Am finally determined to get a digital camera. Would like at least a 6 Mp
with 2+" LCD viewer and 4+ optical zoom.

Fifty years ago I used to make a few bucks free lance shooting for press
outlets. Did all my own darkroom work except for color. Used Speed Graphic
and an assorment of 35mm along with the odd 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 or 2 1/4 X 3 1/4.

Now, I have no interest in anything fancy. Easy is the goal but I'd still
like decent results. I'm talking about memory shots here not art.

So, looking for recommendations from you shooters on the group. What
camera, what source, and what software if any is needed for snapshots. Any
pointers on printing would also be appreciated.

Probably should have posted this on alt.binaries.pictures.sports.ocean but
maybe I can cross post. Anyway, I'll try to post there via the Cc: feature.

Thanks,
Butch

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:45:36 GMT, "Butch Davis"
wrote:

Am finally determined to get a digital camera. Would like at least a 6 Mp
with 2+" LCD viewer and 4+ optical zoom.

Fifty years ago I used to make a few bucks free lance shooting for press
outlets. Did all my own darkroom work except for color. Used Speed Graphic
and an assorment of 35mm along with the odd 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 or 2 1/4 X 3 1/4.

Now, I have no interest in anything fancy. Easy is the goal but I'd still
like decent results. I'm talking about memory shots here not art.

So, looking for recommendations from you shooters on the group. What
camera, what source, and what software if any is needed for snapshots. Any
pointers on printing would also be appreciated.

Probably should have posted this on alt.binaries.pictures.sports.ocean but
maybe I can cross post. Anyway, I'll try to post there via the Cc: feature.

Thanks,
Butch


How much are you planning to spend? I've got a Nikon D200 that I love, but
it's not cheap. I just bought my wife a Nikon D50 for Christmas. It's not
cheap either, but it's in a price range I found acceptable. It's not
overloaded with features, but it'll be plenty for her. It *is* a digital
single lens reflex (SLR) which I like much better than the point and shoot.
--
John H

*Have a great Christmas and a spectacular New Year!*

"Butch Davis" wrote in message
k.net...
Am finally determined to get a digital camera. Would like at least a 6 Mp
with 2+" LCD viewer and 4+ optical zoom.

Fifty years ago I used to make a few bucks free lance shooting for press
outlets. Did all my own darkroom work except for color. Used Speed
Graphic and an assorment of 35mm along with the odd 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 or 2 1/4
X 3 1/4.

Now, I have no interest in anything fancy. Easy is the goal but I'd still
like decent results. I'm talking about memory shots here not art.

So, looking for recommendations from you shooters on the group. What
camera, what source, and what software if any is needed for snapshots.
Any pointers on printing would also be appreciated.

Probably should have posted this on alt.binaries.pictures.sports.ocean but
maybe I can cross post. Anyway, I'll try to post there via the Cc:
feature.


Some thoughts:

It sounds like you are thinking of a point and shoot, and without a doubt,
very good results can be obtained from the better cameras in that class. I
haven't shopped the point and shoot market for quite a long time, so I don't
have any specific recommendations in that arena.

However, in reading your photography background, it's clear this ain't your
first trip to the rodeo. You're used to handling quality cameras...real
cameras. And, in my opinion, that is where the point and shoot solution
breaks down. They simply don't handle and shoot like the 35mm SLR that you
remember. If responsiveness and a comfortable ergonomic fit in your hands
is important, and it certainly is to me, then I would suggest you consider
any of the DSLR cameras from Nikon or Canon. In my own case, my primary
shooter is a Nikon DSLR, with an Olympus point and shoot as a backup for
when I just don't feel like carrying the DSLR with me or its presence would
be a distraction. Truth be told, the Oly almost never gets used.
Remarkable photos come out of it. but I hate shooting with it. It just
doesn't feel like a camera to me. That, combined with the ubiquitous
shutter delay present in point and shoots, and the camera controls buried
deep within menus, they just are not a satisfying piece of equipment to
handle. Your mileage may vary. As to which DSLR, there are no shortage of
fine choices of which to start with. I'm partial to Nikon, and have
recently upgraded from my trusty old D70 to a D200, but there are other
models in the line that will allow you to build a modest or not so modest
system with powerful external flash units and any number of quality lenses.
The same situation holds true to the Canon line, as well. There are other
players in this market as well, but they just don't have the same level of
choices and certainly have not achieved anywhere near the market penetration
of Nikon and Canon.

As far as software goes, again there are many choices, but there is one that
is clearly the king of the hill. First of all, you can just not even bother
installing any software that is included with the camera. It's all just
junk. The king of photo editing software is and always has been Adobe's
PhotoShop, but it's real expensive and requires a strong commitment to get
over the learning curve. However, PhotoShop Elements, now out in version
5.0, offers most of the important features in photo editing (especially in
the new version), is quite easy to learn (there's no shortage of how-to
books available if you want to get deep into the program), and can be had
for about $80. For me, digital post-editing is just as much of the process
of digital photography as the shooting. With simple and inexpensive tools
and a modest skill set, marginal photos can be salvaged into decent shots,
and good shoots can be tweaked into truly outstanding ones.

As for printing, I've been there, done it, and the sum total result of all
my print-at-home learning experience ultimately led to the conclusion to not
bother. Years ago I bought a wide-carriage Epson ink jet photo printer
which does produce pretty amazing results. But after dealing with special
papers, clogged cartridges, and just a general PIA situation, I believe I've
found the better answer. There is a professional color lab in my town that
allows me to simply upload the photos I wish to print, order size and
quantity, and then pick them up later in the day. I have to pre-crop the
photos so they will match the aspect ratio of the size print I've ordered,
but I'd have to do that if I printed them myself anyway. I've used the same
service from Costco, and they were decent, but not near the quality as the
pro color lab I use, and the color lab is just a few more cents per print
than Costco. There is no shortage of these services that are either locally
based or internet based. I'm pretty sure that Wal-Mart now has this
service. Point being, I've found it much easier and with better results
just to upload the photos to a lab for printing. I'm now shopping for a
color laser to replace that Epson ink jet, and I will not miss having inkjet
technology in the house.

Some links to help you shop for cameras:

http://www.dpreview.com/

http://www.dcresource.com/

http://www.imaging-resource.com/

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


A good internet retailer:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:25:08 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 11:47:37 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:45:36 GMT, "Butch Davis"
wrote:

Am finally determined to get a digital camera. Would like at least a 6 Mp
with 2+" LCD viewer and 4+ optical zoom.

Fifty years ago I used to make a few bucks free lance shooting for press
outlets. Did all my own darkroom work except for color. Used Speed Graphic
and an assorment of 35mm along with the odd 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 or 2 1/4 X 3 1/4.

Now, I have no interest in anything fancy. Easy is the goal but I'd still
like decent results. I'm talking about memory shots here not art.

So, looking for recommendations from you shooters on the group. What
camera, what source, and what software if any is needed for snapshots. Any
pointers on printing would also be appreciated.

Probably should have posted this on alt.binaries.pictures.sports.ocean but
maybe I can cross post. Anyway, I'll try to post there via the Cc: feature.

How much are you planning to spend? I've got a Nikon D200 that I love, but
it's not cheap. I just bought my wife a Nikon D50 for Christmas. It's not
cheap either, but it's in a price range I found acceptable. It's not
overloaded with features, but it'll be plenty for her. It *is* a digital
single lens reflex (SLR) which I like much better than the point and shoot.

I disagree with that.

Point and shoot cameras always have had the ability to produce images
at the same quality level as a DSLR. The advantage of the DSLR is
that you have a greater adjustment, the ability to shoot in several
different color standards and different lenses rather than fixed
length or restricted variability lenses. In fact the main advantage a
DSLR has over a p-n-s is lens aperture - there is a big difference
between 28 mm and 58 mm lens size.

How can you disagree with a statement about what I like? I know what I
like, and it's not point and shoots - mainly for the shutter lag problem.
They may have cleared that up now, as my last pns was the Nikon 5700. But,
I've taken photos with other pns recently and the lag still exists. It
drove me up a wall. But, if still objects are the subject of the photos,
then the lag makes no difference.
--
John H

*Have a great Christmas and a spectacular New Year!*

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:52:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:46:20 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:25:08 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 11:47:37 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:45:36 GMT, "Butch Davis"
wrote:

Am finally determined to get a digital camera. Would like at least a 6 Mp
with 2+" LCD viewer and 4+ optical zoom.

Fifty years ago I used to make a few bucks free lance shooting for press
outlets. Did all my own darkroom work except for color. Used Speed Graphic
and an assorment of 35mm along with the odd 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 or 2 1/4 X 3 1/4.

Now, I have no interest in anything fancy. Easy is the goal but I'd still
like decent results. I'm talking about memory shots here not art.

So, looking for recommendations from you shooters on the group. What
camera, what source, and what software if any is needed for snapshots. Any
pointers on printing would also be appreciated.

Probably should have posted this on alt.binaries.pictures.sports.ocean but
maybe I can cross post. Anyway, I'll try to post there via the Cc: feature.

How much are you planning to spend? I've got a Nikon D200 that I love, but
it's not cheap. I just bought my wife a Nikon D50 for Christmas. It's not
cheap either, but it's in a price range I found acceptable. It's not
overloaded with features, but it'll be plenty for her. It *is* a digital
single lens reflex (SLR) which I like much better than the point and shoot.

I disagree with that.

Point and shoot cameras always have had the ability to produce images
at the same quality level as a DSLR. The advantage of the DSLR is
that you have a greater adjustment, the ability to shoot in several
different color standards and different lenses rather than fixed
length or restricted variability lenses. In fact the main advantage a
DSLR has over a p-n-s is lens aperture - there is a big difference
between 28 mm and 58 mm lens size.

How can you disagree with a statement about what I like? I know what I
like, and it's not point and shoots - mainly for the shutter lag problem.
They may have cleared that up now, as my last pns was the Nikon 5700. But,
I've taken photos with other pns recently and the lag still exists. It
drove me up a wall. But, if still objects are the subject of the photos,
then the lag makes no difference.

I apologize for misreading your post - which, but the way said nothing
about shutter lag. :)

I was being cryptic.

Shutter lag caused me to lose a bunch of shots at a grandson's baptism. I
was using a Nikon 5700, which I'd just bought. I quit using it very soon
thereafter. The picture quality was great, and the zoom telephoto was nice,
but the shutter lag drove me up a wall.
--
John H

*Have a great Christmas and a spectacular New Year!*

"Butch Davis" wrote in message
k.net...
Am finally determined to get a digital camera. Would like at least a 6 Mp
with 2+" LCD viewer and 4+ optical zoom.

Fifty years ago I used to make a few bucks free lance shooting for press
outlets. Did all my own darkroom work except for color. Used Speed
Graphic and an assorment of 35mm along with the odd 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 or 2 1/4
X 3 1/4.

Now, I have no interest in anything fancy. Easy is the goal but I'd still
like decent results. I'm talking about memory shots here not art.

So, looking for recommendations from you shooters on the group. What
camera, what source, and what software if any is needed for snapshots.
Any pointers on printing would also be appreciated.

Probably should have posted this on alt.binaries.pictures.sports.ocean but
maybe I can cross post. Anyway, I'll try to post there via the Cc:
feature.

Thanks,
Butch


Only 5 mp but is a great camera. Pentax Optio WP. My daughter has the non
WP in I think 4 MP and the pics are great. Small enough to keep with you at
all times. The WP can even be used underwater. Wo when you are sinking,
you can take some last videos. :(

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:20:28 GMT, "RG" wrote:

As far as software goes, again there are many choices, but there is one
that
is clearly the king of the hill. First of all, you can just not even
bother
installing any software that is included with the camera. It's all just
junk. The king of photo editing software is and always has been Adobe's
PhotoShop, but it's real expensive and requires a strong commitment to get
over the learning curve. However, PhotoShop Elements, now out in version
5.0, offers most of the important features in photo editing (especially in
the new version), is quite easy to learn (there's no shortage of how-to
books available if you want to get deep into the program), and can be had
for about $80. For me, digital post-editing is just as much of the
process
of digital photography as the shooting. With simple and inexpensive tools
and a modest skill set, marginal photos can be salvaged into decent shots,
and good shoots can be tweaked into truly outstanding ones.

You made some great points - wish I had gotten into it that deep.

However, not to take this off in a different direction, but... :)

I've been doing some experimenting in the different color spaces that
Olympus supports - sRGB, aRGB and ProPhotoRGB converting out of RAW
(ORF in Oly land) using a NEC SpectraView 2090 printer and I'll be
damned if I can see a difference between sRGB and aRGB. There is a
difference with ProPhotoRGB, but it's a "difference" - not better or
worse.

If you examine the photos under a good "white" light, you can see a
slight change in colors, but in natural light, it just does not exist.

I'm curious if you've done any experiments with this.

Nikon offers the option of choosing three different color modes:

Mode I is the default sRGB color gamut. It is the default gamut that web
pages and most monitors and printers expect.

Mode II is the Adobe RGB color gamut. This gamut is supposed to have a
wider space, and is designed to be used when printing with high fideltity
equipment. The problem is, that you must be sure and set all equipment and
drivers to the Adobe color space throught the entire process from shooting
to display to print. If a photo that was shot in the Adobe space is viewed
or printed with a device that is calibrated for sRGB, the colors in the
photo will appear to be less saturated. The best analogy I can think of
harkens back to the days of recording audio on cassette tape. If you wanted
the best listening experience, it was best to encode your recordings with
Dolby noise reduction, assuming that you were able to decode the Dolby
compression on playback. If you ever listened to a Dolby encoded tape
without a Dolby decoder activated, it was worse than if the recording was
never encoded to begin with. I've spent no time shooting in this color
mode.

Mode III is the sRGB space with a higher saturation of colors, especially
greens. It affords more vivid landscapes.


By the way, I also use a pro color lab for my prints - it's actually
cheaper for me.

The only way to go, and yes, it's cheaper than rolling your own.


And to add to the original discussion, for my money, the only real
advantage - other than shutter lag (that was for you John) - to a DSLR
is RAW. However as most folks shoot in .jpeg, I don't think that is a
concern in this instance.

I rarely shoot raw. I find the biggest benefit to raw is the mulligan
factor. It allows you to change the white balance and exposure of the shot
after the fact, without the negative effects of trying to accomplish the
same thing in a JPEG after the fact. Much of this can be accomplished by
shooting JPEG's with exposure and WB bracketing. Beyond this feature, I
find raw to be a bit over-hyped and more trouble than it's worth. Not
surprisingly, I don't find raw the most compelling reason to shoot with a
DSLR (there are a few higher-end point and shoots that also allow raw
shooting). These are my reasons for preferring a DSLR format camera:

1. As mentioned above, the handling and ergonomic fit to my hands. A
camera should be an extension of your mind's eye, almost invisible to the
process. Once comfortable with the camera, changing settings on the fly
should involve a minimal amount of thought and hunting for buttons. On a
well designed body, all the controls fall naturally under the appropriate
digits for manipulation. Also, due to the size of the body versus the
diminutive size of most point and shoots, there is actually room to include
dedicated buttons for the control of the camera versus having to accomplish
the same degree of control in a point and shoot by changing settings in
menu, if the level of control is offered at all. Obviously, having a camera
feel good in your hands is very much a personal preference, but the point is
that there are any number of choices out there in DSLR land that should
offer a good fit. In my case, I originally intended to upgrade my D70 to a
D80. The D80 has a smaller body than the D70, about the size of a D50.
Once I put the D80 in my hands, it felt too small. I had to contort my
fingers to get to the camera controls that mattered. Also, the smaller body
wasn't a good counter balance to the default lens I use. The larger size
and weight of the D200 solved both those problems.

2. Shutter lag. It exists in most point and shoots and doesn't in most
DSLRs. I don't know why. But I do know that it's obnoxious and I don't want
to have to deal with it. You can also include the instant-on boot time for
my DSLR versus the annoying little screen display and silly audio playback
that occurs when I turn on my Oly point and shoot, both of which contribute
to a much slower boot up time.

3. Point and shoots have a rangefinder style viewfinder. Very inferior to
a through the lens viewfinder, in my opinion. No opportunity for DOF
preview on a point and shoot. Very limited shooting data is displayed in
the viewfinder of a point and shoot. As a result, you'll notice most that
use point and shoots compose a shot using the LCD display on the back of the
camera. This presents a number of issues such as a) trying to see the
display in direct sunlight, b) holding a camera away from your body at arm's
length is the most unstable way possible to hold a camera, and c) you look
like a dork.

4. Shooting speed. I'm not aware of any point and shoot that can keep up
with a DSLR when shooting in burst or continuous mode.

5. Sensor size. The larger sensors in a DSLR allow for shooting with
higher ISO sensitivities without the resulting noise.

I've been doing some experimenting in the different color spaces that
Olympus supports - sRGB, aRGB and ProPhotoRGB converting out of RAW
(ORF in Oly land) using a NEC SpectraView 2090 printer and I'll be
damned if I can see a difference between sRGB and aRGB. There is a
difference with ProPhotoRGB, but it's a "difference" - not better or
worse.

If you examine the photos under a good "white" light, you can see a
slight change in colors, but in natural light, it just does not exist.

I'm curious if you've done any experiments with this.


I had a thought on your experience regarding the different color spaces.
This probably is not the case, but is it possible that the different color
spaces available on your camera have no effect on raw shots and only have an
effect when shooting JPEG's? On Nikons, most of the optimization choices
have no effect when shooting raw, although I believe the choice of color
space does. Have you compared JPEG's shot using the different color modes?
If you do, and then notice a difference, then either the Oly doesn't take
color space into effect when it shoots raw, or the choice is actually
implemented upon raw conversion, and perhaps your method of conversion is at
fault.

I can clearly see the difference between color modes I, II, and III on my
shots.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
On 12/17/2006 10:45 AM, Butch Davis wrote:
Am finally determined to get a digital camera. Would like at least a 6
Mp with 2+" LCD viewer and 4+ optical zoom.

Fifty years ago I used to make a few bucks free lance shooting for press
outlets. Did all my own darkroom work except for color. Used Speed
Graphic and an assorment of 35mm along with the odd 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 or 2
1/4 X 3 1/4.

Now, I have no interest in anything fancy. Easy is the goal but I'd
still like decent results. I'm talking about memory shots here not art.

So, looking for recommendations from you shooters on the group. What
camera, what source, and what software if any is needed for snapshots.
Any pointers on printing would also be appreciated.

Probably should have posted this on alt.binaries.pictures.sports.ocean
but maybe I can cross post. Anyway, I'll try to post there via the Cc:
feature.

Thanks,
Butch

My wife has a new Canon A710IS.

It is 7.1 megapixels, has a 6x optical zoom, a big 2-1/4 or 2-1/2" viewing
screen, a viewfinder, and a heck of a lot more. The IS stands for image
stabilization.

It's a great digital camera. The lag is is minimal. Comes with the
software you need to DL to your computer or to a photo printer.

I have an A620 which I like. I've had my eye on the A710 for it's IS
capabilities.

dpreview.com gives the A710 a good review.

Do you find any downside to the IS feature? When not tripod mounted I
always use the view finder but like the ability to use the LCD display to
see 100% of the image I'm trying to compose.

Thanks

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 18:07:16 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:59:22 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:52:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:46:20 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:25:08 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 11:47:37 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:45:36 GMT, "Butch Davis"
wrote:

Am finally determined to get a digital camera. Would like at least a 6 Mp
with 2+" LCD viewer and 4+ optical zoom.

Fifty years ago I used to make a few bucks free lance shooting for press
outlets. Did all my own darkroom work except for color. Used Speed Graphic
and an assorment of 35mm along with the odd 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 or 2 1/4 X 3 1/4.

Now, I have no interest in anything fancy. Easy is the goal but I'd still
like decent results. I'm talking about memory shots here not art.

So, looking for recommendations from you shooters on the group. What
camera, what source, and what software if any is needed for snapshots. Any
pointers on printing would also be appreciated.

Probably should have posted this on alt.binaries.pictures.sports.ocean but
maybe I can cross post. Anyway, I'll try to post there via the Cc: feature.

How much are you planning to spend? I've got a Nikon D200 that I love, but
it's not cheap. I just bought my wife a Nikon D50 for Christmas. It's not
cheap either, but it's in a price range I found acceptable. It's not
overloaded with features, but it'll be plenty for her. It *is* a digital
single lens reflex (SLR) which I like much better than the point and shoot.

I disagree with that.

Point and shoot cameras always have had the ability to produce images
at the same quality level as a DSLR. The advantage of the DSLR is
that you have a greater adjustment, the ability to shoot in several
different color standards and different lenses rather than fixed
length or restricted variability lenses. In fact the main advantage a
DSLR has over a p-n-s is lens aperture - there is a big difference
between 28 mm and 58 mm lens size.

How can you disagree with a statement about what I like? I know what I
like, and it's not point and shoots - mainly for the shutter lag problem.
They may have cleared that up now, as my last pns was the Nikon 5700. But,
I've taken photos with other pns recently and the lag still exists. It
drove me up a wall. But, if still objects are the subject of the photos,
then the lag makes no difference.

I apologize for misreading your post - which, but the way said nothing
about shutter lag. :)

I was being cryptic.

Shutter lag caused me to lose a bunch of shots at a grandson's baptism. I
was using a Nikon 5700, which I'd just bought. I quit using it very soon
thereafter. The picture quality was great, and the zoom telephoto was nice,
but the shutter lag drove me up a wall.

I can agree with that - p-n-s shutter lag can be a PIA.

But then again, I never use a p-n-s for those situations. Or I use a
close facsimilie of a DSLR with the C-7070 which doesn't suffer that
particular problem.

Well, now I know better. When I bought the 5700, no one mentioned shutter
lag.
--
John H

*Have a great Christmas and a spectacular New Year!*