[SGVLUG] Cameras, part II

[Dustin]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Emerson, Tom wrote:

> The earlier discussion about digital cameras got me to actually go look
> at fry's & best buy.  It seems there is a big gap right at the
> price-point I'm willing to pay for an "everyday" camera...

Boy, is this a good time to bring this up, since I just finished the 
over-obsessive research for our camera.

>   For $20 to $30, it seems you can get "pen/keychain" cameras of dubious
> quality or usability:

I never even looked at stuff like that.

> The next "price point" for digital cameras seems to be $200 or more --
> (though I think I saw -ONE- camera for $99)

Not at all, at least if you're interested in actual price rather than list
price.  Go to newegg.com and look at the cameras in the "compact" type
category (or not, but that's usually the better bang-for-buck category at
the low end of the market) sorted in ascending price order.  The first
page is roughly "cameras up to $200."  There are a number of decent ones
there.  I think the price for a "decent, usable, entry-level camera" is
now about $150-$200.

NewEgg isn't necessarily the cheapest, either, though they're usually
good.  There are reasons to buy from them, though--I ordered on Sunday
night and received the camera Tuesday, if that tells you how fast their
service is. :-)

Actually, looking again, it looks like you can get down to $123.95 for a
name-brand camera (Kodak C310) if you're willing to settle for fixed focal
length (not me) and $124.95 with zoom (Fujifilm A345).  I would most
definitely read some reviews

	In rough order of my preference:

	Imaging Resource (one of the best review sites)
	http://www.imaging-resource.com/

	Digital Camera Resource Page:
	http://www.dcresource.com/

	Digital Photography Review:
	http://www.dpreview.com/

	Digital Camera HQ:
	http://www.digitalcamera-hq.com/

	Steve's Digicams
	http://www.steves-digicams.com/

	AnandTech camera section (only down here because the coverage
	is spotty)
	http://www.anandtech.com/digitalcameras/

before considering such a cheap camera, of course, but clearly $200 is too
high

	Dave's Picks for tight budgets:
	http://www.imaging-resource.com/WB/WB.HTM?view=dp_cheap

	AnandTech $150 Digicam Roundup:
	http://www.anandtech.com/digitalcameras/showdoc.aspx?i=2311

for the start of the real-world, bottom dollar basic entry level category.

And if you don't care about brand name, there appears to be a $75-$100 
category that I didn't examine but may be the category you were looking 
for.  I'm not sure the review sites actually go down that low, I think 
they are too camera-crazy to want to look at anything that cheap. :-)

>    -- they all have some form of LCD screen in addition to any
> through-the-body/through-the-lens viewfinder

Yes, and I virtually always find myself composing with the screen, the
viewfinders on these cameras aren't great.  In very dim or bright light,
though, you may need it.  The one we finally bought actually has *no*
viewfinder, but that was a *serious* compromise to get a particular
combination of features, and it nearly broke the deal.

>    -- they all seem to have plenty of "modes" [AE type stuff...] which
> is more distracting when all you want or need is "point-n-shoot"
> capability

Nah, because it takes zero distraction to leave it on "auto" and never
ever think about it again.  This is an interface feature I never found a
distraction at all.  The factory setting is probably always the generic,
all-round full auto setting, if you never touch it you'll take OK 
pictures.

Come to think of it, we rarely touched it on the Canon we had.  Didn't 
need to.

If you know you want to use your camera like this, Imaging Resource (a
favorite review site) recommends Kodak Easyshare cameras

	http://www.imaging-resource.com/WB/WB.HTM?view=dp_gp

as being particularly good for users who think the fact that the shutter
button can be depressed half-way to prefocus is already *way* too complex.
:-)

>    -- many/most don't seem to have (internal) memory -- everything is
> dumped to an external chip/memory card [not really a bad thing, I
> suppose...]

Well, our first camera had no on-board memory, and we never ever missed 
it.  The one we just bought does have some, but I don't expect to ever 
care unless I find it annoying because any pictures I put there have to 
be transferred to the card for downloading (since cables are too much 
hassle).

> ...Since cards like those are easy to "swipe" from a display
> model, retailers won't have any installed, so it becomes difficult to
> determine latency and load/ready times since the camera will not
> actually take any pictures.

Fair enough, however imaging resource gives hard timing data for all the
cameras it reviews, and he probably measures more numbers than you know to
check for anyway (prefocus or not, first shot or shot-to-shot, zoomed or
wide angle, flash or no flash, burst mode, image resolution, &c &c can all
make a difference).  Just click on the "picky details" page for the camera 
of interest.

Sadly, though, you can't search and sort on those parameters.

>    -- at $200 or more, this isn't something I'm going to carry around
> "in my pocket" every day, so I'll still miss out on those random times
> throughout the day when I see something worth taking a picture.
> 
> It seems to me that in that "gap" between $20 and $200 would be what I want:
> 
>    -- retain pics w/out power [don't drain batteries when "off"]

Uses a flash memory card, then.

>    -- resolution to 1280x1024 [though 1024x768 would probably work as well]

Most anything not garbage probably has more resolution than this.

>    -- decent to "quite nice" photo quality /even under linux/

Forget this.  There should be absolutely no difference in photo quality.  
The bits copy perfectly on either OS.

>       -- which implies good digikam/gtkphoto/etc. support

No, it doesn't.  I thought so when we bought our first camera, and copied
a few pictures over the USB cable with gphoto2 (I think).  Then I
discovered that the last thing I wanted was one more cable, and I just
transfered pictures with the card reader from then on.  I don't think I
ever used the cable again.  It's just much nicer than plugging in the
camera as far as I'm concerned.

I care so little about this that I didn't even look up direct transfer
support for any camera I considered this time.  I still don't know if the 
new camera is supported.  Who cares?  My card reader mounts the memory
card like a disk.

>    -- slot for additional memory would be nice [though if base memory is
> sufficient, this isn't a huge need]

Mmm.  I'd rather save money by tossing the on-board memory.  It will 
*always* be too small for my purposes anyway, so it's simpler with just a 
card.

Clue: CF and SD cards are cheaper and more widely available because
they're widely supported.  xD sucketh on price, and Sony's MemoryStick
probably sucks worse.

If Sony would support a freakin' standard and use SD or CF cards instead
of trying to lock me into their whole line of products, I would own a Sony
instead of a Panasonic right now.

>    -- no need for excessive "features" [AE modes, in-camera editing,
> "effects" like solarize or tintype (though these tend to be on video
> cameras more often...), etc.]

"Features" you can implement digitally are cheap.  Better optics are 
expensive.  Featuritus is the name of the game.

>    -- no real need for an LCD screen [yes, it's nice to
> preview-and-delete bad pics, but again, if the capacity is sufficient
> (100+ pics) in all likelihood I'll be able to dump the photos to a PC or
> simply use "another card" until the photos can be captured and
> evaluated.]

I disagree--the LCD screen is much nicer than the viewfinder.  Still, it's 
your preference.

> Does anyone know of a camera that would fit this bill (and price range
> of $50 to $80) [and not used/on e-bay]

NewEgg has two cameras in that category, plus a third refurbished one.
I have no idea if you can even find reviews of them or not, though.

You might also consider the $100-$150 category as an intermediate 
possibility.  Just judging by the brands and availability of reviews, it's 
probably a large step up in quality.  That fixed-focus Kodak surely can't 
have too many features.

Well, what do you know, I actually found a list of super el-cheapo 
Vivitars in the price range you mentioned:

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/digitalcamera/default.asp?brandName=Vivitar+Corp%2E&brandID=275324

I guess I didn't even list that site in the list I gave, did I?  Silly me.
Anyway, the couple I checked didn't have real reviews but did have user 
comments, which are way better than nothing.

Probably better than that, One of the el cheapos at Newegg has ten user 
reviews:

http://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/FeedBack/CustratingReview.asp?item=N82E16830109122

Mostly quite positive for the price & quality, I must say.  Fixed focus
(of course), but has internal memory *and* takes an SD card (probably the
best type at this point) and uses standard AAA batteries rather than
expensive proprietary ones.

That one might be your baby.  If you get one, I want to look at it to see
if it is good enough to be a "boat camera" (i.e. one I can take places it
might get lost or destroyed).

Dustin