution. For
                                  high quality close-up work I still use my film camera. A relativly
                                  inexpensive 2Mb image digicamera will meet most of my requirements for
                                  quick shots of normal subjects.
                                  Mike

                                  Boone Morrison wrote:
                                  > Yes, I know there are those who will come forth with a host of
                                  > "fixes" for this, but if you cannot control the f-stop and get it
                                  > small enough, there is no "trick" that will help you, other than
                                  > moving back and
                                  > shooting an overview....
                                  >
                                  > Aloha, Boone
                                • Boone Morrison
                                  ... Mike has a great point, with which I agree. Working in very close is still the purvey of the film cameras and the lens options they offer - only moving
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Dec 2, 2002
                                    >There is one simple fix - shoot film with a camera with a macro lens and
                                    >have the negative scanned during processing and burned to a CD. This
                                    >gives a 2Mb image, which may or may not be acceptable resolution. For
                                    >high quality close-up work I still use my film camera. A relativly
                                    >inexpensive 2Mb image digicamera will meet most of my requirements for
                                    >quick shots of normal subjects.
                                    >Mike
                                    >


                                    Mike has a great point, with which I agree. Working in very close
                                    is still the purvey of the film
                                    cameras and the lens options they offer - only moving to a digital
                                    which accepts standard lenses
                                    can cure this.

                                    So, as Mike has suggested, either have the conventional film scanned
                                    by the processor, or (if you
                                    need higher quality, or a TIFF file) have 4x6 prints made which you
                                    can then scan yourself with a
                                    normal desktop unit. For even better quality, have a large (8x10)
                                    print made and scan that at
                                    100%.

                                    As Lane Stewart reported, those of us shooting for the magazines
                                    these days are asked (though not
                                    required, yet...) to use digi as it is so easy for them and their
                                    printers. Most of the time the images
                                    are reproduced fairly small (4 x 6, 5 x 7) and that is no strain on a
                                    3 mp image if it is presented as
                                    an un-compressed TIFF file (JPEG is compressed and inherantly
                                    "lossy"). If, however, you are shooting for a cover, you should be
                                    aware that even with 3mp you will be at the limits of good
                                    reproduction.

                                    Face it, until one spends the bucks for a "real" professional quality
                                    digital camera (actually, only the
                                    body, the lenses are up to you) there will be inherant limits to what
                                    can be done with these units,
                                    so accept the limits as "part of the game" and work around them as you can.

                                    Or, find $2500....:-)

                                    Aloha, Boone

                                    PS Though not related to model photos (but definately to proto
                                    fotos) is the fact that all the digi
                                    cameras I have had contact with have a pronounce DELAY from the
                                    pressing of the shutter to the
                                    actual recording of an image....about 1/3 second with my Nikon 995.
                                    When shooting any sort of
                                    action, this truely sucks!!! Impossible to get good "snaps" of any
                                    sort of moving event or person...
                                    so, be aware of this one also. And, yes...the Nikon D1-X (and the
                                    Cannon as well) do make the
                                    "exposure" instantly, as we are used to with film cameras.

                                    Aloha, Boone












                                    ><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2711418.4084139.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1706533813:HM/A=1327985/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870024;7586687;x?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01>
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >HOn3 list web pages are:
                                    ><http://www.railwayeng.com/hon3/>http://www.railwayeng.com/hon3/
                                    ><http://groups.yahoo.com/archive/Hon3/>http://groups.yahoo.com/archive/Hon3/
                                    ><http://groups.yahoo.com/files/HOn3/>http://groups.yahoo.com/files/HOn3/
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                                    ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • mike
                                    ... What about the cameras like the Oly D380 with a QT movie capability? Would this allow one to get a series of images on a moving object? Mike
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Dec 2, 2002
                                      Boone Morrison wrote:
                                      > PS Though not related to model photos (but definately to proto
                                      > fotos) is the fact that all the digi
                                      > cameras I have had contact with have a pronounce DELAY from the
                                      > pressing of the shutter to the
                                      > actual recording of an image....about 1/3 second with my Nikon 995.
                                      > When shooting any sort of
                                      > action, this truely sucks!!! Impossible to get good "snaps" of any
                                      > sort of moving event or person...
                                      > so, be aware of this one also. And, yes...the Nikon D1-X (and the
                                      > Cannon as well) do make the
                                      > "exposure" instantly, as we are used to with film cameras.
                                      >
                                      > Aloha, Boone
                                      >

                                      What about the cameras like the Oly D380 with a QT 'movie' capability?
                                      Would this allow one to get a series of images on a moving object?

                                      Mike
                                    • Boone Morrison
                                      ... Mike: Not sure, but one might think it would help. Here is how I tested mine. I set up a stopwatch and focused the camera on it, then I started it
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Dec 2, 2002
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        >What about the cameras like the Oly D380 with a QT 'movie' capability?
                                        >Would this allow one to get a series of images on a moving object?
                                        >
                                        >Mike
                                        >

                                        Mike:

                                        Not sure, but one might think it would help. Here is how I tested
                                        mine. I set up a stopwatch and focused the camera on it, then I
                                        started it running and when the sweep hand hit zero I hit the shutter
                                        button...the image I recorded showed .33 second. To check for my
                                        reaction errors I did this about 10 times and the average remained
                                        about 1/3 second. On the Nikon 995 it does a "focus check" in auto
                                        mode, so I thought this was it. I switched to manual focus, but it
                                        continued to do the same thing. I guess it is inherant in all of
                                        these.

                                        Crude, perhaps, but it did give me some sort of quantification of
                                        what I thought was happening.
                                        Problem came up trying to shoot snaps of a new puppy for my
                                        Mrs...just could not "catch the moment" as I am used to with my film
                                        cameras....

                                        Certainly no big deal with a model that is not moving, but if you
                                        have made the pilgrimage to your
                                        favorite full size RR and want some action shots, it sure could mess you up.

                                        A friend, who shoots for a newspaper using Nikon D1 cameras, said he
                                        too noticed this on his personal Nikon 995 and checked it against the
                                        pro cameras - found the D1 has no delay at all, just
                                        like our conventional Nikons.

                                        Of course, individual cameras may not all have this problem (I have
                                        only tested a dozen or so),
                                        but it is an issue to watch for if you are critical about this aspect.

                                        Aloha, Boone










                                        >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                        >ADVERTISEMENT
                                        ><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2711418.4084139.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1706533813:HM/A=1328027/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870030;7586687;u?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01>
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >HOn3 list web pages are:
                                        ><http://www.railwayeng.com/hon3/>http://www.railwayeng.com/hon3/
                                        ><http://groups.yahoo.com/archive/Hon3/>http://groups.yahoo.com/archive/Hon3/
                                        ><http://groups.yahoo.com/files/HOn3/>http://groups.yahoo.com/files/HOn3/
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                                        ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Jerry Clark
                                        ... Some of us are anxiously awaiting its arrival :-) ... With Mike Bauers and I, that makes four. Boone is correct re: old tech , at least as far as
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Dec 2, 2002
                                          Boone wrote:

                                          >
                                          >If you have not, I suggest you read Lane Stewart's article on digi
                                          >cameras in the Nov/Dec Gazette,
                                          >which is just out. Good information there.

                                          Some of us are anxiously awaiting its arrival :-)

                                          >He and I shoot with the same camera, a Nikon 995. These are "old
                                          >tech" now, but produce great images
                                          >for our magazine uses, but I would not blow one up beyond 8 x10 or so.

                                          With Mike Bauers and I, that makes four. Boone is correct re: "old
                                          tech", at least as far as resolution, but the 995 has awesome macro
                                          capability and plenty of other features to keep you occupied. You can't
                                          go wrong with a 995.

                                          >
                                          >If I had the bucks I would get a Nikon D1H or D1X...excellent
                                          >machines which will accept normal Nikon
                                          >lenses (of which I have a bunch). Downside is the cost, well
                                          >over $2000...
                                          >
                                          >So, the 995 it is for now. However, I would think that for most
                                          >non-professional purposes this camera
                                          >would please you.

                                          Good advice Boone.

                                          Jerry Clark
                                        • Boone Morrison
                                          Jerry has written regarding my post- ... Yea, I forget that authors get advance copies. I guess the regular subscription issues are just beginning to arrive
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Dec 2, 2002
                                            Jerry has written regarding my post-

                                            >Boone wrote:
                                            >
                                            >>
                                            >>If you have not, I suggest you read Lane Stewart's article on digi
                                            >>cameras in the Nov/Dec Gazette,
                                            >>which is just out. Good information there.
                                            >
                                            >Some of us are anxiously awaiting its arrival :-)


                                            Yea, I forget that authors get advance copies. I guess the regular
                                            subscription issues are just
                                            beginning to arrive now.

                                            >
                                            >>He and I shoot with the same camera, a Nikon 995. These are "old
                                            >>tech" now, but produce great images
                                            >>for our magazine uses, but I would not blow one up beyond 8 x10 or so.
                                            >
                                            >With Mike Bauers and I, that makes four. Boone is correct re: "old
                                            >tech", at least as far as resolution, but the 995 has awesome macro
                                            >capability and plenty of other features to keep you occupied. You can't
                                            >go wrong with a 995.


                                            Agree, but I think you need the caveat, "for the money"... I have
                                            not even looked at the replacement
                                            for the 995, but I bet it has better features and such....

                                            I have done tests of the resolution ("image quality") and find it
                                            "acceptable" (but, I am picky as
                                            heck on this subject) for outputs of about 8 x 10, printed at 600 dpi
                                            on my little Epson 880 printer.
                                            I suppose a better printer might bring an incremental improvement,
                                            but since I only shoot the digi
                                            for the magazines I don't care about the quality I can print here.
                                            Remember, though, that you will
                                            get the best quality with the highest settings on the 995...the high
                                            resolution TIFF is the best, but
                                            you only get 82 or so shots on a 128mb card....certainly no problem
                                            if you are near a computer and can dump off occasionally (or if you
                                            have two cards, which I do)...

                                            You can vastly increase the number of shots by reducing the quality,
                                            but to my mind that is worthless
                                            since you can't use them for much as JPEGs with compression.

                                            Remember, I am used to shooting 35mm on Kodachrome or Fujichrome
                                            Velvia and viewing it by
                                            projecting it at about 18 x 24 on a screen to judge if it is "a good
                                            shot"....no way a digital that I can
                                            afford will compete with this.

                                            So, in the end any "important" work is still done on conventional
                                            films with one or another professional level camera (Nikons, Pentax
                                            6x7, Hasselblad, 4x5 view) and the digital reserved for
                                            stuff like the "in progress" shots of models on the bench and the like.

                                            Aloha, Boone (the Old School photog...)





















                                            ><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2711418.4084139.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1706533813:HM/A=1327986/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870027;7586687;a?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01>
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >HOn3 list web pages are:
                                            ><http://www.railwayeng.com/hon3/>http://www.railwayeng.com/hon3/
                                            ><http://groups.yahoo.com/archive/Hon3/>http://groups.yahoo.com/archive/Hon3/
                                            ><http://groups.yahoo.com/files/HOn3/>http://groups.yahoo.com/files/HOn3/
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                                            ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • David Chandler
                                            Boone, I have a Canon D60 and have not noticed any delay. Was that the exeption that you mentioned? Dave Chandler
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Dec 2, 2002
                                              Boone,
                                              I have a Canon D60 and have not noticed any delay. Was that the exeption
                                              that you mentioned?

                                              Dave Chandler
                                            • Boone Morrison
                                              ... Dave: Not sure of the model, but Cannon does offer a parallel competitive model to the Nikon D1-X series...these are the models which use standard 35mm
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Dec 2, 2002
                                                >Boone,
                                                >I have a Canon D60 and have not noticed any delay. Was that the exeption
                                                >that you mentioned?
                                                >
                                                >Dave Chandler


                                                Dave: Not sure of the model, but Cannon does offer a parallel
                                                competitive model to the Nikon
                                                D1-X series...these are the models which use standard 35mm lenses
                                                normally fitted to the conventional film cameras sold by the same
                                                mfr. If this is the model you have, it may not
                                                show the delay, but I have not messed with the Cannon "professional"
                                                units, so I cannot say for
                                                sure....my only experience has been with the Nikons.

                                                Aloha, Boone

                                                >











                                                ><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2711418.4084139.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1706533813:HM/A=1327985/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870024;7586687;x?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01>
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >HOn3 list web pages are:
                                                ><http://www.railwayeng.com/hon3/>http://www.railwayeng.com/hon3/
                                                ><http://groups.yahoo.com/archive/Hon3/>http://groups.yahoo.com/archive/Hon3/
                                                ><http://groups.yahoo.com/files/HOn3/>http://groups.yahoo.com/files/HOn3/
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                                                ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • railwayeng
                                                ... I accidentally left the flash feature engaged on my camera and discovered the delay. I pressed the shutter and then picked up the camera when the flash
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Dec 2, 2002
                                                  > >I have a Canon D60 and have not noticed any delay.

                                                  I accidentally left the "flash" feature engaged on my camera
                                                  and discovered the delay.
                                                  I pressed the shutter and then picked up the camera when the
                                                  flash went off. I thought something was wrong but on further
                                                  tests, the actual picture taking did in fact occurr a bit
                                                  after the depresion of the shutter button.

                                                  It sure explained all the jiggly messed up pictures I had
                                                  taken. Takes a bit of getting used to.
                                                  -Stephen Hatch
                                                • mike
                                                  Thanks for all the valuable input on digital cameras. The Olympus D380 appears to meet all my needs for a digicam. I intend to keep the OM-10 with all its
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Dec 3, 2002
                                                    Thanks for all the valuable input on digital cameras. The Olympus D380
                                                    appears to meet all my needs for a digicam. I intend to keep the OM-10
                                                    with all its various accessories for serious close up or long range
                                                    telephoto work, so I'm not looking for a digital replacement.

                                                    If anyone has experience with the D380 or would care to comment on the
                                                    features, the input will be appreciated.

                                                    http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_product.asp?p=16&bc=1&product=856&fl=2

                                                    I do intend to use it for WP&YR prototype and HOn3 scale trains, which
                                                    was the reason for the initial post to this list. I'm working towards a
                                                    digital image roster of existing WP&YR equipment.
                                                    However, if anyone thinks this is too far off topic please reply
                                                    off-list.

                                                    Mike
                                                  • Boone Morrison
                                                    ... Steve: Yep, that sure is a factor. However, I think that auto-exposure, and perhaps even auto- white balance are involved. I tried shutting off all of
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Dec 3, 2002
                                                      > > >I have a Canon D60 and have not noticed any delay.
                                                      >
                                                      >I accidentally left the "flash" feature engaged on my camera
                                                      >and discovered the delay.
                                                      >I pressed the shutter and then picked up the camera when the
                                                      >flash went off. I thought something was wrong but on further
                                                      >tests, the actual picture taking did in fact occurr a bit
                                                      >after the depresion of the shutter button.

                                                      Steve: Yep, that sure is a factor. However, I think that
                                                      auto-exposure, and perhaps even auto-
                                                      white balance are involved. I tried shutting off all of those
                                                      features, but there is still a delay.

                                                      I guess this is just a "feature" of the lower cost digi
                                                      cameras.....how great! :-(

                                                      Anyway, just be sure neither the camera or subject are moving and you
                                                      are all set. Gee,
                                                      as I think of it that is about the way the Old Boys had to work with
                                                      their huge view cameras...

                                                      Did we really advance the tech here, or actually slide backwards a bit? :-)

                                                      Aloha, Boone











                                                      ><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234081.2711418.4084139.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1706533813:HM/A=1328027/R=0/*http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;4870030;7586687;u?http://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/welcome.html?ad=Yahoo01>
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >HOn3 list web pages are:
                                                      ><http://www.railwayeng.com/hon3/>http://www.railwayeng.com/hon3/
                                                      ><http://groups.yahoo.com/archive/Hon3/>http://groups.yahoo.com/archive/Hon3/
                                                      ><http://groups.yahoo.com/files/HOn3/>http://groups.yahoo.com/files/HOn3/
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                                                      ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    • Payne,Brett
                                                      I have read the feedback from Boone, Mike and all the others. I have to admit that I went with the cheap and simple option of a Kodak DX 3600 model. This is
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , Dec 3, 2002
                                                        I have read the feedback from Boone, Mike and all the others. I have to
                                                        admit that I went with the cheap and simple option of a Kodak DX 3600 model.
                                                        This is fully automatic, 2M pixels, 2 x optical zoom and 6 x digital zoom.
                                                        I have a 64MB compact flashcard and planning to buy a second flash card
                                                        soon.

                                                        Delay
                                                        =====
                                                        It has the infamous 1/3rd of a second delay as mention by Boone Morrison. I
                                                        first discovered this in Bangkok when I realised I was getting photo's of my
                                                        feet! Then a few weeks later at Sea World when I took a lot of photo's of
                                                        were the dolphins had been. By the end of that day I was framing my photo's
                                                        (getting click happy) and starting to get some good action shots.

                                                        In October we visited Puffing Billy in Victoria, Australia and I got a lot
                                                        of great shots (some action) but we are talking o the sedate narrow gauge
                                                        pace of life here and not the high speed of mainline steam.

                                                        The policy of framing multiple pictures works okay but it is alien to
                                                        someone who was used to 36 shots on a slide film.

                                                        Close up work
                                                        =============
                                                        The DX3600 has a macro setting which I am getting used to. I have a few good
                                                        shots taken on a friends layout where the results are really well detailed
                                                        and pop out at you. I have two examples in mind. First was a photo of a
                                                        detailed steam crane which I took with the camera sitting on the layout and
                                                        no flash it had ample depth of field for me and the details of the gearing
                                                        etc burned in quite well. Probably not the detail and depth of a manual
                                                        exposure but good enough.

                                                        Second photo was of a FT model in 3/4 view. I took several and the one that
                                                        worked best was a macro shot with "fill" flash. My problem here was that I
                                                        had to hold the camera so flash was needed to overcome shaky hands. But
                                                        again good enough.


                                                        Image quality
                                                        =============
                                                        I have to admit that I am viewing my photo's largely on my 17" computer
                                                        monitor. At full size they more than fill the screen. I have an HP office
                                                        jet printer and must buy some photo glossy paper to see what the output
                                                        quality is like.... A timely reminder I had the other day was when I loaded
                                                        some photos down off the web that were of the Chama Coaling Tower. On screen
                                                        they fill 2/3rds of the screen and seem to show good detail for modelling
                                                        the tower. But on paper they come out at about 2cm square and I need a
                                                        magnifying glass.

                                                        When I bought a simple point and click camera it had a lot to do with
                                                        available budget (while raising a family and hopefully building a new
                                                        house). And alongside that understanding what I will use the camera for. I
                                                        do not plan to become a major author and I have friends with higher tech
                                                        camera's who would love to help in the event of a magazine article coming
                                                        forth.

                                                        I have taken and shared a few shots I am really proud of. The resolution
                                                        needed for internet sharing is well below 2M pixels.


                                                        Flash memory card capacity
                                                        ==========================
                                                        Lesson one is that you will need at least one of these cards (whichever type
                                                        is appropriate for your camera). A 64MB card is good for almost 100 high res
                                                        shots at 2M pixels on the Kodak camera. This was almost enough capacity for
                                                        a 10 day family holiday including a day out on Puffing Billy.

                                                        Allowing for the frailty of electronics I would be inclined to buy two
                                                        smaller cards rather than one large card. If something goes wrong you will
                                                        not loose everything.


                                                        Good enough
                                                        ===========
                                                        In the end I bought a camera I expect to use extensively. It takes good
                                                        enough photo's. It slipped into the family budget without too much hassle
                                                        from my wife. It fits comfortably into my hands and pocket.

                                                        I would like a 6 mega pixel Nikon, but then I would also like a Porsche and
                                                        a 50 x 100 foot layout room...

                                                        Regards
                                                        Brett
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.