Long run cost Digital/Regular camera?

[97tbird]

Hey guys,

Thanks a million for all your great advice, tips and for pointing out some great things about digicams that I totally forgot. I'm pretty sure now that the digital-jump is worth it...

It seems that most "current" ones have a SD card...How much of a negative of that really, when compared w/CF cards?

I'm still interested in the 2 cameras that I mentioned . both these are about $177, w/ 1 yr warranty. Links below give a GREAT overview of both.

This is the Konica-Minolta Dimage Z10original price was $329)
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/Z10/Z10A.HTM

This is the Canon Powershot A510 (original price was $199):
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/A510/A51A.HTM

Take a quick look, and let me know what you guys think (if you have time)...compared with their original prices, the Minolta seems like a lot more camera for the buck

I wonder why it's became so much cheaper....

one thing that bothers me about the K/Minolta is that it has a lense-cap that's NOT fixed to the body...manually put it on/take it off each time...I wonder if that's a real pain...and the Minolta is no cute "compact". However, it's like a real prof.level one..man...this is hard to decide

[ May 09, 2005, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: 97tbird ]

 

[97tbird]

S/shield,

Thanks for your much-valued input/opinion.
I'll check out your grasshopper shots, too.

Right now, I'm also leaning towards the Minolta...I used to have a Minolta Riva zoom105 film-camera a while ago, and I liked it a lot.

About this one: one of the things that I noticed was that the Minolta has the fastest reload/start-up time of its class (or had, at the time it came out).
The Canon is much slower...

Canon start-up time: 1.9 sec
K/Minolta: 0.5 sec, according to that review.

I'll hang around and see what the others here say, too.

[ May 09, 2005, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: 97tbird ]

 

[kenw]

SD vs CF cards: pricing is the only difference I've seen, CF is often a bit cheaper, especially in the higher capacities but that's due to the older and simpler technology. CF readers are also a bit cheaper as they seem to have more competition. I have bought USB CF readers for as little as $7US.

A good place for CF cards is:
http://shop4.outpost.com/catreq/964

for SD:
http://shop4.outpost.com/catreq/954


Personally I do know that BOTH can go thru a wash and dry cycle in a jeans pocket without damage....which in the case of the SD card was great since it wasn't mine....

the case on CF does add a bit of impact durability, the ceramic SD card can be cracked easily although I've never heard of one doing so.

CF does seem to have a few more options on the means to xfer the data, I use a PC card adapter in the PCMCIA/ PCcard slot ($13US), I don't believe that is available for anything other than CF. I like that option as it stays in the slot and is one less thing I have to keep up with when I travel.

I have seen SD adapters that use a 3.25 floppy adapter but with the dearth of FDD in most laptops, that may be somewhat arcane.

I also like consistency: since both of my digital cameras use CF, it makes interchange simpler.

 

[97tbird]

KenW:
Thanks for the links for CF and SD cards...I see that CF would be better, in terms of price etc, b ut unfortunately, BOTH cameras that I'm looking at, even the Canon uses SD cars...I guess there's nothing mcuh one can do about it.

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 97tbird:
KenW:
Thanks for the links for CF and SD cards...I see that CF would be better, in terms of price etc, b ut unfortunately, BOTH cameras that I'm looking at, even the Canon uses SD cars...I guess there's nothing mcuh one can do about it.

---

At least they aren't xD cards which are ven more expensive and not as common.

I bought my wife a nice low end Olympus which is a good camera, but it used xD cards which hurt worse than an sD when you want to buy a larger one.

 

[kenw]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 97tbird:
KenW:
Thanks for the links for CF and SD cards...I see that CF would be better, in terms of price etc, b ut unfortunately, BOTH cameras that I'm looking at, even the Canon uses SD cars...I guess there's nothing mcuh one can do about it.

---

don't worry about it then, there are bigger issues to consider in my mind. I would consider CF-vs-SD only if all other factors are the same and they rarely are!

good luck, have fun and take lots of pics!

 

[seotaji]

quote:

---

It seems that most "current" ones have a SD card...How much of a negative of that really, when compared w/CF cards?

---

There is no negative as long as you take care of the things you own. Size is pretty much the only difference.

There are fast SD cards and there are fast CF cards. I own a 1gb 60x SD card, which was very cheap (
I used to be in the camp of only using CF cards, but in the end it was just a waste of time as both cards serve a purpose.

There isn't a durability advantage of using one over the other. They both resist shock, water, and heat very well.

SD cards have a size advantage and maybe a lower voltage requirement than CF. One of the reasons why pro's use CF is that they started with it and no one wants to rock the boat.

quote:

---

I wonder why it's became so much cheaper....

---

When camera's get cheaper, there is usually a good chance that a newer model is coming out soon. win-win

quote:

---

one thing that bothers me about the K/Minolta is that it has a lense-cap that's NOT fixed to the body...manually put it on/take it off each time...I wonder if that's a real pain...and the Minolta is no cute "compact". However, it's like a real prof.level one..man...this is hard to decide

---

In nice cameras, you don't want a motorized lens cap. Dirt and grit can build up and jam up the system later on. The only way to fix that would be to have it sent off at your expense.

quote:

---

About this one: one of the things that I noticed was that the Minolta has the fastest reload/start-up time of its class (or had, at the time it came out).
The Canon is much slower...

---

boot up time is one of the larger selling points of digital cameras nowadays. I own a minolta dimage and i appreciate that feature immensely.

quote:

---

CF readers are also a bit cheaper as they seem to have more competition. I have bought USB CF readers for as little as $7US.

---

They are pretty much all the same price nowadays, unless it's xD or something.

quote:

---

the ceramic SD card can be cracked easily although I've never heard of one doing so.

---

I don't understand. If it can be cracked so easily, how have you not heard of it happening?

quote:

---

CF does seem to have a few more options on the means to xfer the data, I use a PC card adapter in the PCMCIA/ PCcard slot ($13US), I don't believe that is available for anything other than CF. I like that option as it stays in the slot and is one less thing I have to keep up with when I travel.

I have seen SD adapters that use a 3.25 floppy adapter but with the dearth of FDD in most laptops, that may be somewhat arcane.

---

Most memory cards have pretty much the same options to transfer data. The PCMCIA card reader adapter is available for all formats, all you need is the proper plastic adapter and poof it works.

 

[kenw]

"One of the reasons why pro's use CF is that they started with it and no one wants to rock the boat."

more along the lines of the CF still has an advantage as to pure capacity. Being an older technology and physically larger means that higher capacities are available sooner. The largest SD is 1GB (that I know of), CF is available at 4GB (NOT microdrive).

I can rip off 4fps at 8MB per, so capacity is important.


"I don't understand. If it can be cracked so easily, how have you not heard of it happening?"

never seen it happen in normal use.

HAVE seen it happen in what I would call "abnormal" use, ie, we broke one deliberately several years ago. and it wasn't hard to do, therefore the "easily" part. I do know they aren't broken that I know of just by dropping them!

btw, I am assuming that SD (and xD) cards are still ceramic, I haven't verified that in a few years. They may be plastic by now in which case would negate those concerns.

[ May 09, 2005, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: kenw ]

 

[SyntheticShield]

Though Iam a Canon person, I have to say I like the Minolta in this case. It just seems to have a bit more functionality. In addition, the square body of the Canon wouldnt seem very comfortable to hold for very long at all. The Minolta has a grip and seems more designed with comfort in mind. And trust me, when you start chasing a child around to take pictures that will become important, in my case it just happens to be storms and bugs, LOL.

I like the macro photography feature of the Minolta as well and it has a wide range lens (36mm - 290mm) which covers just about every useful range you would need. If you were to buy an interchangeable lens with that range and that kind of light transmission (f/3.2 - f/3.4) it would cost more than the camera itself. Though it being limited to an aperture of f/8 would not suit me, but for general everyday photography it would be good. If you want to see how good a Minolta Macro shot is you can go to my website and look for the image of the grasshopper, it was taken with the Minolta Dimage 7i (http://www.stormstrikes.com).

Of course its just my opinion, but it seems to me that the Minolta would be a better choice. I would highly recommend though, if you can, to go put your hands on both of them. Go to a camera store and pick each of them and see how they feel, how intuitive they may or may not be. As for the SD memory cards, Ive only used them once in a digital camcorder and I didnt particularly care for them for no other reason than they were thin and small and easy to loose track of. I use CF cards primarily because thats the card Canon uses. I dont feel that one is better over the other as a storage media. I would just prefer my cards be small, but not so small I would loose them if not kept in a container or holder.

 

[seotaji]

quote:

---

more along the lines of the CF still has an advantage as to pure capacity.

---

true. the largest SD card is 2GB.

quote:

---

never seen it happen in normal use.

HAVE seen it happen in what I would call "abnormal" use, ie, we broke one deliberately several years ago. and it wasn't hard to do, therefore the "easily" part. I do know they aren't broken that I know of just by dropping them!

btw, I am assuming that SD (and xD) cards are still ceramic, I haven't verified that in a few years. They may be plastic by now in which case would negate those concerns.

---

thanks for the clairfication. i was slightly confused by your orig. statement.

SD cards are indeed plastic (now). water/heat/shock resistant which is a def. plus.

the better cards don't come with write-protect switches which make them more reliable.

 

[97tbird]

dragged wifey to see all the info about the 2 cameras, (just like dragging her to the oil section in stores

), showed her all the data/pics, and she says she likes the Minolta, too (I'm surprised, 'cause she likes little, tiny things which fit in her pocket). The Minolta IS a lot smaller than it looks, when you consider its dimensions. I don't think the Canon is bad at all, but I just can't ignore that it cost only $199 originally, and that the Minolta is faster in every way, and was a LOT more expensive when it came out...it's about 7-8 months older than the Canon.I think we should grab it for $179, which was originally $329....

[ May 10, 2005, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: 97tbird ]

 

[kenw]

excellent choice, i think you will be most happy with it.

now, my LAST piece of advice: get out and take LOTS of pics. Experiment, get artsy, try some funky things. Make lots of mistakes.

Once you buy the camera, digital is darn near free...

 

[97tbird]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenw:
excellent choice, i think you will be most happy with it.

now, my LAST piece of advice: get out and take LOTS of pics. Experiment, get artsy, try some funky things. Make lots of mistakes.

Once you buy the camera, digital is darn near free...

---

Thanks, man, and all you other guys, too. I'm going to order it from Newegg.com (VERY happy with the 17" Samsung LCD monitor we got, which was a great bargain, too)

I'll take lots of pictures ( a 8x (35-290 mm) optical zoom should be fun!!!, The first thing I'd turn off is the auto-focus, I think), and hope I'll have the patience to try out the gazillion settings the camera has...(at Newegg, all the reviews were 5-stars, so I'm hopeful)

 

[kenw]

autofocus can be fabulous if you let it work for you.

trick: preofocus to reduce "shutter lag" (which is more likely AF lag).

but when you get old like me, AF is a godsend....


definitely get off the auto mode whenever possible. don't be ashamed to use it when taking family shots and stuff where the subjects can get fussy and impatient...the automode on modern digitals are very, very good.

 

[XS650]

Now you need some image processing software.

There is the full up Photoshop CS for about $600.

Photoshop Elements III is available as low as $40 and for a not to serious amateur has 90% of the capability of Photoshop CS.

A big advantage to Photoshop Elementsd is that everything you learn using it is tranfers to the full up Photoshop if you ever win the lottery.

The are also more articles, books and forums on Photoshop than any other image processing software.

I Use the predecesor to Photoshop CS, Photoshop 7.1 and also Photoshop Elements 2.0. Elements 2.0 is also very good and you may be able to find someone to give you a copy or find it dirt cheap on ebay since its a version behind.

"The Gimp" is freeware software that is close to Photoshop CS in performance, but not as easy to use. It's better than most commercial software, but no up to Photoshop levels.

 

[kenw]

Best value editor is PaintShop Pro. Supports layers, and all the useful stuff that Photoshop does but for a lot less $$.

it's usually discounted to less than $100, often less than 50. Much easier than PhotoShop (I used both for awhile). highly recommended for anyone who spends less than 8 hours a day in it.

Lots of books available, incl Dummies series.

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenw:
Best value editor is PaintShop Pro. Supports layers, and all the useful stuff that Photoshop does but for a lot less $$.

it's usually discounted to less than $100, often less than 50. Much easier than PhotoShop (I used both for awhile). highly recommended for anyone who spends less than 8 hours a day in it.

Lots of books available, incl Dummies series.

---

Paintshop Pro is in the same class as Photoshop Elements which is available for as low as $40, commonly available for under $70.

 

[msparks]

I have a Kodak easyshare DX7440.

The reason I bought it was it was the only one that was made for SD at the time (that I could afford) My laptop as well as Dell Pocket PC have slots for SD.

I have the 512mb card. It will take over 400 pics with it set on 3.5megapix.

The Kodak is a great camera, It has a larger viewing screen, 4x optical lens and will take vidoe with sound.

If you need to view any pics I can email them to you. Also I have some video that I can send email if you are interested in that. (Broad band only)

If you check out these photo's of my truck this was take with my camera:

http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=45;t=000126