I haven't used the models you listed, but if you're planning on getting one, get the highest pixel count you can. 2 at the minimum. The higher the count the better the picture. The lower the more jagged the edges look.

BTW: I got this tip from a guy that knows a lot about cameras... (Buddy!)

Just make sure you have an image editing program. My Nikon puts out incredibly large photos.

I know that when you get more features, there's more to go wrong, but some of the newest features that camera's have now are fantastic. I got mine about two years ago and it's got a couple but nothing like today...

Good luck!

------------------
My best,
Ernie

The Official Buddy Emmons Website
www.buddyemmons.com

[This message was edited by Ernie Renn on 03 December 2002 at 08:06 AM.]

When I print the photos, they are pretty good when seen from about 7 or 8 inches away. But when you look up close, they sure don't have the sharpness of film. So, I'm trying to figure out whether it's the camera (should I return it and pay more for the Sony; is it the optics?) or is it my printer that's the limiting factor here (put the extra money into a better printer?), or is it simply the state of the art with digital technology (at least in the $300-400 price range) and I just shouldn't expect the prints to be as good as film.

Whaddayathink, guys?
jc

[This message was edited by Jim Cohen on 03 December 2002 at 10:59 AM.]

Many camera stores now print photos from your digital media.

I know nothing about them, but I have a friend who has had one for 2-3 years and just bought one for each of his (3) kids -- similar Kodak model to what Jim selected.

This guy knows the value of a dollar and is pretty tech savvy in that he won't over invest in technology just to have the "latest". Plus he's taken thousands of pics with his digital camera. So my strategy is to buy one that he recommends.

Here's a brief message he sent me today:

quote:

---

Kodak CX4230 (2 mp) - I purchased (3) for $199 ea. at Staples - came with accessory pack and 32MB card.
Kodak DX4330 (3 mp) - in the $299 price range (-10% at Dell.com) - don't feel that you need 3 mp unless you need 11/x17 prints. 2 mp is suitabel for 10X14 prints.
Pentax Optio 230 - was a front runner (2 mp)
Canon A40 - another good camera (2 mp)

Best place to review specs. on these and other cameras is www.steves-digicams.com

For photo printers, the Canon S900 was the best in my opinion, at $249 from bestbuy.com. steves-digicam also reviews printers, and was very impressed with this one.

---

------------------
HagFan

[This message was edited by Ron Page on 03 December 2002 at 12:13 PM.]

I just started looking into the printer issue myself. My old (1995 vintage) printer does NOT make photo quality prints. What I understand is that you need a 6 ink printer to get the best quality. They're available at under $150, so I guess that's what I'll ask Santa for.

------------------
Bob Shilling, Berkeley, CA--MSA S10, "Classic"

Ernie says that his Nikon takes large pictures. What he is saying is that when he views the picture with his editing program, it might say the photo is 17 x 15 in. at 72 dpi. It needs to be resized for its intended use. Pictures to be use on the web only need 72-dpi resolution, whereas those to be printed should be at least 240 dpi. Your printing problem may also be due to not selecting the correct resolution for printing.

So, to get the most from a digital camera, you need to know a little about photography, a little about graphic arts, and you need to know how to use some type of photo editing software on the computer. When Kodak began selling box cameras in the 1890's, they had a slogan, "you press the button, we do the rest", with digital, you press the button, then you figure out how to get the best results . Joey mentioned
having prints made by an outside source, The question would be, if you are going to do that, why bother with digital anyway, there are many film cameras that are completely automatic and give excellent results.

I think digital is great for many uses, especially for using photos on the internet, but to get the best results, you need to know what you are doing. As for selecting a camera, you can't go wrong if you chose a slightly outdated, last year's model, made by one of the major manufacturers. You can save some money that way, and still get a good camera. All this is just my opinion, based on many years of amateur photography and a couple of years using digital stuff. Good luck.

My printer is a HP Laser, black and white only.

I usually only want my photos on the computer so I see no need in buying a good color printer.

Photo paper is expensive too.
When I want prints I go to the photo store.

I really do not want to print my own photo's. The cost of the printer and then to keep purchasing the consumables (ink and that special paper)is too much money for me to spend. I think you would be better off dropping off these flash cards at your local camera shop and having them process the pictures.

Anyone have any thoughts on this issue? Does anyone else take their digital camera's to a photo store? If so, how do they take your camera and transfer the files?

One of the reasons I would like to get the digital camera is because it takes almost perfect pictures. I just got my pictures back from my trip to Ireland and was only satisfied with 65% of them. At least if I had the digital unit, I could preview the photo and see if it is acceptable to me. Also with regular film, there are exceptions in developing. Because maybe one part of the photo had lots of light and then the other half was dark, the development process can only be one way and the other half looks like crap. I read a very good article about all the advantages of digital over regular film camera's. I will try and find the article and post the link to it. It made lots of wonderful arguements.

Thanks,
Mark

------------------
Sho~Bud Pro I, Fender D-8 (C6&E13) http://www.darkmagneto.com

[This message was edited by Mark Ardito on 11 December 2002 at 12:09 PM.]

Mark, once you start down the digicam road, you will not print so many photos. I find that I'm happy mostly just viewing them on the computer. I can print out an occasional shot to show folks, but I think most folks down't really want to look at a big stack of someone else's pictures. I guess what I'm saying is it's really cheaper to print your own.

------------------
Bob Shilling, Berkeley, CA--MSA S10, "Classic"

------------------
Bob Shilling, Berkeley, CA--MSA S10, "Classic"