#132181 - 12/30/01 06:12 PM
digital camera question
|
Smolt
Registered: 11/17/01
Posts: 80
Loc: Kaizer OR, formerly MT and WA
|
I see that alot of guys on here use digital cameras. I am thinking of getting one. What kind of camera should I be looking at? What kind of things do you look for. What kind of cost?
_________________________
Preparation H relieves on contact.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#132182 - 12/30/01 06:59 PM
Re: digital camera question
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 05/06/01
Posts: 2991
Loc: Nisqually
|
SHA01, I have a Hewlett Packard 315. I paid about $200 for it. It was an in-the-bag-demo. I didn't want to pay a whole lot for a camera because I do a lot of boating and the camera was just for pix of fish on the boat. I didn't want to have to worry about loosing a $1000 camera in the drink. Takes great close up pix but far away and digital zoom leave a little to be desired. You can pay as much as $2000 for the latest-and-greatest or right around $200-300 for a camera that will take a lot of nice close up pix of you and all of the fish you will catch. A camera in the $500 range is considered middle of the road. My recommendation is go to a store that has a lot of cameras to offer and compare (Circuit City or Best Buy). The more megapixels and bigger the memory card (at least 16MB) the merrier. Hope this helps. 
_________________________
Carl C.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#132183 - 12/30/01 08:40 PM
Re: digital camera question
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 12/24/01
Posts: 1181
Loc: Kingston, WA
|
This probably isn't what you're going to want to hear. But take it for what it is worth from someone who is in the photographic wholesale business and fishes. Use a quality 35mm camera and a quality scanner (negative or flat bed is fine) for the following reasons: 1. You'll get better image quality in general. (you'll want a poster of that 28 lb Steelie.) This will no doubt cause debate amoung the digital converts, but it is true none the less. 2. Its cheaper. A good 35mm camera and scanner is still less than a comparable digital camera alone. 3.Digital cameras and water don't mix. Some 35mm are water resistant or proof. 4. Digital cameras are battery hogs and it's one more thing to have to keep topped off and plugged in. I have enough to do just to keep my gear in the water and my boat running. 5. Negatives are still more archival. Plus with a scanner you have digital and film storage. Digital is only digital. 6. Fishing, golf and church are analog by nature, best enjoyed sans cell phones, palm pilots and networked computers.
Don't get me wrong, digital is great for many things and it's getting better all the time. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend one for general use, but for fishing, the truth is, it is basically OVERBOARD.
Good luck and tight lines.
_________________________
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#132184 - 12/30/01 09:02 PM
Re: digital camera question
|
Spawner
Registered: 11/26/01
Posts: 555
Loc: Browns Point
|
i go with the 35mm too...quality is much better than digital for sure, especially with enlargements...but a digital camera will get you by just fine for most shots, and make sure you keep it in a plastic bag when you are wading.
_________________________
alcohol, tobacco, firearms, who's bringing the chips?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#132185 - 12/30/01 09:35 PM
Re: digital camera question
|
Smolt
Registered: 11/17/01
Posts: 80
Loc: Kaizer OR, formerly MT and WA
|
Thanks for the responses. I have considered a scanner in the past. Maybe I will re-visit that option.
_________________________
Preparation H relieves on contact.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#132186 - 12/30/01 09:41 PM
Re: digital camera question
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 03/10/00
Posts: 356
Loc: West of Eden
|
I don't know much about any camera stuff but I just purchased a Kodak DC5000. It has dust seals and all the function buttons and housing is rubber armor coated. It is touted as being good for outdoor and rugged use. It is not pocket sized but not cumbersome either. It is however a battery chewer. It got decent reviews from consumer reports. 2 megapixels and an electronic idiot like me can take pictures and photoedit them with the included software. Paid $240 but saw them at one online store after I purchased for 199. I think ZD.net has a price gathering service to check before you purchase any one model.
_________________________
Chasing old rags 500 miles from home.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#132188 - 12/30/01 11:14 PM
Re: digital camera question
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 12/03/01
Posts: 470
Loc: Kent
|
I agree with mooch. You can't beat a 35mm and a scanner. You always want that original hardcopy print. From that point you can do whatever you like and never have to worry about losing the image and if you do you still have the negatives. I have a $10 35mm and an $80 scanner and i have yet to be dissapointed by the quality of the pictures. I used my mothers fancy digital one day and happen to hook my first king in my new boat. To bad the pictures SUCKED!!! If you know what pixilation is, then expect it in a digital picture if the megapixils are under 3Megs. Do you wanna risk that picture of your trophy fish? Plus digital pictures don't resize or zoom worth a crap. Your clarity or resolution is limited by how much you spend on the camera, but a standard camera is only limited by the film you buy. Remember, you can scan at almost any resolution but a digital picture is set at that resolution for good, no matter how much you doctor the picture. Don't make a mistake.
_________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Occupation: I pet the fish.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 Registered (Bob, cfish, Chum Man, deerslayer, Eddie L, elkrun, epidemic, fish monger, Irie, 4 invisible),
41
Guests and
5
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
7727 Members
17 Forums
45344 Topics
440208 Posts
Max Online: 460 @ 03/07/08 06:52 PM
|
|
|