Digicams

[Trough Lolly]

I want to upgrade digital cameras from my old 2.1mp Polaroid sh*tbox...

got a brochure today and they have a Kodak Z700 for $199.

details here: http://www.digitalcams.com.au/ProductDetai...tem_id=3KOD0701

would this be a good camera for taking to car shows and stuff like that? im not after the best camera in the world.. just a good everyday camera that does great shots at day AND night as my current digicam SUCKS at night time stuff and doesnt give good background detail such as branches and leaves on tree's in the back of the shots.

whatchu think?

[oldraven]

4.0 effective Mp isn't too shabby. If you're looking for a decent point and shoot, this should be plenty for you. 5X optical zoom isn't the best I've heard, but it's above average for this price. Ignore digital zoom stats. Digital zoom is complete crap, and will give you aweful images.

If you plan to print these images at a photo lab (super easy these days) be advised that anything under 6.0Mp will leave you with grainy prints, every time. I can't tell you exactly why that is, but with my 3.2 Minolta this happened quite a bit, even on the highest resolution. I had this confirmed by the camera tech guy when I got my new one.

Unless you dabble in photography, this camera should be plenty for you. And $190 is good for a 4.0. I got our 3.2 for more than double that a year and a half ago.

[citric acid xr6t]

One of the most anoying things with a digital camera is the delay from when you fire the shutter to when it all actually happens. My recommendation would be to buy a camera which has the least delay possible. To test this go to your local camera shop get your hands on your selection and test this.

I went for an olympus C770, I think superceded now, not the best in the delay department but the 10x optical zoom, excellent quality lens and its compact size for the features attracted me.

Another trap people fall into is the chasing of mp thinking the higher the mp the better the quality of the picture, not so. The most important thing affecting the quality of the picture is the quality of the lens.

If you are looking for reviews of your selection check here:

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

[oldraven]

  citric acid xr6t said:

One of the most anoying things with a digital camera is the delay from when you fire the shutter to when it all actually happens. My recommendation would be to buy a camera which has the least delay possible. To test this go to your local camera shop get your hands on your selection and test this. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, that's kind of a misconception. The truth is, most cameras are point and shoot, and it needs to focus and meter light before the snapshot can be taken. If you get a digital SLR, where you have manually made these adjustments, the picture is taken isntantly. And with both, when in auto, the shutter button usually is a two stage. If you hold the button down half way, it will make the adjustments for you, and when you're ready to take the pic, now depress the button all the way. This again is usually instant. If you have red-eye reduction on, there will always be a delay as well.

But for sudden action shots, when you don't really have time to do this, you're absolutely right. In this case, the one that can set itself quickest is best.

  Quote

Another trap people fall into is the chasing of mp thinking the higher the mp the better the quality of the picture, not so. The most important thing affecting the quality of the picture is the quality of the lens.

If you are looking for reviews of your selection check here:

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

Exactly. Lens gives quality of colour, light, etc. All higher Mp's give you is higher resolution. But if you have a low resolution image, the best lens in the world won't help you at the printer.

Time for a new thread, so I don't derail this one.

[oldraven]

This is another good site for refference.

http://www.dcviews.com/cameras.htm

http://www.dcviews.com/_kodak/z700.htm

[Honest Gaza]

  oldraven said:

If you plan to print these images at a photo lab (super easy these days) be advised that anything under 6.0Mp will leave you with grainy prints, every time. I can't tell you exactly why that is, but with my 3.2 Minolta this happened quite a bit, even on the highest resolution. I had this confirmed by the camera tech guy when I got my new one.

Oldraven....don't take this too personally...but your comment on anything less than 6.0MP....in my humble opinion, is ABSOLUTE CRAP

[benmwhite]

yep - back in the days when 2.1MegaPixel cameras were considered top stuff - we were printing them up with no grain at all...

It all comes down to lens quality - good glass will give you clean images. Sure if you set gain too high youll also pull grain... nasty - keep the cam set at ISO100 speed - not auto to get around this

I carry a Casio ExZ750 7.2mp 3x optical in the car all the time. 640x480 video is pretty handy too and with a 2Gig SD card I get 2 hours of good quality video or hundreds of images. Zoom is crap but that's what I have the 6Mp Minolta 7D and the serious glass for....

I find www.dpreview.com a bloody good site with quality reviews...

Have been shooting professionally for 12 years now, if anyone has any specific q's, feel free to PM me

[NT TURBO]

  Honest Gaza said:

  oldraven said:

If you plan to print these images at a photo lab (super easy these days) be advised that anything under 6.0Mp will leave you with grainy prints, every time. I can't tell you exactly why that is, but with my 3.2 Minolta this happened quite a bit, even on the highest resolution. I had this confirmed by the camera tech guy when I got my new one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oldraven....don't take this too personally...but your comment on anything less than 6.0MP....in my humble opinion, is ABSOLUTE CRAP

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have to agree Gaza, my 4 meg cannon S45 has never produced grainy images

[Trough Lolly]

there was a picture printed and framed at my local harvey normal, this thing was taken with a 3.2mp NIKON camera and I sh*t u not the print would have been 1 metre long by 65cm high!!! it was HUGE and clear as can get!! I couldnt believe it was taken with a 3,2mp camera.

anyways thanks for the answers guys. some good links too. thanks!

[nang3]

ive printed A3 with a 3.2mp Canon and it was fine, sure it wont win any awards but for around the house/office whatever they look fine !!

if you only wanna spend around 200 what about the canon A410?? ive never had probs with Canon