I'm after an entry level digi camera and have been told Fuji are the way to go?

 

Anyone here know their stuff about camera's?

 

Was thinking this one............

 

http://ukdigitalcameras.safeshopper.com/9/365.htm

 

Cheers.

The main things to look out for when buying a digital camera are megapixels and storage. The more megapixels the better quality the images will be. As for storage don't worry so much about how much internal memory it has but what external memory you can add to it via compact flash, smart media etc.

James you can't go wrong with Fuji;)

 

 

I got this one last year,can't beleive how much they have come down in price:(

 

http://ukdigitalcameras.safeshopper.com/9/207.htm?840

Don't get fooled into going for more megapixels than you need. I have an old 1 megapixel camera which I use and I always end up reducing them in size. You only need really high resolution if you're printing.

 

Dave

Yep totally agree here.

I have a Kodak DC280 which is 2 mega pixels.

I have to set the resolution to low which gives me 800 x 450 (I think it's 450) size prints.

If I set it any higher I have to reduce the size of the pictures after I download them, which can be a pain in the butt unless you have PSP.

I do printing,and the quality is superb on photo paper;)

Have to agree with Mac.

Fuji really are qualty cameras.

 

I have gone through all the Fuji from

2800i - s304 - s602 NOW (Which is fantastic)

Next up is Fuji s2 (when i can justify it lol)

 

 

http://www.dpreview.com/

 

the one and only review website for cameras

 

http://www.fujifilm.co.uk

Blimey Warren, you've had more cameras than you've had engines !

Going for higher pixels can be a pain as like you said it does produce large images but at least if you buy one with lots you will always have the option for editing and large format printing if you want it. The Canon Powershot A300 is only £190 and is 3.2 MP and Canon make very good cameras too.

Originally posted by brittonc

The main things to look out for when buying a digital camera are megapixels and storage. The more megapixels the better quality the images will be. As for storage don't worry so much about how much internal memory it has but what external memory you can add to it via compact flash, smart media etc.

 

Not strictly true, yes a hi megapixel CCD will give you a larger print image, but if the optics are crap in the first place then all you will have is a large crap photograph as opposed to a small crap photo. :D

 

I'm an Olympus fan, but them I've always wanted SLR digital cameras. I have had an 1400XL and c-2500L. My current camera is an Olympus E10 with a 4MP CCD but then the optics are fantastic, lens dia of 62mm as opposed to some of the 3MP contacts with 4mm lenses. Makes sense if you think about it.

 

Having said all that you can't go far wrong with the Fuji, do bear in mind that digital Zooms are crap and not worth the effort. I say this because I bought my mum an Olympus with Digital Zoom and the images are crap, you might as well shoot at standard and enlarge in Photoshop. If you can afford it, and you consider it worthwhile, look for a compact with optical zoom, otherwise all you will get is the equivalent of a bottom of the range 35mm.

 

Oh, and my expertise in this? - I'm a Book Designer, working with Hi-Res images so I know a thing or two about print quality, reproduction and pre-press. :D

 

HTH

 

Tim

I'm pretty sure most of the quality producers of SLR cameras (Canon, Nikon, Olympus etc) would use a quality CCD in thier digital cameras as well as optics. I agree about the digital zoom though. A complete waste of time. Optical zoom has much better clarity. Photoshop is expensive but Paint Shop Pro is only about £70. If you shop about you might also be able to get some photo editing software with the camera.

My work requires me to take detail close up pics.. I have a Canon digital Ixus and a Minolta... prefer the Canon.. thinking of getting the new Canon Digital IXUS VII.. it's only $550SGD brand new here in Singapore (about 203pounds..) :p

how does a high quality digital picture compare with a high quality analogue one ?

You don't get fuzzy lines in bad weather! :D

Originally posted by Nelson MainFella

how does a high quality digital picture compare with a high quality analogue one ?

 

Now there's a can of worms. :D

 

Remember the CD vs Vinyl debate?

 

I produced the first book solely shot using Digital Photography for DK (UK's Biggest Publisher) last year, it contained more than 8,500 digital photos. Okay admittedly the images are used small but I'd defy you to tell the difference, I chucked a few images in that I scanned on my £6K scanner just for comparison. But the savings in terms of costs and time are unbelievable!

 

Technology is moving so fast that we will see Digital overtaking the 'wet' process very soon.

 

But, having said that to achieve traditional 35mm quality you need to spend money - I'd be very impressed, and suprised, to see a sub £800 camera produce anything that could be reproduced at quality larger than A5.

 

For Holiday Snaps Digital is the way to go IMHO, Jessops will charge you exactly the same to print a 5 x 7 from disk as they would from Neg/Trannie, or do what I did and buy an Epson Photo printer, for running off 5 x7 it's near faultless, and costs less than £150.00!

Originally posted by Nelson MainFella

how does a high quality digital picture compare with a high quality analogue one ?

 

to get the equivalent of a 35mm standard film, you need 11.3 megapixles, so its only the top end Cannons and fuji kpdak units that can match that. but then the new cannon eos1d uses a true 35mm ccd size image chip, but costs on the far side of 7000 pounds lmfao.

 

 

using 6 megapixlesi can get crystal clear prints A3 in size.

you realisticalyl need no more than 2 megapixle for normal work.

ROFLMAO!

 

Just thought of something, and this is from experience...

 

If the photographer's crap the photos will be too. One of the 'professionals' we used last year had a top Kodak digi-camera (£10K+), a degree in Digital Photography and headed up the photography dept of a top Scottish Auction House. But he still had to call me when I rejected all his image due to bad colour balance :D

 

Tim

Quality of print is all about pixels per inch/mm.

 

It is genarally accepted that for good quality snaps/photos you need a reslolution of 300pix/inch. therefore for good print at say 6x4 this gives approx 2meg. So i reckon 2meg. should be min. preferably 3Meg.

 

Print resolution is another thing, you should always print on the highest res. possible, say 1440dpi. min.

 

There are of course variations and twists to the above, like using bicubic resampling to increase the pixel count and qaulity, a la PSP!

 

Anyway I fully endorse Fuji cameras, easy to use etc. and I have one.

Originally posted by TT Tim

 

I produced the first book solely shot using Digital Photography for DK (UK's Biggest Publisher) last year, it contained more than 8,500 digital photos.

 

WOW :eek: That means you is like kinda Famous ! Well done.

 

I know more about the CD vs. vinyl debate - CD is cleaner and has better dynamic range but less info. MAybe better Cd players can make up for the less info. by oversampling/smoothing etc.

 

Isn't that the conclusion ? I have an expensive hi-fi setup and the CD player cost £1400 (5 yrs ago) and sounds amazing. Most ppl think CD is CD (ie. digital 0s and 1s) and therefore all sound the same - but not true. Guess it muts be down to how much of the info. is processed by the player ?

Originally posted by Nelson MainFella

Guess it muts be down to how much of the info. is processed by the player ?

 

or...

 

how much data you can aquire through the lens :D

 

Infamous more than famous, and my main client is a B list celeb :D

 

Tim

Originally posted by TT Tim

 

Infamous more than famous, and my main client is a B list celeb :D

 

Tim

 

gonna spill the beans ?;)

Originally posted by TT Tim

ROFLMAO!

 

Just thought of something, and this is from experience...

 

If the photographer's crap the photos will be too. One of the 'professionals' we used last year had a top Kodak digi-camera (£10K+), a degree in Digital Photography and headed up the photography dept of a top Scottish Auction House. But he still had to call me when I rejected all his image due to bad colour balance :D

 

Tim

 

ROFLLMFAO:D Thats Class;)

Na, 'cause every time I tell someone they say...

 

Whoooooo?

 

;)

 

Tim

Originally posted by TT Tim

Na, 'cause every time I tell someone they say...

 

Whoooooo?

 

;)

 

Tim

 

Why?LOL come on Tim spill the beans,are they nude ones:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ;)

LOL, I'm sure she would be flattered to know that you'd like to see her in that light, but she's a canny Scot so i guess she'd make you pay for a peep. :D

 

Tim

right - female Scot - that narrows it down a bit - Isla St.Clair ?