|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Camera Purchase Advice (Reply to this comment)
by Howard_Creech,  in Electronics
answered via private e-mail
|
Feb 27 '08
12:04 am PST
|
|
Camera Purchase Advice (Reply to this comment)
by myfavgame
Howard, I have read through your review but am still struggling to make a concise choice. Here is what I am looking for:
-Canon with about 8 megapixels
-capable of taking great pics of small children and birds
-movie mode not essential, but would be nice
-great outdoor shots
I am Scottish-born and am returning to Scotland soon for a visit with my family. I don't really want to look like a tourist, but I don't want to sell myself short on a great camera either.
I have been looking at the Rebel XTi and the 'A' series (although, admittedly, I can't see a good one in that range) and have also looked briefly at the G9.
Any advice would be very welcomed!
|
Feb 24 '08
11:12 pm PST
|
|
Thanks,... (Reply to this comment)
by popsrocks
....I needed that.
Phil
|
Feb 06 '07
11:50 pm PST
|
|
Awesome! (Reply to this comment)
by inspectortb
Wow...this is an incredible guide to digital photography. I wish I had found it before I bought my first digital camera last spring (but I'll bookmark it for sure, so that I don't make the same mistakes next time)! :-) Thanks.
|
Sep 25 '06
10:28 am PDT
|
|
This IS THE STANDARD (Reply to this comment)
by colonialpara,  in Electronics
that people contemplating their first digital purchase should go by BEFORE making their final selections.
Howard, even though I knew I was buying a D200, I re-read this review.
Somehow, we should figure a way to keep moving this review to the top of your list..... :)
Great job!
Paul
|
Mar 28 '06
1:46 pm PST
|
|
Thank you, thank you, thank you. (Reply to this comment)
by gonow
Very helpful for navigating this huge world for the first time.
|
Mar 20 '06
5:55 am PST
|
|
Junk is Junk (Reply to this comment)
by glen22
"Yes, there was a spate of mechanical failures when they first converted to plastic gears and some lower quality materials for construction, but they managed to get through that and I believe, now, they are very durable considering their low cost."
Have you actually dismantled a digicam and LOOKED at the internal parts? There's no improvement here. The same plastic parts are still there, and STILL breaking. This problem has been compounded by more fragile and sensitive electronics. Visit any camera board that caters to folks with broken digicams and read the sad stories.
One can break many digicams simply by accidentally turning the zoom extension on while the camera is sitting face down on a countertop!! Add to broken zoom advance the oft-reported autofocus module problems, dead pixels, dead sensors, bad circuit boards, moisture problems causing shorts and killing integrated circuits, processors and sensors (even high humidity can kill them). For Canon fans there's also the E18 error. Many digicams that do last awhile curiously seem to last just past the warranty period, 15 months or so.
A personal anecdote has a value of 'one'. What I'm talking about is the reality of thousands of people who have been going through one digital cameras every two years or so. The problem has been masked for awhile since people have been upgrading so frequently, but nowadays it's impossible to ignore. I don't see how anyone can seriously argue the durability of these things given the short life and huge increase in malfunction complaints.
|
Dec 31 '05
9:07 am PST
|
|
Re: More Money, Shorter life.. (Reply to this comment)
by tennis_player, in Electronics
On the contrary, I think the value and reliability of the current P&S cameras in both film and digicam versions has been outstanding. Yes, there was a spate of mechanical failures when they first converted to plastic gears and some lower quality materials for construction, but they managed to get through that and I believe, now, they are very durable considering their low cost.
I've dropped my APS Canon Elph many times during vacation travel and even knocked it around a bit at home but it has never stopped working. One time, someone knocked it off a high counter at the health club onto carpeted floor without its carry case and I thought surely that it was broken - nope, like a Timex ad, it just kept on working.
My sons have traveled extensively with my first real digicam, a Canon A40. He's been all over South America and parts of Europe in the last 3 years and never had anything but a battery failure. If you look at all the nicks and dents in the camera housing, you'd think it had been used by a someone covering a war! But, he's young, active and adventurous.
I like Canons and have advised friends and family to buy them when they ask. None have been unhappy with their purchases. A very good friend has dropped his Canon SD200 a number of times out of his jacket pocket onto concrete or hard flooring and it still works.
I've had Pentax P&S with the same kind of success.
Frankly, I'm amazed that they do continue to work after suffering physical shock and abuse!
Jim
|
Nov 16 '05
10:18 am PST
|
|
More Money, Shorter life.. (Reply to this comment)
by glen22
Well Howard, maybe this is the 'new normal'- very expensive cameras that only last a few months..
I firmly believe the late 1990's were actually the beginning of the truly poorly made cameras, - with the infamous consumer 35mm autofocus P&S. With this product, the stage was set for shortlived consumer cameras that sometimes can't even outlive their warranty period. The plastic zoom gears and poorly soldered PCB is the hallmark of minimalist engineering found on modern digicams.
I still think there's a need on epinions to warn people of the fragility and poor construction of modern digital cameras. If nothing else, perhaps it will reduce the pendulum tendency of many of the reviews today:
(NEW) "I just got my (insert camera name) and it ROCKS!!) It is perfect!"
vs.
(6 mos. later)"I will never buy a #%$^$!@ brand camera again, it keeps breaking!!"
|
Nov 15 '05
3:30 pm PST
|
|
Re: Lens Information (Reply to this comment)
by Howard_Creech, in Electronics
Don, I'm sorry I missed your question (epinions comment alerts aren't always dependable).
The Canon 18-55 is a good general purpose lens, but it wouldn't be adequate for shooting sporting events (not enough reach). If you're considering the Rebel XT the 18-55 kit lens is a good deal (especially if you combine it with a 70-200) I don't like super zooms (like 28-200) because they are heavy, slow, complex (lens faults are magnified exponentially as complexity increases), and if that isn't enough they produce lower contrast and softer resolution and less accurate color than simpler (shorter) zooms.
You said, "can an 8 megapixel camera really capture fast action with no distortion, especially if the lighting is not daylight or bright?"
Distortion (pincushion, barrel, chromatic aberration, etc) is a property of camera optics, not the 6-8 megapixel sensors in dSLRs (which have trouble with low light, image/pattern noise, and sometimes inaccurate color).
Howard
|
Nov 14 '05
12:03 am PST
|
|
Re: Digital? Like carrying around a TV set.. (Reply to this comment)
by Howard_Creech, in Electronics
Hi glen22,
As a photographer for more than thirty years I've owned and used hundreds of cameras (film and digital). When I started shooting in the 70's cameras were mostly mechanical (with few or no electronic components). I still have a Mamiya 1000 DTL (circa 1969) 35mm SLR, that works perfectly (even the match needle light meter is still functioning).
When the first generation of auto exposure cameras were introduced in the late 70's -- many photographers said the same things (about auto exposure cameras) you are saying now (about digital cameras). But consumers then were more interested in new technology, convenience, and immediate gratification than they were in durability. It is not much different today, the reality is that digital cameras are here to stay -- consumers really like them.
The best consumers and photographers can do is to demand more comprehensive warranties (Sony and several other major manufacturers only offer 90 day full warranties) and insist that manufacturers build better longer lasting cameras.
Howard
|
Nov 13 '05
11:43 pm PST
|
|
Digital? Like carrying around a TV set.. (Reply to this comment)
by glen22
Durability? Reliability? Service life? I was disappointed to see no coverage of the very common malfunction issues with digital cameras including DSLRS, not to mention a discussion of repair centers and complaints with a huge rise in warranty returns.
Does anyone ever visit a repair tech to see how these things are made? No moisture protection, superthin circuit boards, and plastic operating mechanisms (especially cheap zoom advance mechanisms) are not going to make for a long lasting camera. Just high humidity invading the sensor has destroyed some digicams. A slight bang against a car door destroyed my brother's new, expensive digicam. A lady who tripped in her bedroom rapped her Nikon DSLR against the bedpost - result - a dead camera. It's like carrying your TV set out-of-doors with you.
My last film camera lasted 25 years, is 6 months all that digital users are willing to settle for? If not, perhaps it's finally time to seriously examine the malfunction rate of these cameras and why it happens so frequently.
|
Nov 13 '05
9:24 am PST
|
|
Lens Information (Reply to this comment)
by tennisfan
Would like to see info on digital SLR lenses,
in particular for the Canon Rebel XT. For the
medium level shooter (I do tennis), is an 18x55mm
lens OK, or would a 28x200 lens offer more variety without having to change lenses? Also,
can an 8 megapixel camera really capture fast action with no distortion, especially if the lighting is not daylight or bright? Thanks Don
|
Aug 28 '05
12:47 pm PDT
|
|
Thanks! (Reply to this comment)
by aloham8
I really enjoy reading your camera reviews, both for the expertise on technology and usage, and the "real life" adventures when you take said cameras out for a spin... It's a double-bang for my research and reading enjoyment. Keep up the great work, your help is greatly appreciated!
|
Aug 23 '05
1:32 pm PDT
|
|
great information (Reply to this comment)
by underpants1
poor timing on my part. Could have used this about 6 months ago!! will look forward to more of your reviews!
|
Jan 17 '05
9:29 pm PST
|
|
A service to all . . . . . . (Reply to this comment)
by tennis_player, in Electronics
Howard,
This is excellent and I truly commend you for updating it. I think that is one problem within Epinions - much becomes obsolete as life and technology moves forward and the economics change to make for a different value for many of the products reviewed.
You do us all a big service by updating this!
Thank you for your valuable input!
Jim
|
Jan 02 '05
11:45 am PST
|
|
Thank you for the common sense intro to digitals (Reply to this comment)
by heloflyer
Howard,
Your overview was exactly what I needed to help me in my decision to go digital. I am looking at a Canon A75 after using an old Minolta SLR that took some excellent close up shots.
If I am understanding you correctly,without a digital SLR, I should NOT expect to get good closeups with fuzzy background using lower FStop settings. It makes sense that giving up that larger lens has some drawbacks.
At the same time, the capability of a good digital makes it more attractive than picking up a Nikon N65 in the same price range. I need to get with the program sooner or later.
Thank you for the great overview!
|
Dec 18 '04
11:28 pm PST
|
|
Re: WOW... (Reply to this comment)
by mommykd
That goes for me, too!
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!
Lisa
|
May 26 '04
11:18 am PDT
|
|
WOW... (Reply to this comment)
by wifeofvolsfan
I can't thank you enough for writing this. I have been wanting to get a digital camera and I didn't know where to start. It has been so overwhelming for me. I came to Epinions to look at some of your digital camera reviews and I came across this essay. It is a God send!
Your huge amount of knowledge never ceases to amaze me. I appreciate that you write in a way that I can understand and are always so complete in your reviews. I have printed this out and will be re-reading it over and over I'm sure.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to write all of this. I can't tell you how much it will help me in my digital camera search.
My Best,
Wendy :-)
|
May 23 '04
8:23 pm PDT
|
|
Re: STILL CRAZY, AFTER ALL THESE YEARS! (Reply to this comment)
by Howard_Creech, in Electronics
Thank you for your kind comments, I'm pleased you found my review helpful. I've been updating this review fairly regularly for almost four years now(the most recent update was April 23, 2004)
I try to update it every three or four months, but it actually ends up being more like two or three times a year.
Howard
|
Apr 26 '04
9:53 am PDT
|
|
STILL CRAZY, AFTER ALL THESE YEARS! (Reply to this comment)
by hfruehauf
Having come, kicking and screaming, into the market for a mid-priced, user-friendly, digital camera on the eve of my honeymoon, I found Howard's tutorial outstanding--a tour de force of digital cameras which I don't fully understand but which I will use big-time in buying my first one.
It was so great that I can only suggest another revision from the maestro now that prices and technology have advanced into 4/04. Tell us the latest buys and thanks a lot, Howard!
|
Apr 25 '04
3:33 pm PDT
|
|
An excellent guide for the perplexed. (Reply to this comment)
by jerry_kaiser
Deciding on a first digital camera has been a challenge. Too many choices...too many variables...too many trade-offs. Haven't had this much buyer's anxiety since my first AR turntable.
Howard's excellent primer helps cut through the information overload (as well as the BS), and, at least, gives me pause to consider my needs, abilities, and choices.
Having used a trusty old Olympus OM 1 for about 25 years, I'm accustomed to an SLR: viewing my subject and light meter through the lens, adding a zoom or wide angle lens, etc. I could choose a digital camera with those capabilities, but I'm not quite ready to drop $1,000+ for the privilege. If this was a major focal point (no pun intended) of my life, I would do that...but the reality is that I don't use the camera often. On recent trips which would warrant it, I've opted for the smaller and packable (and low quality) point-and-shoot. Most of my photos are family, web stuff, etc. Few are (or should be) enlarged.
So, what Howard's guide has done, more than providing excellent information, is to make me think. I don't need a high-end/high MP camera. I don't need a lot of manual options. I might like an LCD larger than the next-to-useless 1.5" for instant viewing. I would like a 3x zoom, at least. And, most important, I don't want to invest a lot of money in something which will be used infrequently. Better to spend less now and upgrade when the need arises.
I have only one suggestion to add to this excellent work. I won't be the only user. My wife, who is more a neophyte than I, needs to handle the camera before we buy it. She may prefer one of the tiny pocket sized; I may not. So, if the camera will be purchased for multiple users, I'd suggest, ideally, hands-on for all users before purchase.
Whether reviewing cameras or classic rock and roll (see his stellar review of Neil Young's classic "Everybody Knows This is Nowhere), Howard provides me with thoughtful and entertaining information. I might not consult him if I was buying a suit...but, then again, I might.
|
Apr 15 '04
12:03 pm PDT
|
|
Great review - info on storage format (Reply to this comment)
by asafono
Howard, I completely agree with high praise of other comment writers on your review. It is unique, and I have done some research on selecting a digital camera (just off that island you mentioned).
What would be very helpful is some information discussing and comparing storage formats for digital cameras. In addition to SmartMedia and CompactFlash, there is MMC, xD, and what else?
|
Jul 28 '03
10:14 am PDT
|
|
Very useful.... (Reply to this comment)
by ASourdough4
...today as it was back in 2001 when you wrote it. Just read it again - I see you revised it in Feb 2003.
Maurice McDonell=Asourdough4
|
Mar 13 '03
4:52 pm PST
|
|
Many thanks from a technophobe! (Reply to this comment)
by fraygirl
I think that this is the most helpful epinion that I have ever read. I want to take the leap to digital photography, but it's intimidating and annoying to have to slog (is that a word?) through all of the choices that are out there. Your review really pared it down to the essential information that I was needing and has helped me to clarify my requirements. It looks like I'd be silly to buy anything but the Olympus C4000...thanks so much for helping me come to this (long-awaited) conclusion!
|
Feb 19 '03
1:49 pm PST
|
|
Thank you, Thank you, Thank you! (Reply to this comment)
by angelwithhornz
I have read umpteen reviews on digital cameras, trying to find the right one for me. I would read the VH reviews filled with all the digital jargon & finish more confused! It wasn't until I came across a review with a link to this one did I see the way clear. So THANK YOU! I am now on my way to making the right choice for me!
|
Nov 07 '02
8:44 pm PST
|
|
A perfect 10! (Reply to this comment)
by quadophile
I always read your reviews in one go, difficult to give up half way. You just cannot write less than perfect reviews can you?
I just decided to go for a Nikon CP995 for my 12 year old son. Since I am a Nikon user myself how can I get him anything other than a Nikon.
Keep enlightening us with your knowledge!
|
May 19 '02
7:22 am PDT
|
|
Re: Very+helpful+information,+but+ease+up+on+the+quotation+marks (Reply to this comment)
by Howard_Creech, in Electronics
Thanks for your advice, I have checked over the review and lowered the "quotationism quotient"
Howard
|
Aug 08 '01
7:15 pm PDT
|
|
Very helpful information, but ease up on the quotation marks (Reply to this comment)
by puter
I know next to nothing about photography in general, so you may be able to imagine how hard it is for me to try searching for a digital camera that will meet all the needs I don't know I have. Now at least I know a little more about the basic features of most digital cameras.
The one thing I'd suggest changing about this opinion is the amount of "quotationism." (Nice word, huh?) It is just plain awkward trying to read something when every other word is enclosed in quotation marks. It reminds me of Chris Farley putting the visual quotation marks (with his fingers) around nearly everything he said in a couple of his skits on Saturday Night Live. :-)
- puter
|
Aug 06 '01
3:53 pm PDT
|
|
I'm So Glad I Found You... (Reply to this comment)
by lfakh
Thanks for reviewing my amateur opinion. Your review was excellent to say the least and I truly needed to know this information. Thanks a lot and I look forward to reading your other reviews!!!
|
Feb 25 '01
2:46 pm PST
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.