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

Re: [HOn3] Digital Camera Recommendations

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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.