OT - Digital Cam ?? - Off-Road Forums & Discussion Groups
Suzuki GEO All Discussion of all things, Suzuki and GEO

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of (permalink) Old 08-03-2002, 12:31 PM Thread Starter
Keyboard Implanted
 
CrowHorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sidney, New York
Posts: 3,446
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 
OT - Digital Cam ??

A local chain had a dig. cam for about $45 and had a resolution of something like 600 x 800. Would it be acceptable for posting clear pics on the BBS? I'm clueless. I figured that for the $45, even if it would only be used for posting pics here, it might be worth it... Any ideas?
CrowHorse is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of (permalink) Old 08-03-2002, 12:47 PM
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 840
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 
Re: OT - Digital Cam ??

Crow,

That would be pretty much all it would be good for is quick web and email pics. By any chance is it the QuickPics? I had one of those and I ended up returning it because I was so disappointed. Ended up spending the extra 70 or so and got a "real" digital cam

Murph
Murph is offline  
post #3 of (permalink) Old 08-03-2002, 01:04 PM Thread Starter
Keyboard Implanted
 
CrowHorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sidney, New York
Posts: 3,446
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 
Re: OT - Digital Cam ??

Thanks Murph! I forgot what make it was, but I'll check it out. That's all I would want it for and it would save me heaps of cash instead of paying for deleoping to post pics....
BTW, can you send me that pic you & Brandy took of me? Thanks!
CrowHorse is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of (permalink) Old 08-03-2002, 02:33 PM
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,890
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 
Re: OT - Digital Cam ??

Crow, the other thing to watch for is focal lengths. some are pretty limiting. Here is a pic taken with a vivcam 100 at hi res which isnt much. I think even less than what your looking at, for a frame of reference.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 849964-brush guard bumper.jpg (21.9 KB, 3 views)
outlawmws is offline  
post #5 of (permalink) Old 08-04-2002, 08:21 PM
Keyboard Implanted
 
ackerdackerly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 2,075
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 
Re: OT - Digital Cam ??

Crow:

How do you keep the ones and zeroes from washing down through the oil galleries? And will a Rotational Dynamics adjustable Cam sprocket fit?
ackerdackerly is offline  
post #6 of (permalink) Old 08-04-2002, 08:48 PM
woodcarver
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: OT - Digital Cam ??

I got one of those AIPTEK Pocket DV. I don't like it too much...pics look like the one of those blurred blocks interviewers use to protect someone's identity. I haven't used it too much, but will experiment some more before I decide to take it back. I got this from "Wallyworld"...so go figure.
Mac
post #7 of (permalink) Old 08-04-2002, 09:23 PM
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,604
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 
Re: OT - Digital Cam ??

crow
i have a polaroid pdc 1300 its a nice cheap one its a 1.3 mega pixel it gets about 60 pics per set of 4 aa batteries on low res. setting on a 8 mb. photo card. it cost me 70.00 from k-mart it will save a jpeg pic at 70 % at about 50kb. does real good for still pics that you can wait for the focus of 5 sec. from about 1 1/2 ft to 20 ft the zoom on it sux and distorts on low have not tried the zoom on high res here is one i shot the other day
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 850921-gazuki5.JPG (59.1 KB, 0 views)
GA_ZUKI is offline  
post #8 of (permalink) Old 08-05-2002, 08:06 PM
Keyboard Implanted
 
daxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: socialist lib heaven mASS
Posts: 3,460
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 
Re: OT - Digital Cam ??

Hey Crowhorse!

We talked once about digital cameras (#1 NE fab fest) and I would like help you make a good decision about a digital camera. I know you are into photography and don't want you to throw away any money on something that is just going to frustrate you. Anything under 100$ is not going to make you very happy.

The equivalent (in film cameras) is that they would have a very long shutter speed and unsophisticated metering. The imaging elements in inexpensive digital cameras are VERY small and the lenses are not very good quality. Combine those two things and you get very poor sensitivity to light and distorted images. Almost ANY motion results in a blur unless you are in blinding sunlight and forget trying to get a good picture if there is any complex metering required. There is a reason that cheap digital cameras generally dont save pictures in uncompressed modes...the raw images look like crap, so JPGing them is a good excuse for "introduced" distortion.

I have had 4 or 5 digital cameras and know from whence I speak. The sub-100$ ones are still junk. You would be better off getting a nice used 2 megapixel one on Ebay. Something like this: <a target="_blank" href=http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&amp;item=1370710170>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&amp;item=1370710170</a>

I just grabbed that listing and i dont know anything about it except that it comes with the power adapter kit and a 64 meg CF card. That camera was 700$ a couple years ago (close to $1000 with the power kit and CF card) and you could probably get it for about 200-250$ on ebay today. I had one of those and it was a great camera. There are comparable cameras from all the major manufacturers available on Ebay by the thousands from that era in that price range. Those cameras would allow you to take some nice pictures. This picture was taken with that very same camera:



feel free to email me if you want some advice on something you are thinking of buying. That goes for anyone else reading this, too.

~daxe ( [email protected] )
daxe is offline  
post #9 of (permalink) Old 08-06-2002, 06:51 AM
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 320
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 
Re: OT - Digital Cam ??

Daxe,

What camera did you use to take that picture. I have an old Kodak DC280 (Crow, you can pick these up for under $200 on like Ebay all the time) and it works real well, but not as well as what you used for the post picture.

Hopefully this works:


This is a hi-res image I took with mine Crow. I had an IXLA camera (a cheaper digital) and as has been pointed out, if I was not in SERIOUS sunlight the pictures were almost unusable.

Just my opinion here, but there are quite a few 2.0+ megapixel cameras out there for around 200 buck that would serve you better and not require upgrade anytime soon.
mjklm is offline  
post #10 of (permalink) Old 08-06-2002, 07:37 AM
Keyboard Implanted
 
daxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: socialist lib heaven mASS
Posts: 3,460
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
 
Re: OT - Digital Cam ??

>>What camera did you use to take that picture.

That was a Canon S10, a 2.1 Megapixel model. They have a few different cameras that use the same internals..basically anything Canon sells in the last few years with the 2.1 Megapixel imaging element.

>>This is a hi-res image I took with mine Crow.

Interestingly, the image I posted was not even taken using the hi-res mode of the camera. It was the hi quality setting but only 800x600. The camera did up to 1156x783 or something like that.

> if I was not in SERIOUS sunlight the pictures were almost unusable.

It is worth noting that the picture I posted was not posed but taken as a candid shot in poor lighting. My daughter and the dog were both bouncing around on the bed in the dim lighting and I called them over quick and just snapped the picture. There's no motion blurring and it appears quite clear, even though it has been JPGed twice. (once when taken and again when resized)

>>Just my opinion here, but there are quite a few 2.0+ megapixel cameras out there for around 200 buck that would serve you better and not require upgrade anytime soon.

This is completely true. Especailly for online purposes, there really isn't anything to be gained from 3,4 or 5 megapixel images. All those pixels help make a nicer, larger, more clear print, but on a computer monitor they all look the same when you shrink them down to a usable size.

~daxe
daxe is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Off-Road Forums & Discussion Groups forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome