Digital cameras: good or bad?

*bcn_246* · 02-09-2005

To be honest before people can advise properly they need more info

1. Price range
2. Need to be compact?
3. Size prints you are planing to do (bigger than 6x4")

Ben

*cnlson* · 02-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by mauricetgol

Is it this one?

PIXMA IP 3000 BUBBLEJET USB/DUPLEX 4800 X 1200 DPI?

The printer only costs € 82,00!?!

Is the color refill 75¢ per color?

Please tell us more!

yep that is the one. as it mentions it has a built in duplex meaning you can print both top and bottom without having to flip the paper yourself. it has a special browser plugin to make sure the FULL page prints went you print webpages. in europe (where you are

) they also can print on printable cd/dvd media (it is disabled in the US) it also has 2 paper paths meaning you can keep it loaded (as i do) with plain paper in the cassette and then when you want to print photos use the top feed (which is better for photo paper -- no bending to break the gloss like HP does) more info here the product tour is kinda cheesy but it shows a lot of the features... actually here is the canon NL site

the cartridges are very easily refillable inksavers has kits to do it. unlike the epson and hp there is no chip to reset or anything.

@RIPIT your i850 as all recent canons has a replaceable printhead you can try to clean it with a kit or you can just buy a new printhead. this one looks like it even includes a set of catridges for 48.95... you might be able to find an ip 3000 for that much tho

*ripit* · 02-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnlson

@RIPIT your i850 as all recent canons has a replaceable printhead you can try to clean it with a kit or you can just buy a new printhead. this one looks like it even includes a set of catridges for 48.95... you might be able to find an ip 3000 for that much tho

The printhead actually still works well (have had to take it out and clean it to keep it running a couple of times though). The cariage has actually worn out and that is what is causing the lines. I have seen the ip3000 for 60$ after 20$ rebate several times so it would just be beter to replace it (it is around 5 years old). Teh only reason that I havent bought one is I am seriouslly considering the ip4000 instead (waiting to see if any good deals come along on it).

*ripit* · 02-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sportfish

@ripit. Hey ripi.......... I highly recommend the Epson R300. Especially now that the price has dropped a ton. Saw them at Costco the other week for $79.00 after a $30.00 rebate. That's $100.00 less than I paid for mine. I got mine right when they came out for $179.00. But I still feel it was worth it. The quality and definition you get with the 6 colors is fabulous. And the cartridges are pretty reasonable. If the wife wouldn't kill me, I'd get another just to keep on hand for the time that my first one dies. That's how much I like it. Check it out Brother. Hows my little God Son doing?

He's doing good and getting pretty big (and a little chubby). He's starting to sleep a little more at night too (so I can get a little more sleep).
On the printer, I have never had a bad opinion about epson printers but I'm already set up to use canon. I have stacks of photo paper that work well with the canon. I have refill ink and supplies that are tried and tested to perform as well as canon ink with photographs and they match canon ink very closlly so color profiling is not nesasary. Also, I have just come to like my printer very much and the ip3000 is basically the newer version of my printer (the ip4000 is the newer version of the i860 I almost bought to replace the 1850). If for no other reason, I'm sticking with canon because of the ink I am using.

*Sexy_Southerner* · 02-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcn_246

To be honest before people can advise properly they need more info

1. Price range
2. Need to be compact?
3. Size prints you are planing to do (bigger than 6x4")

Ben

Ben price is not really that important to me

I want good quality....so is mega pixels the higher the number the better quality one? i've seen a 7 mega pixel...is that good?

size well i'd like something compact
and 4x6 is mainly what i'd have but occasionally maybe an 8X10

*mauricetgol* · 02-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnlson

yep that is the one. as it mentions it has a built in duplex meaning you can print both top and bottom without having to flip the paper yourself. it has a special browser plugin to make sure the FULL page prints went you print webpages. in europe (where you are

) they also can print on printable cd/dvd media (it is disabled in the US) it also has 2 paper paths meaning you can keep it loaded (as i do) with plain paper in the cassette and then when you want to print photos use the top feed (which is better for photo paper -- no bending to break the gloss like HP does) more info here the product tour is kinda cheesy but it shows a lot of the features... actually here is the canon NL site

the cartridges are very easily refillable inksavers has kits to do it. unlike the epson and hp there is no chip to reset or anything.

@RIPIT your i850 as all recent canons has a replaceable printhead you can try to clean it with a kit or you can just buy a new printhead. this one looks like it even includes a set of catridges for 48.95... you might be able to find an ip 3000 for that much tho

Thanks very much for the info!

My last printer I bought was 15 years ago (really).

Normally I print at my work.

But you are right, the canon 300D and this printer would make a very good match!

I am getting excited!

*ripit* · 02-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sexy_Southerner

Ben price is not really that important to me
Just give a ball park figure or a range. you can get digital cameras ranging from under 100$ (crap) to several thousand dollars. For a compact camera, you could still spend 600$ easilly so where between 100-600$ would you like to be.

I want good quality....so is mega pixels the higher the number the better quality one? i've seen a 7 mega pixel...is that good?

Not nesasarilly, in fact, while cameras are generally marketed as the higher the mega pixels, the beter, too high of megapixels can actually be worse. Think of it like resolution on your computer screen. 3.2 mp is 2048 x 1536. 4mp is 2272 x 1704. 7.1 mp is 3072 x 2304. These are canon specs but others would be similar. Would you run your computer at 1600x1200 on a 15" screen? You are going to resolution levels so fine that your eyes cannot even see the diffrence. If I am not mistaken, the average persons eyes can see a maximum resolution of 280 dpi. 280 x 280 (the number of pixels in 1 square inch at 280 dpi) = 78400. 78400 x 4 x 6 (the size of your 4x6 photo) = 1881600 (about 1.8 mp). Thats why they used to say that 2mp was plenty for 4x6. Thier are other factors (jpeg compressions hurts the image so a littler more resolution helps compensate), you can go a little higher than what your eye can see, and while you cannot tell the diffrence, the higher resolution one might seem a little smoother though your eyes cannot pick out any specific difrences, you are those viewing your photos may have beter than average vision (not the 20-20 thing on how far you can focus, the resolution your eyes see at).
3.3 mp is considered good for 8x10. Because of the above exceptions, it doesn't hurt to go a little higher. I'm looking for a new camera and I'm looking for a 5mp (plenty to do 8.5x11, the bigest I will print plus a little overkill). I might accept a 4mp though, because it will probably do the job as well, maybe even beter.

If that made sence, ask why sensor size matters as much or more than megapixels (which explains why less mega pixels can actually be better).

size well i'd like something compact
and 4x6 is mainly what i'd have but occasionally maybe an 8X10

Didn't mean to step on your toes ben, just felt like posting (rambling, whatever). Lasyness has made me not look at current cameras much (or I would probably know what I wanted to buy) so since she asked you, maybe you could answer this one.

*ripit* · 02-09-2005

That didn't come out right but oh well.......
(I included most of my response with ss's quote, to lasy to fix it).

*bcn_246* · 02-09-2005

As a general rule, the number of megapixels increases quality. However not all cameras follow this rule, especially ones that seem very cheap for a high number of megapixels. Then the companies try to put in more megapixels than the image sensor can cope with.

If you want just high quality pictures upto 8x10, I would go with the compact Canon PowerShot S70. Here are some sample pictures taken with it:

http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/can...s/img_0260.jpg
http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/can...s/img_0268.jpg
http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/can...s/img_0341.jpg

The S70 is what I am considering getting my dad in a few months time for a compact camera to go with his SLR. The S70 is very easy to use also, and has a very wide angle lens, probably the widest lens in a compact (28-100mm).

Remember that the photos are only going to be as good as the printer, so if you where to go for a high quality camera you would need also a high quality printer, such as the Epson R300 or one of the Canon printers mentioned earlier.

Ben

*dvdx_925* · 02-09-2005

and u forgot to mention paper as well...

*bcn_246* · 02-09-2005

Oh yeh. Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper, about 20p (40c) a sheet for 6x4s.

*Sexy_Southerner* · 02-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by ripit

Didn't mean to step on your toes ben, just felt like posting (rambling, whatever). Lasyness has made me not look at current cameras much (or I would probably know what I wanted to buy) so since she asked you, maybe you could answer this one.

i was looking in the 300 dollar range..and maybe the same for a photo printer......so thanks for the break down of information.....

*cnlson* · 03-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sexy_Southerner

i was looking in the 300 dollar range..and maybe the same for a photo printer......so thanks for the break down of information.....

in that range you are looking at canon and kodak, fuji and hp jd powers and ass show of all cameras in that area those have the highest ratings.

canon have really impressed me with their quality and kodak has not been bad either, although i would recommend you consider a longer warranty with a kodak.

unless you are going to crop the crap out of a picture keep this in mind:

3 MP is all that is needed for 8x10 or 8.5x11 for that matter. anything more than that is not going to make the pic look any more detailed when printing just like scanning at 9600dpi will not make a pic print any better. printers have a max res and anything over that does no good, you can't see the difference. better explained here for cameras and here and here for scanners (and is applicable for cameras also)

so more important than a high MP would be Zoom in my opinion. i have had a camera (sony mavica fd-88) which had 8 optical and 2 digital for a total of 16x and in some cases that is indispensible... you can only get so close to somethings

kodak has the 7590 right now that has a 10x optical i think and that is one awesome zoom.

if you want to see if i am worth taking advice from on this my pics website is here if you start at the back and work your way forward you will see the evolution through 4 cameras all mavicas -- FD-7 , FD-88, cd-250 , and finally a cd-350 from VGA to 3.3 MP

for me what has worked best is buying cheap, selling while there is still some value in the camera and when i find a really good buy. the cd 250 and 350 together cost less than 1/2 of what either of the first 2 did and the cd250 i sold for more than i paid for it. if you watch FW there are always camera deals to be found. buy what you can enjoy and learn from. just like optical equipment... move up when the prices move down.

oh yeah and on photo printers... your main cost will not be the price out the door. ink and paper will be about 80% of your cost if you print with any regularity, and you will since it is so easy and fast. i own a hp color laser and a canon inkjet as i mentioned i have had several epsons in the last year none of them have been a match for my $40 canon and with 75¢ refills it truly can't be beat. no matter what camera you have check out the canon printers. i sell them all, but i bought canon when the others were throwing printers at me...

*ripit* · 03-09-2005

I can give you a little information on canons (thats all I have really looked at so far plus I was already a little farmiliar with them).
Around 300$ should get you about a 5mp canon.
The a610 retails for 300$ is 5mp, has 4x optical zoom. From what I have read they have incorperated more of the features of the g series in it (g series run about 600-700$). canon refers to it as a mini g series camera. It is a very capable camera with substantial features (not just a point and shot), though in program mode the canons are about as easy to use as a point and shoot. It still takes a little while to read through the manual and get farmiliar with all the controls though. It is not a large full size camera but not exactly a pocket camera either. It takes 4 aa batteries so it is cheap for several sets of batteries but when you get 4 minh batteries it is pretty heavy for a camera of it's size. It's small enough to cary in a small camera bag or in the glove box (maybe) but not a pocket camera. Like all the a series cameras, it can take a lens adapter that allows use of all kinds of lenses (aditional telephoto, wide angle, macro, filters etc). It also has an underwater case avalable (but it is pretty expensive). If you don't mind the size and weight it looks like a great and very capable camera for the money but keep in mind, canon quality control could be a little beter. it uses sd memory cards.
The a95 is basically the older model of the same thing. While it has substantial features, it lacks some of the latest features of the a610 like a histogram (you might not even miss features like that if you are just a point and shoot kind of shooter). It only has 3x optical zoom while the a610 has 4x optical zoom. Just forget about digital zoom. You loose image quality very fast when youi use it. The a95 uses cf cards (good for me since I already have several of them but it probably doesn't matter to you). Cf cards are a little cheaper sometimes though. Since both cameras retail for 300$, the a610 would be the obvious choice but as the a95 is an older model and might be discontinued soon, you might get a better price on it. the basic shooting quality is going to be similar between the two and most of the basic features are the same. both have a 1/1.8 inch 5 mp ccd sensor.
Here is a good a610 review
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05...ona610a620.asp
a95 review
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona95/

If you want to go smaller, the sd400 is the one in your price range (thier is a new sd450 out but it is about 100$ more). It is also 5 mp but it uses a smaller sensor (1/2.5 inch as opposed to the a series 1/1.8 inch). The smaller sensor will give worse low light performance, possibly grainier images and and possibly less color accuracy. It also uses a smaller lens system. Less glass gathers less light which effects the resolution that the glass can transmit etc. I'm not saying that the images would be terrible or anything. I'm just saying the a series would give beter pictures. This is nothing abnormal. This is the price you pay for a smaller camera and the same thing generally applies to any brand. It uses propriatary lithium ion batteries that are much smaller and ligher than using aa batteries (and therefor allow the camera to be much smaller and lighter) but batteries are of course substantially more expensive. It has several less feature than the a series and is missing basic functional features like the ability to set apature and shutter speeds manually (auto exposure only though thier is a +/- compensation avalable) and manual focus. These are all normal tradoffs that you get with smaller cameras of any brand. The big plus to it is that it is small and light. Here is a review
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd400/
Thier is the s60 too. I'm not that farmiliar with the s series but to the best of my knoledge, it is suposed to be a compact g series (which is what the a series is kind of becoming). The s series have traditionally been a bit larger than the a series having a few more features and capabilities. Since you wanted a smaller camera and I'm not that farmiliar with them I'll not spend the time to go check them out (maybe someone more farmiliar with them can give some info).
As far as printers, you don't need to spend anywhere near 300$ if you don't want to to get a good photo printer. Its late but if nobody beats me to it I can give a a comparison of canon printers tomorow night. I'll leave epson to someone else that is more farmiliar with them. All my experience and all that I have heard leed me to believe that those are the two brands to look at for photo printers (thier are some good hp's but operating costs are substantial so I usally don't consider them).

*ripit* · 03-09-2005

I agree with cnlson that 3mp is enough for 8x10 with one exception. It is basic math with what the human eye can see. Even if your printer can take advantage of higher resolution, your eye can not see the diffrence. The one advantage to using a little higher than nesasary resolution is that you can crop and still have enought resolution. I have been using a 3.2mp camera for a while (canon a70) and while it is enough for good 8x10's, I must admit, not every shot I take is perfect. If I crop and print I can start to see it on 8x10's. Also, since many cameras only record in jpeg, going a little higher can smooth out the jpeg compression. 3.2mp works fine but it has left me occationally wanting just a little more.
Fyi, while I don't have a bad opinion of epson, a also agree, canon is the way to go (my personal opinion anyway).

Sportfish1 · 03-09-2005

OK ripi..... Here's one for you or anyone else for that matter. You seem to be hooked on the canon printer like I am with the Epson R300. I not only like it for the print quality but also for the ink longevity once printed. How does the Canon compare on this issue? Don't have the exact figure for the Epson but I believe they rate it for 70 or 80yrs. I haven'y heard anyone mention thsi yet.

*ripit* · 03-09-2005

Canon used to claim similar numbers but they have changed it a little. they currentlly claim 100 years in photo albums, 30 years in a photo frame and 10 years gas resistance. In all honesty, canons former claims (I think they were somewhere around the same as what epson is claiming), canons current claims as well as epsons claims are completlly and uterlly full of crap. They might last 70 years if you keep them sealed in a humidity controled, sealed nitrogen filled case with museum level lighting or lower. In real life you might get 1/10 that and it is much more dependant on what paper you use than which brand printer you use. Refill ink can also substantially reduce the fade resistance. Thats one reason that I want to stick with canon. The particularlly refill ink I use has been independantly tested and performs almost as well as canon ink for fade resistance. Further, refill inks often cannot produce the color gamut that oem canon or epson ink can (range of colors) so the color accuracy is not as good. Dry creek photo claimed that no refill ink could come close to the color gamut of canon ink. when a bunch of people on the dpreview printers forum told them they were full of crap, they tested the ink that I use, and it turns out it could actually beat canon ink (just marginally) on some papers. I'm not sure if thier are refill inks for the epson that are as good (thier very well may be), but I'm not sure what they are and since I do know what refill ink will perform that well with canon for fade resistance and color gamut (and I already have a supply of the ink), it kind of gives me a reason to stick with canon.
In all honesty, don't believe any of thier claims for fade resistance. plan on reprinting down the road a little bit. By the time you have to reprint, printer and ink technology will most liklly have improved quite a bit and you will get beter, longer lasting prints anyway.
If you want the best longevity now, epson defanatlly has the advantage, but not with it's dye ink printers like the r300. Epsons pigment based ink photo printers will in real life, blow away the longevity of canon or epson or anyone elses dye based printers. Teh only problem there is that pigment photo printers are much more expensive and have a whole array of their own problems including bad clogging problems (plan on doing a lot a maintence if you own a pigment photo printer). Further, their are no refill pigment inks that come close to epsons pigment inks for longevity (that I or last I knew, any one else was aware of), so you are stuck with very expensive epson ink cartriges. About the best I have heard of is people buying larger cartriges from comercial printers and sucking the ink out to refill smaller cartriges. Pigment also has issues with doing glossy photos.

Here are some real work fade tests.
http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm
Just taking a glance at epsons using oem dye ink, it looks like they perform similar to canon. They can fade in as little as two years or may last as long as 20 years depending on the paper you use (when exposed to average room light). Thier are spray coatings that can improve longevity and seal against gas fading (I have heard of gas fading killing prints with canon paper and ink in a matter of weeks and yes they can attack epson prints as fast). Paper selection is also very important if longevity is an issue to you. Swellable polymere papers tend to have beter fade resistance but are harder to work with.

One other quick thing. Fluorescent light is not anywhere near as damaging as daylight or incandesecnt light. Manufactures often use fluorescent light to get beter fade resistance ratings, but yes that does mean if you have fluorescent lights in your home, your prints will last a lot longer.

Sportfish1 · 03-09-2005

Nice reply ripi. One more thing to throw at ya and that is smearing and water resistability. The Epson ink is pretty water proof. I've taken a printed 4X6 and soaked it under the faucet with no bleed or run what so ever. That impressed me a ton.

*ripit* · 04-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sportfish1

Nice reply ripi. One more thing to throw at ya and that is smearing and water resistability. The Epson ink is pretty water proof. I've taken a printed 4X6 and soaked it under the faucet with no bleed or run what so ever. That impressed me a ton.

LOL, believe it or not, a couple of years ago me and a couple of other people did a little informal water resistance testing (submerging prints for hours, not just running water over them). Some papers could go several hours without color shift if I recall right. This is more determined by the paper than the ink though. swellable polymere papers are not water resistant at all. even humidity can cause them to stick to album sleeves. Nano-porus and micro ceramic type papers are the ones that are more water resistant (but they still vary). What is even more unbelievable, is that I actually found the thread where we discussed the testing (though I havent gone through and read it).

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...essage=5497153

*ripit* · 04-09-2005

@SS, as I said I would, here are the basic diffrences between canon printers. Unfortunatlly, thier are some new models that are just out that I am not farmiliar with but I'll look them over. First the old models though.

ip1500. This one is often given away as a freebee. it uses a color cartrige with all three colors in one cartrige. It has very little ink capacity and using canon ink cartriges, it costs about double the price to operate (ink costs). It probably does an ok job with photos but it prints as a 3 color printer so it will have worse color reproduction and grainier prints. The ink cartriges are very hard to refill.

ip3000 This is actually a very good printer (newer model of the one I have). It only uses 3 color inks for photos. It uses all three colors to reproduce black. The print head is designed to reproduce two shades of cyan and two shades of magenta from single inks. In effect it emulates a 6 color photo printer using 3 inks and it does a pretty good job of it. The pigment black is only used for text and documents. Unlike a true 6 color photo printer it performs very well and fast with documents.

ip 4000 same as the ip3000 except it adds a dye black ink for photos (it has two black inks). printers like the ip3000 occationally have slight tonal problems with grey/black and dark blue tones. The problem is not bad at all and only occationally shows up, but the extra black ink gets rid of that.

The ip5000 is the same as the ip4000 in what inks it uses and how it prints, but it has an improved print head (the ip3000/4000 have 2 picolitre as the smallest nozels, the ip5000 has 1 picolitre). It claims to have double the print resolution for photos and with the smaller nozels, the prints will probably apear smoother. It still performs very well and fast with text and documents.

ip6000d
This is a true 6 color printer. It will give the finest color reproduction with photos however, its performance will be poor and slow with documents and text, and the two photo colors are used up very fast increasing operating costs. Oddly enough, it prints at the same resolution as the ip3000/4000 (less than the ip5000). I think that is because the ip5000 is a newer printer and the 6000 is based on the i950/i960 printers. It will have beter color reproduction but the ip5000 might actually have a finer, more detailed print. I would not sugest this printer unless you would use it as a dedicated photo printer only. Also, with past models (not sure about this one), the two photo colors were more problamatic with clogging, causing some to even down grade to the 4/5 color printers (which print nearly as good or with the 5000, maybe beter).

ip8500 The 8 color version of the 6000. The extra colors imporve color reproduction accuracy. It also prints at the lesser resolution of the 3000/4000/6000). It also has increased nozzels which will increase speed.

ip9900 the wide format version of the ip8500, can print up to 13x19 paper.

Even though it is not listed as new on thier web site, the ip5000 is new (thus having beter print head technology than even the expensive wide format photo printer). It still uses the same bci-6/bci-3 inks though, so you can get good quality refill ink. This is actually the first time I have seen the ip5000.

all the other new printers seem to have one of two things added. the improved print head design of the ip5000, and or thier new ink (completlly diffrent cartriges). If I am not mistaken, they all use the new ink and some have the print head improvment. If you are not in a hurry, it might be worth checking into the new printers. Thier might not even be good refill ink avalable for them yet though, and I suspect that prices will drop on the older models and they will liklly start discontinuing some of them. Its kind of a tough decision now that the new printers are out.
any of the older models (ip3000 and above) will perform very well. I would personally go with the ip4000. Avoid the ip6000 and above unless it will be a dedicated photo printer and will not be used for text and documents. I'll have to check into the newer models a little.

crankydan · 04-09-2005

Ripit,

That is a very good write! I have recently changed printers from a R200(had to have that dvd print option) to a ip3000. I can say the following about the two; the epson seems to use more ink than the canon. I dont like that the epson counts pages and will prevent printing even when the cartrige is less than 10% empty. The dvd printing on printable disk isnt all that great, I have recently changed back to using labels.

Here is the only down side that I have found on the Canon ip3000, Canon just doesnt have any Windows xp64 drivers for this printer. So you are limited to what system you can run.

I am by no means a Professional Photo guy, but I really love the ip3000. It is simple to setup and use, also comes with some very good software for beginners.

*Quema34* · 04-09-2005

Just browsed this. Seemed to (on the surface) have at least done it's basic homework on featured models. Here's the link.

rtrj · 05-09-2005

I have a Sony DSC-F828 and it has been great. I started with film in the 70's and bought a Nikon f3 in the 80's. I traded to Digital about
5 years ago. I've owned all kinds of ink jets. I sell my pictures (I restore old photos as a second job) and I've had issues with fading
(even with Epsons). I bought a Hiti 730 PL

and it's great! The majority of what I print is 4x6 for my wife's scrapbooking and the 6x8's cover almost everything I do for restoration.

*ripit* · 05-09-2005

I'm starting to look at brands other than canon and while I am just starting out, I'm yet to find a camera that offers what canons offer. Granted I'm just starting to look at them. I have only been looking at 5mp cameras with a 1/1.8 inch or larger sensor in the 300$ range (that happens to be my price range). Sony, olympus and nikon all have cameras that fit that description and price, but none with the capabilities of a canon. That is what caused me to go with canon last time. I'm still looking though.

By the way SS, I wouldn't let this sway your decision on what to get (I'm not going to let it influence what camefra I buy), but if you do decide on a canon camera and printer, thier is a 70$ canon rebate here.
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...=PromotionsAct

*cnlson* · 05-09-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by ripit

By the way SS, I wouldn't let this sway your decision on what to get (I'm not going to let it influence what camefra I buy), but if you do decide on a canon camera and printer, thier is a 70$ canon rebate here.
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...=PromotionsAct

$20 for just buying the printer and $70 for buying the printer and a camera.... up to 7 rebates per household i think. i got 2 1 with camera and 1 without and sold one. made the 2nd printer about $10 after all was said and done

02-09-2005	#101
bcn_246 Top Referrer Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Oxfordshire, UK Posts: 3,649	Re: Digital cameras: good or bad? To be honest before people can advise properly they need more info 1. Price range 2. Need to be compact? 3. Size prints you are planing to do (bigger than 6x4") Ben __________________ Click HERE to join CDFreaks... do it or I will dead you.

02-09-2005	#108
ripit CD Freaks Elite Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,912	Re: Digital cameras: good or bad? That didn't come out right but oh well....... (I included most of my response with ss's quote, to lasy to fix it).

02-09-2005	#109
bcn_246 Top Referrer Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Oxfordshire, UK Posts: 3,649	Re: Digital cameras: good or bad? As a general rule, the number of megapixels increases quality. However not all cameras follow this rule, especially ones that seem very cheap for a high number of megapixels. Then the companies try to put in more megapixels than the image sensor can cope with. If you want just high quality pictures upto 8x10, I would go with the compact Canon PowerShot S70. Here are some sample pictures taken with it: http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/can...s/img_0260.jpg http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/can...s/img_0268.jpg http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/can...s/img_0341.jpg The S70 is what I am considering getting my dad in a few months time for a compact camera to go with his SLR. The S70 is very easy to use also, and has a very wide angle lens, probably the widest lens in a compact (28-100mm). Remember that the photos are only going to be as good as the printer, so if you where to go for a high quality camera you would need also a high quality printer, such as the Epson R300 or one of the Canon printers mentioned earlier. Ben __________________ Click HERE to join CDFreaks... do it or I will dead you.

02-09-2005	#110
dvdx_925 MyCE Resident Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 705	Re: Digital cameras: good or bad? and u forgot to mention paper as well...

02-09-2005	#111
bcn_246 Top Referrer Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Oxfordshire, UK Posts: 3,649	Re: Digital cameras: good or bad? Oh yeh. Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper, about 20p (40c) a sheet for 6x4s. __________________ Click HERE to join CDFreaks... do it or I will dead you.

03-09-2005	#114
ripit CD Freaks Elite Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,912	Re: Digital cameras: good or bad? I can give you a little information on canons (thats all I have really looked at so far plus I was already a little farmiliar with them). Around 300$ should get you about a 5mp canon. The a610 retails for 300$ is 5mp, has 4x optical zoom. From what I have read they have incorperated more of the features of the g series in it (g series run about 600-700$). canon refers to it as a mini g series camera. It is a very capable camera with substantial features (not just a point and shot), though in program mode the canons are about as easy to use as a point and shoot. It still takes a little while to read through the manual and get farmiliar with all the controls though. It is not a large full size camera but not exactly a pocket camera either. It takes 4 aa batteries so it is cheap for several sets of batteries but when you get 4 minh batteries it is pretty heavy for a camera of it's size. It's small enough to cary in a small camera bag or in the glove box (maybe) but not a pocket camera. Like all the a series cameras, it can take a lens adapter that allows use of all kinds of lenses (aditional telephoto, wide angle, macro, filters etc). It also has an underwater case avalable (but it is pretty expensive). If you don't mind the size and weight it looks like a great and very capable camera for the money but keep in mind, canon quality control could be a little beter. it uses sd memory cards. The a95 is basically the older model of the same thing. While it has substantial features, it lacks some of the latest features of the a610 like a histogram (you might not even miss features like that if you are just a point and shoot kind of shooter). It only has 3x optical zoom while the a610 has 4x optical zoom. Just forget about digital zoom. You loose image quality very fast when youi use it. The a95 uses cf cards (good for me since I already have several of them but it probably doesn't matter to you). Cf cards are a little cheaper sometimes though. Since both cameras retail for 300$, the a610 would be the obvious choice but as the a95 is an older model and might be discontinued soon, you might get a better price on it. the basic shooting quality is going to be similar between the two and most of the basic features are the same. both have a 1/1.8 inch 5 mp ccd sensor. Here is a good a610 review http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05...ona610a620.asp a95 review http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona95/ If you want to go smaller, the sd400 is the one in your price range (thier is a new sd450 out but it is about 100$ more). It is also 5 mp but it uses a smaller sensor (1/2.5 inch as opposed to the a series 1/1.8 inch). The smaller sensor will give worse low light performance, possibly grainier images and and possibly less color accuracy. It also uses a smaller lens system. Less glass gathers less light which effects the resolution that the glass can transmit etc. I'm not saying that the images would be terrible or anything. I'm just saying the a series would give beter pictures. This is nothing abnormal. This is the price you pay for a smaller camera and the same thing generally applies to any brand. It uses propriatary lithium ion batteries that are much smaller and ligher than using aa batteries (and therefor allow the camera to be much smaller and lighter) but batteries are of course substantially more expensive. It has several less feature than the a series and is missing basic functional features like the ability to set apature and shutter speeds manually (auto exposure only though thier is a +/- compensation avalable) and manual focus. These are all normal tradoffs that you get with smaller cameras of any brand. The big plus to it is that it is small and light. Here is a review http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd400/ Thier is the s60 too. I'm not that farmiliar with the s series but to the best of my knoledge, it is suposed to be a compact g series (which is what the a series is kind of becoming). The s series have traditionally been a bit larger than the a series having a few more features and capabilities. Since you wanted a smaller camera and I'm not that farmiliar with them I'll not spend the time to go check them out (maybe someone more farmiliar with them can give some info). As far as printers, you don't need to spend anywhere near 300$ if you don't want to to get a good photo printer. Its late but if nobody beats me to it I can give a a comparison of canon printers tomorow night. I'll leave epson to someone else that is more farmiliar with them. All my experience and all that I have heard leed me to believe that those are the two brands to look at for photo printers (thier are some good hp's but operating costs are substantial so I usally don't consider them).

03-09-2005	#115
ripit CD Freaks Elite Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,912	Re: Digital cameras: good or bad? I agree with cnlson that 3mp is enough for 8x10 with one exception. It is basic math with what the human eye can see. Even if your printer can take advantage of higher resolution, your eye can not see the diffrence. The one advantage to using a little higher than nesasary resolution is that you can crop and still have enought resolution. I have been using a 3.2mp camera for a while (canon a70) and while it is enough for good 8x10's, I must admit, not every shot I take is perfect. If I crop and print I can start to see it on 8x10's. Also, since many cameras only record in jpeg, going a little higher can smooth out the jpeg compression. 3.2mp works fine but it has left me occationally wanting just a little more. Fyi, while I don't have a bad opinion of epson, a also agree, canon is the way to go (my personal opinion anyway).

03-09-2005	#116
Sportfish1 CD Freaks Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Temporarily Scottsdale, Az.Alexandria, Mn. Gods Country U.S.A. Posts: 75	Re: Digital cameras: good or bad? OK ripi..... Here's one for you or anyone else for that matter. You seem to be hooked on the canon printer like I am with the Epson R300. I not only like it for the print quality but also for the ink longevity once printed. How does the Canon compare on this issue? Don't have the exact figure for the Epson but I believe they rate it for 70 or 80yrs. I haven'y heard anyone mention thsi yet. __________________ Lil Burnit's Cyber GodFather Compaq NX9010 Laptop P4 3.06 Ghz 60Ghz HDD 15&1/2" Display 512 PC 2700 RAM DVD/CD R/W Combo Drive Waiting for NEC thin DVD R/W Drive

03-09-2005	#117
ripit CD Freaks Elite Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,912	Re: Digital cameras: good or bad? Canon used to claim similar numbers but they have changed it a little. they currentlly claim 100 years in photo albums, 30 years in a photo frame and 10 years gas resistance. In all honesty, canons former claims (I think they were somewhere around the same as what epson is claiming), canons current claims as well as epsons claims are completlly and uterlly full of crap. They might last 70 years if you keep them sealed in a humidity controled, sealed nitrogen filled case with museum level lighting or lower. In real life you might get 1/10 that and it is much more dependant on what paper you use than which brand printer you use. Refill ink can also substantially reduce the fade resistance. Thats one reason that I want to stick with canon. The particularlly refill ink I use has been independantly tested and performs almost as well as canon ink for fade resistance. Further, refill inks often cannot produce the color gamut that oem canon or epson ink can (range of colors) so the color accuracy is not as good. Dry creek photo claimed that no refill ink could come close to the color gamut of canon ink. when a bunch of people on the dpreview printers forum told them they were full of crap, they tested the ink that I use, and it turns out it could actually beat canon ink (just marginally) on some papers. I'm not sure if thier are refill inks for the epson that are as good (thier very well may be), but I'm not sure what they are and since I do know what refill ink will perform that well with canon for fade resistance and color gamut (and I already have a supply of the ink), it kind of gives me a reason to stick with canon. In all honesty, don't believe any of thier claims for fade resistance. plan on reprinting down the road a little bit. By the time you have to reprint, printer and ink technology will most liklly have improved quite a bit and you will get beter, longer lasting prints anyway. If you want the best longevity now, epson defanatlly has the advantage, but not with it's dye ink printers like the r300. Epsons pigment based ink photo printers will in real life, blow away the longevity of canon or epson or anyone elses dye based printers. Teh only problem there is that pigment photo printers are much more expensive and have a whole array of their own problems including bad clogging problems (plan on doing a lot a maintence if you own a pigment photo printer). Further, their are no refill pigment inks that come close to epsons pigment inks for longevity (that I or last I knew, any one else was aware of), so you are stuck with very expensive epson ink cartriges. About the best I have heard of is people buying larger cartriges from comercial printers and sucking the ink out to refill smaller cartriges. Pigment also has issues with doing glossy photos. Here are some real work fade tests. http://www.livick.com/method/inkjet/pg1.htm Just taking a glance at epsons using oem dye ink, it looks like they perform similar to canon. They can fade in as little as two years or may last as long as 20 years depending on the paper you use (when exposed to average room light). Thier are spray coatings that can improve longevity and seal against gas fading (I have heard of gas fading killing prints with canon paper and ink in a matter of weeks and yes they can attack epson prints as fast). Paper selection is also very important if longevity is an issue to you. Swellable polymere papers tend to have beter fade resistance but are harder to work with. One other quick thing. Fluorescent light is not anywhere near as damaging as daylight or incandesecnt light. Manufactures often use fluorescent light to get beter fade resistance ratings, but yes that does mean if you have fluorescent lights in your home, your prints will last a lot longer.

03-09-2005	#118
Sportfish1 CD Freaks Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Temporarily Scottsdale, Az.Alexandria, Mn. Gods Country U.S.A. Posts: 75	Re: Digital cameras: good or bad? Nice reply ripi. One more thing to throw at ya and that is smearing and water resistability. The Epson ink is pretty water proof. I've taken a printed 4X6 and soaked it under the faucet with no bleed or run what so ever. That impressed me a ton. __________________ Lil Burnit's Cyber GodFather Compaq NX9010 Laptop P4 3.06 Ghz 60Ghz HDD 15&1/2" Display 512 PC 2700 RAM DVD/CD R/W Combo Drive Waiting for NEC thin DVD R/W Drive

04-09-2005	#120
ripit CD Freaks Elite Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,912	Re: Digital cameras: good or bad? @SS, as I said I would, here are the basic diffrences between canon printers. Unfortunatlly, thier are some new models that are just out that I am not farmiliar with but I'll look them over. First the old models though. ip1500. This one is often given away as a freebee. it uses a color cartrige with all three colors in one cartrige. It has very little ink capacity and using canon ink cartriges, it costs about double the price to operate (ink costs). It probably does an ok job with photos but it prints as a 3 color printer so it will have worse color reproduction and grainier prints. The ink cartriges are very hard to refill. ip3000 This is actually a very good printer (newer model of the one I have). It only uses 3 color inks for photos. It uses all three colors to reproduce black. The print head is designed to reproduce two shades of cyan and two shades of magenta from single inks. In effect it emulates a 6 color photo printer using 3 inks and it does a pretty good job of it. The pigment black is only used for text and documents. Unlike a true 6 color photo printer it performs very well and fast with documents. ip 4000 same as the ip3000 except it adds a dye black ink for photos (it has two black inks). printers like the ip3000 occationally have slight tonal problems with grey/black and dark blue tones. The problem is not bad at all and only occationally shows up, but the extra black ink gets rid of that. The ip5000 is the same as the ip4000 in what inks it uses and how it prints, but it has an improved print head (the ip3000/4000 have 2 picolitre as the smallest nozels, the ip5000 has 1 picolitre). It claims to have double the print resolution for photos and with the smaller nozels, the prints will probably apear smoother. It still performs very well and fast with text and documents. ip6000d This is a true 6 color printer. It will give the finest color reproduction with photos however, its performance will be poor and slow with documents and text, and the two photo colors are used up very fast increasing operating costs. Oddly enough, it prints at the same resolution as the ip3000/4000 (less than the ip5000). I think that is because the ip5000 is a newer printer and the 6000 is based on the i950/i960 printers. It will have beter color reproduction but the ip5000 might actually have a finer, more detailed print. I would not sugest this printer unless you would use it as a dedicated photo printer only. Also, with past models (not sure about this one), the two photo colors were more problamatic with clogging, causing some to even down grade to the 4/5 color printers (which print nearly as good or with the 5000, maybe beter). ip8500 The 8 color version of the 6000. The extra colors imporve color reproduction accuracy. It also prints at the lesser resolution of the 3000/4000/6000). It also has increased nozzels which will increase speed. ip9900 the wide format version of the ip8500, can print up to 13x19 paper. Even though it is not listed as new on thier web site, the ip5000 is new (thus having beter print head technology than even the expensive wide format photo printer). It still uses the same bci-6/bci-3 inks though, so you can get good quality refill ink. This is actually the first time I have seen the ip5000. all the other new printers seem to have one of two things added. the improved print head design of the ip5000, and or thier new ink (completlly diffrent cartriges). If I am not mistaken, they all use the new ink and some have the print head improvment. If you are not in a hurry, it might be worth checking into the new printers. Thier might not even be good refill ink avalable for them yet though, and I suspect that prices will drop on the older models and they will liklly start discontinuing some of them. Its kind of a tough decision now that the new printers are out. any of the older models (ip3000 and above) will perform very well. I would personally go with the ip4000. Avoid the ip6000 and above unless it will be a dedicated photo printer and will not be used for text and documents. I'll have to check into the newer models a little.

04-09-2005	#121
crankydan CD Freaks Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: GA, USA Posts: 292	Re: Digital cameras: good or bad? Ripit, That is a very good write! I have recently changed printers from a R200(had to have that dvd print option) to a ip3000. I can say the following about the two; the epson seems to use more ink than the canon. I dont like that the epson counts pages and will prevent printing even when the cartrige is less than 10% empty. The dvd printing on printable disk isnt all that great, I have recently changed back to using labels. Here is the only down side that I have found on the Canon ip3000, Canon just doesnt have any Windows xp64 drivers for this printer. So you are limited to what system you can run. I am by no means a Professional Photo guy, but I really love the ip3000. It is simple to setup and use, also comes with some very good software for beginners.

04-09-2005	#122
Quema34 MyCE Resident Join Date: May 2005 Location: USS-Enterprise 1701-A--the finest starship ever Posts: 3,229	Re: Digital cameras: good or bad? Just browsed this. Seemed to (on the surface) have at least done it's basic homework on featured models. Here's the link. __________________ "Sic vis pacem para bellum" "Lo único que vale en la vida es la pasión" "You sure you do not want to stay? You fight good for a tourist!" "Why do I feel like you truly see me, when others do not?" --Well, my horse likes you...!" "MY KIDS could teach YOU a thing or two, Johnny!!" "If the lie is big enough and told often enough, it will be believed."--Joseph Goebbels See what Geno888 is drooling over right now. I found Airhead's cookbook and all he did was edit my signature! Want to be better informed about good media, solving computer problems and DVD burner performance? Join CDFreaks by clicking here.

05-09-2005	#123
rtrj CD Freaks Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: New Hampshire Posts: 132	Re: Digital cameras: good or bad? I have a Sony DSC-F828 and it has been great. I started with film in the 70's and bought a Nikon f3 in the 80's. I traded to Digital about 5 years ago. I've owned all kinds of ink jets. I sell my pictures (I restore old photos as a second job) and I've had issues with fading (even with Epsons). I bought a Hiti 730 PL and it's great! The majority of what I print is 4x6 for my wife's scrapbooking and the 6x8's cover almost everything I do for restoration. __________________ System1 Abit IC7-G PCLinuxOS 2007 P4 3.4 Watercooled 2gb OCZ pc 3200 Creative Audigy 2 BenQ DW1640 fw BSLB BenQ DW1650 fw BCIC NEC ND-3500 fw LD 2.TB Optiarc AD-7170Afw LD7170 1.O3 System 2 Abit BD7II PCLinuxOS 2007 P4 3.06 1gb pc 2700 NEC 2500 fw Herrie’s 1.07 v2 LG GSA-4120B Registered Linux User #425931

05-09-2005	#124
ripit CD Freaks Elite Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,912	Re: Digital cameras: good or bad? I'm starting to look at brands other than canon and while I am just starting out, I'm yet to find a camera that offers what canons offer. Granted I'm just starting to look at them. I have only been looking at 5mp cameras with a 1/1.8 inch or larger sensor in the 300$ range (that happens to be my price range). Sony, olympus and nikon all have cameras that fit that description and price, but none with the capabilities of a canon. That is what caused me to go with canon last time. I'm still looking though. By the way SS, I wouldn't let this sway your decision on what to get (I'm not going to let it influence what camefra I buy), but if you do decide on a canon camera and printer, thier is a 70$ canon rebate here. http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...=PromotionsAct

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Video Cameras	MUSCBoneDoc11	General Hardware Forum	1	18-01-2007 22:06
HP recall Photosmart digital cameras due to fire risk	JayC30	Latest News Headlines	10	11-06-2006 15:37
Verbatim 'Digital Vinyl' 45rpm like CDR's any good?	valnar	Blank Media	2	03-11-2005 00:05
Any recomendations on Digital Cameras?	DeathVark	General Hardware Forum	3	21-08-2005 21:16
How many Digital cameras around ..	olyboy	Living Room	18	26-11-2002 23:39