OT: Digital cameras

In the writings of Iain Jones, the
<[email hidden]> scrolls contained
these prophetic words:

Quoted message said:

Questions I've come across in my research:

- Do pictures get more "washed out" in bright light
than 35mm?
- What's the lifespan of batteries, assuming I use the
viewfinder primarily (rather than the LCD screen)?
- Last week I used up 4 rolls of 36-exposure film across
the whole week. What's the equivalent memory needed for
this many photos?
- Are they more prone to damp and cold than 35mm cameras?

Oh boy, this is a cracker ;o)

1) Some cameras are more prone to blow outs than others.
Comes down to how the sensor handles the light, cheaper
you go the worst it can become...
2) Depends on the camera and types of battery, a 10D dSLR
can pull about 400-500 shots with a 1Gb Microdrive, my
602 Pro can pull about 400 with the same Microdrive but
using standard NIMH (2000mHA) batteries. Also down to how
much you use the LCD preview and flash...
3) Depends on the size of MegaPixels and the final image and
resolution you choose, such as my 602 can fit about 440
shots (6MP fine) on a 1Gb Microdrive but a Canon 10D can
do about 250 ish RAW iirc.
4) I have not experienced this, but if you keep a sachet of
silica gel (you get this with most electronic items) in
your camera bag then you are helping to keep the
moisture out.

How big a camera do you want to carry, how much zoom do
you need, what size of prints do you want to print. Do
you want manual or full auto, do you need the ability to
use a external flash, these are all questions you need to
ask yourself.

You note I have not said anything about MegaPixels, it's a
fallacy that people think that a 5Mp is better than a 3Mp
camera, it not's necessary so it comes down to how well the
picture is rendered. Don't fall into this trap. 3Mp will
produce decent 8x10 shots.

Steves-digicams.com and DPreview.com are good places to
start.

Check out Fuji, Canon and Olympus cameras these have all got
good reps, Kodak do some good cameras as well.
--
Scottish Heritage: celticshadows.co.ukcelticshadows.co.ukOpen ↗

Iain Jones said:

Firstly - apologies to those who may be fed up of newbie
questions about digital cameras on here!

Since I lost my old faithful 35mm camera last week I'm
considering replacing it with a digital, but to be honest
I don't really know what I'm looking for - I get the
megapixels side of it and that's about it. For the 35mm
side of things it took me long enough to get my head round
the ISO numbers (with the help of this newsgroup a couple
of years back ;-)

My old camera was an Olympus AF10-XB compact model
(details at <http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2B551088> ),
point-and-click, nothing fancy, I was happy with the
results. I'm after something similar. Pics will mainly be
kept on my computer, some on the internet, if any are
printed they won't be bigger than A4 size.

I'm happy with my Olympus C5000z camera. Was also happy with
my Olympus C4000 until I lost it... (Long story!) It has
manual controls and aperture / shutter priority.

hope this helps.

--
Brian

Iain Jones said:

Since I lost my old faithful 35mm camera last week I'm
considering replacing it with a digital,

Quoted message said:

My old camera was an Olympus AF10-XB compact model
(details at <http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2B551088> ),
point-and-click, nothing fancy, I was happy with the
results. I'm after something similar.

The general concensus is that 6MP is roughly equal to the
resolution of film, however the lenses on cheap compacts are
hardly of the best quality so probably 3-4MP will do.

Quoted message said:

Pics will mainly be kept on my computer, some on the
internet, if any are printed they won't be bigger than
A4 size.

In my opinion 4MP is enough produce a good quality A4, 3MP
is probably okay at a push. Note that most 3MP digital
cameras are actually 3.3MP so there's not that much
difference with a 4MP.

Quoted message said:

- Do pictures get more "washed out" in bright light
than 35mm?

That's primarily an issue of exposure. In my experience most
exposure meters tend to overexpose, resulting in washed out
skies. Best to take the reading off the sky to prevent
overexposure. The other thing is that digital cameras often
produce lower contrast images than film. While this is
actually a good thing, it results in flatter looking images
with less colour. Boosting colour is easy, so is contrast.
Boosting contrast also boosts colour. There should be
settings to adjust in camera to get a good looking result
straight out of the camera, or (ideally) you can post
process later for the best restuls.

Quoted message said:

- What's the lifespan of batteries, assuming I use the
viewfinder primarily (rather than the LCD screen)?

Depends on what batteries the camera uses. I've heard that
camera's which use AAs have a pathetically short life. Li-
ion batteries are waaaaaaaaaay better! This may vary from
manufacturer to manufacturer but Canon estimate 450 shots
with the LCD on, over 1000 with it off. People have reported
going away for a week and not running out of battery power.
You're more likely to fill your memory cards before your
battery runs out with a Li-ion battery.

Quoted message said:

- Last week I used up 4 rolls of 36-exposure film across
the whole week. What's the equivalent memory needed for
this many photos?

With a 6MP pro camera using top quality RAW mode, 1 gig.
With a 4MP camera in RAW mode, 576 meg. 4MP at top jpeg
quality, 288 meg.

Quoted message said:

- Are they more prone to damp and cold than 35mm cameras?

Don't know about damp but you definitely don't want to get
them wet. Not recommended for use in rain, although I know
someone who's used his Canon G3 in the rain for a short
while without problems. Cold is really a battery issue, it
won't last so long. I've used my G3 and 300D in sub-
zero/snow conditions though without any problems.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

- What's the lifespan of batteries, assuming I use the
viewfinder primarily (rather than the LCD screen)?

It depends a lot on the type of battery and the
milliamperage thereof. If you can find 2100s or above the
battery life will be good; however always carry a couple of
spare sets if you're going to be away from your car for more
than a day at a time (see below). Use your camera at its
maximum resolution. You'll get fewer pictures to your cards,
but you'll be able to crop and play with them better if
they're bigger to start off with. Always have at least one
spare card with you, of whichever memory your new toy uses,
and don't necessarily go for the biggest cards (in terms of
Mb) you can get. Oh, and you'll probably want a card reader
to plug into your computer, so that you don't need to use
the batteries whilst transferring your photos to the HDD.
tinyurl.com9bg2Open ↗

Thinking of batteries, I bought myself a 'new toy' over the
weekend and I'm very happy with it: one battery charger from
Maplins. It runs from either the mains or a car battery (via
the lighter) and can charge NiMhs or Ni-Cds as long as you
don't mix them. The big things for me are:

* Works from car battery;
* It can charge *single* batteries! So if, like me, you have
the odd 'flattery' that you can't otherwise charge because
it's on its own - well now you can;
* As long as all the batteries you're charging have the same
chemical wotnot, they can have different milliamperages,
as each is charged separately;
* It came with 4 x 2300ma NiMhs, which it charged up in just
over an hour in the car.

It's a... hang on.... <rummages> Vanson 1-hour NiMh/NiCd
Battery Charger.

I don't have shares in the company - I'm just very
pleased with
it.
--
Fran If you need my email address please ask.

In article <Xns9501D146A5E6Diainjones1980btinter@
217.32.252.50>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Firstly - apologies to those who may be fed up of newbie
questions about=

=20

Quoted message said:

digital cameras on here!
=20
Since I lost my old faithful 35mm camera last week I'm
considering=20 replacing it with a digital, but to be
honest I don't really know what I'=

m=20

Quoted message said:

looking for - I get the megapixels side of it and that's
about it. For th=

e=20

Quoted message said:

35mm side of things it took me long enough to get my head
round the ISO=

=20

Quoted message said:

numbers (with the help of this newsgroup a couple of years
back ;-)
=20
My old camera was an Olympus AF10-XB compact model
(details at=20 <http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2B551088> ),
point-and-click, nothing fanc=

y,=20

Quoted message said:

I was happy with the results. I'm after something similar.
Pics will main=

ly=20

Quoted message said:

be kept on my computer, some on the internet, if any are
printed they won=

't=20

Quoted message said:

be bigger than A4 size.
=20
Questions I've come across in my research:
=20
- Do pictures get more "washed out" in bright light
than 35mm?

Possibly. Digital cameras have a smaller dynamic range
than=20 35mm print film - more like 35mm slide film.
Exposure=20 therefore needs to be more accurate in difficult
conditions. There are advantages, however - it is easier to
deal with an=20 image with incorrect exposure after the
event, by basic use of=20 a photo editor.

Quoted message said:

- What's the lifespan of batteries, assuming I use the
viewfinder primari=

ly=20

Quoted message said:

(rather than the LCD screen)?

My Canon G3 took about 150 pictures before it needed=20
recharging, but this was with extensive use of the LCD
when=20 taking the pictures and for reviewing. It's easy
enough to put=20 it on charge overnight.

Quoted message said:

- Last week I used up 4 rolls of 36-exposure film across
the whole week.=

=20

Quoted message said:

What's the equivalent memory needed for this many photos?

Again, on my (4MP) G3, the highest quality JPEG was ~2MB, so
a=20 256MB card would be enough. I tend to shoot in RAW
mode,=20 however (gives you more options for post-
processing) and these=20 are about twice as big. A 512MB
card is under =A350 these days. Another factor, though, is
that you have the ability to review=20 your images after
shooting, and delete the ones that didn't=20 work. In this
case, you wouldn't need so much storage.

Quoted message said:

- Are they more prone to damp and cold than 35mm cameras?
=20

I don't believe so.

My wife and I also made the move from good quality film point-
and-shoot cameras to digital versions. OK, the digital
ones=20 were much more expensive, but we were both amazed at
the=20 improvement in the quality of our pictures. Having
the ability=20 to make even simple adjustments to the images
in a photo editor=20 is a benefit I could now not live
without. It makes me realise=20 what a poor job most film
processors do.

"Iain Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Firstly - apologies to those who may be fed up of newbie
questions about digital cameras on here!

Since I lost my old faithful 35mm camera last week I'm
considering replacing it with a digital, but to be honest
I don't really know what I'm looking for - I get the
megapixels side of it and that's about it. For the 35mm
side of things it took me long enough to get my head round
the ISO numbers (with the help of this newsgroup a couple
of years back ;-)

Okay, lots of technical answers already. General user
answer, I have an Olympus MJU 300 as my company camera (also
personal use) good quality build, metal casing and pictures
are equivalent to a 35mm and it's 3 meg camera.

MJU 400 4 meg available for £168 see
lauriem.plus.combargain basement.htmlOpen ↗

Go and have a look at it in the flesh to convince yourself.

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

- What's the lifespan of batteries, assuming I use the
viewfinder primarily (rather than the LCD screen)?

Depends on what batteries the camera uses. I've heard that
camera's which use AAs have a pathetically short life. Li-
ion batteries are waaaaaaaaaay better! This may vary from
manufacturer to manufacturer but Canon estimate 450 shots
with the LCD on, over 1000 with it off.

Paul, we have been here before!

Please look at the Canon specs for their cameras that use
AAs and you will find them comparable to the specs for their
battery pack cameras when running on NiMH.

e.g. the A80

powershot.comspecs.htmlOpen ↗

AA ALKALINE LCD ON Approx. 250 LCD OFF Approx. 800 AA NIMH
LCD ON Approx. LCD OFF 350 Approx. 1000

That hardly makes the 450/1000 you quote for your Li-ion
waaaaaaaaaay better now does it????

Much of what you post does appear to be based on fact but
you do seem to repeatedly bark up the wrong tree on this
particular point.

--

dscs.demon.co.ukdscs.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Iain Jones wrote

Quoted message said:

- Do pictures get more "washed out" in bright light
than 35mm?

I have found that CCD doesn't necessarily respond in exactly
the same way as film, especially in extreme light
conditions. It's a case of practising with, which of course
you can do your hearts content. Delete until your happy with
the results.

Quoted message said:

- What's the lifespan of batteries, assuming I use the
viewfinder primarily (rather than the LCD screen)?

Firstly, don't bother with digital viewfinders. They are a
complete of space. A review screen is essential and if
you're only using it to review what you've taken then it
wont impac too much on bettery life. Do not go for anything
that uses a proprietary battery so you can go for standard
rechargeables, as discussed.

Quoted message said:

- Last week I used up 4 rolls of 36-exposure film across
the whole week. What's the equivalent memory needed for
this many photos?

Depends on the resolution. I have a 128mb card and 64mb card
for backup and unless I'm doing something that may be used
later for A3+ work I will shoot at about 3M pixels and I
will get your 144 shots on my two cards. Also, you'll find
that you'll edit out your weaker shots, making better use of
what memory you've got.

Quoted message said:

- Are they more prone to damp and cold than 35mm cameras?

Not that I have noticed but I have recently had to send my
camera back to Fuji after it broke when dropped only 18
inches in its case, so in my experience they are more
fragile than thier predecessors.

Other factors: Digital zoom is also a waste of space.
Optical zoom is the king. Check out how many ISO equivelant
speeds it supports and shutter speed equivelants. Mine will
do up to 400 ASA and 1000th sec but I could sometimes do
with some more extremes. Mine also lacks a B mode which
really irritates me.

With all technology there is a pay-off between
sophistication and ease of use. I don't mind paying good
money for a camera with a lot of features because I know
that I am going to use them. I am sure that someone can
recommend an excellent point and shoot variety of camera
that delivers excellent picture quality with limited
flexibility.

Chris

Iain Jones said:

Since I lost my old faithful 35mm camera last week I'm
considering replacing it with a digital, but to be honest I
don't really know what I'm looking for

Iain, you've had a goodly few responses that have approached
answers to your tech questions, not my field ;-) but I might
suggest a different tack in your quest for a new camera.

First of all, I'd suggest you're more serious about your
photgraphy than you give yourself credit for, anyone who can
shoot 4x36 in a week is not hanging back for bets! So I'd
suggest you look further "upmarket", i.e. consider spending
more, than you might have done initially.

Other 'roundabout things to think of;

- generally the more MP the better

- more memory on your memory card is better

- try for a camera that gives you RAW mode

- user the LCD, especially if your chosen camera shows you
the histogram, the histogram is a "good thing"

- brand / make, browse the shelves at your newsagent and
read their "buyer's Guides", they price-bracket and give
an overview of each product.

- you'll need image-processing software too, the stuff that
comes with cameras is always pretty basic, useful for file
handling and not much else. Photoshop is the de facto
program to use but its expensive, alternate sources might
resolve this problem to greater or lesser extent. Another
option is The Gimp, gimp.orggimp.orgOpen ↗ which a lot of
people rave about... and not just because its free.

- don't dismiss photo processing on your PC too much because
the options it opens up to you are immense... and its
exactly the same as working in a dark room (i.e. accepted
practice... you don't need to think that what comes out of
the camera is the finished product, especially since film
photographers don't)

- have fun, its great, produce stuff with basic errors and
notice your mistakes immediately soemone say's, ever so
gently, "you may want to consider this" :-) Yes, I wear
that hat at this moment in time :-) and would love to hand
it on to someone else!! Until then, tho', I'll still be
plugging away.

SteveO

NE Climbers & walkers chat forum;
thenmc.org.ukindex.phpOpen ↗

NMC website: thenmc.org.ukthenmc.org.ukOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>, Iain Jones

url=''URL:/url said:

Firstly - apologies to those who may be fed up of newbie
questions about digital cameras on here!

Since I lost my old faithful 35mm camera last week I'm
considering replacing it with a digital, but to be honest
I don't really know what I'm looking for - I get the
megapixels side of it and that's about
it. For the 35mm side of things it took me long enough to
get my head round the ISO numbers (with the help of
this newsgroup a couple of years back ;-)

My old camera was an Olympus AF10-XB compact model
(details at <http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2B551088> ),
point-and-click, nothing fancy, I was happy with the
results. I'm after something similar. Pics will mainly be
kept on my computer, some on the internet, if any are
printed they won't be bigger than A4 size.

Questions I've come across in my research:

- Do pictures get more "washed out" in bright light
than 35mm?
- What's the lifespan of batteries, assuming I use the
viewfinder primarily (rather than the LCD screen)?
- Last week I used up 4 rolls of 36-exposure film across
the whole week. What's the equivalent memory needed for
this many photos?
- Are they more prone to damp and cold than 35mm cameras?

Earlier this year I opted for an Olympus mju-digital 400. My
reasons were that I have used other olympus cameras, both
SLRs and compacts, and they all have had good lenses and
exposure metering. Also the mju series of cameras are small,
easy to use, and are water and dirt resistant.

I use my cameras to record my outdoor activities in
rockclimbing, mountaineering and ski-mountaineering. They
have to put up with conditions such as sea spray, rain and
snow, cold and heat, and be usable in all seasons. Weight is
also an issue for activities such as multi-day
mountaineering and ski-mountaineering.

I use the maximum image resolution on the 4Mp camera but
compress the files onto the xD picture card as jpeg files.
This means that a single 64Mb card can hold about 150 shots.
The lithium ion battery seems to last very well and on a
recent two week ski-tour and taking about 100 shots each
week, the battery was only charged once in the middle
weekend, and even then it wasn't empty. The automatic
metering coped well with the snow conditions, it also has
the ability to set exposure compensation, but I found this
was only necessary for early morning or evening shots.

I'm pleased with the results so far and find that it is a
reasonable digital alternative to my mju 35mm compacts
(which I still use).

Mike <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/>
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark <\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A
mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, "> || _`\<,_ |__\ \>
| immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and ` || (_)/
(_) | \corn computer user"

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul
Saunders <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Paul, we have been here before!

Please look at the Canon specs for their cameras that use
AAs and you will find them comparable to the specs for
their battery pack cameras when running on NiMH.

e.g. the A80

powershot.comspecs.htmlOpen ↗

AA ALKALINE LCD ON Approx. 250 LCD OFF Approx. 800 AA
NIMH LCD ON Approx. LCD OFF 350 Approx. 1000

I'm surprised.

With my A20 I only ever need to change batteries on a trip
(2000mAH NiMH) if they have not been charged for quite
some time.

It also used to be nice that the spare camera batteries
would fit my headtorch and GPS but now I use a Tikka and
Geko 201 most of the time I no longer have that advantage.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That hardly makes the 450/1000 you quote for your Li-ion
waaaaaaaaaay better now does it????

Evidently not.

Quoted message said:

Much of what you post does appear to be based on fact but
you do seem to repeatedly bark up the wrong tree on this
particular point.

I've not had any experience of such cameras myself, I was
simply going by what I'd heard from other people. I'm sure
I've been told that AA battery life is terrible in digital
cameras, often running out after just 20 shots or so. Maybe
they were low capacity rechargeables, I don't know.

The first digital camera I used (an early Olympus Camedia
loaned by a client for work) would only do very small number
of pictures on fresh alkaline AAs. But it would quite
happily take pictures all day on 650mAH NiCds!

The alkaline cells just couldn't deliver the high current
used by the camera but the NiCds had no problem with it. I
was gobsmacked at the difference especially as the nominal
capacity of the NiCds was 1/4 that of the alkaline cells.

From Canon's figures quoted above it seems that the current
drain of modern cameras is not as bad as with the early
models so alkaline cells are not a complete waste of time.

--

dscs.demon.co.ukdscs.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Phew! Thanks everyone so far for your help, after re-reading
my own post I was expecting more along the lines of "get in
the right newsgroup"!

I must admit most of the technical stuff went over my head,
but then I've just back back from work so I'll try reading
it again later. My old camera was auto-focus, and that's
about all I knew about it - no manual controls for
exposure/shutter speed/whatever.

In terms of how serious I am about photography, I spend a
bit of time framing the shot and do the odd experiments like
taking a picture into the sun (some nice silhouttes as a
result), and I've picked and chosen who to develop them for
me. I've only gone into the technical side of it once, and
that was asking what ISO film to use.

Saying all that though I'm reknowned for under-selling
myself ;-) but money's the big issue really, whatever I get
it'll be going onto the credit card to pay off slowly.
What's tempting me most is no cost of films & developing
(getting towards £10 a go, to buy the film then get it
processed).

For now, the Olympus MJU 300 or 400 are looking tempting.
Any more advice is welcome.

Cheers Iain

In article
<[email hidden]>, Iain
Jones <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

For now, the Olympus MJU 300 or 400 are looking tempting.
Any more advice is welcome.

Take a look at the Canon A80 and A75 as well. The weather
resistance of the Mjus are a plus but Canon has a very good
reputation for image quality.

Take a look on www.jessops.com to see the specs.

If you have a branch of Jessops near you pop in and have a
play with the models you are interested in.

--

dscs.demon.co.ukdscs.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul
Saunders <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Much of what you post does appear to be based on fact but
you do seem to repeatedly bark up the wrong tree on this
particular point.

I've not had any experience of such cameras myself, I was
simply going by what I'd heard from other people. I'm sure
I've been told that AA battery life is terrible in digital
cameras, often running out after just 20 shots or so. Maybe
they were low capacity rechargeables, I don't know.

You are perfectly correct Paul. The difference is not in the
capacity but in the chemistry.

For instance a AA alkaline has about 2400mAh capacity but
only lasts a few shots or a few minutes, whereas a NiMH AA
of 1200mAh capacity works for a much longer time.

Basically alkalines are not manufactured to mix the
chemicals fast enough. They can supply the 1A current for a
few minutes and then the chemicals around the 2 anodes are
exhausted and the batteries are not physically able to mix
the depleted and fresh chemicals fast enough to keep it
going. That's why when you give it a few minutes rest it
will give you a few minutes more work. And also why your
"exhausted" AA from your camera will drive a torch (low
current) for nearly as long as a new one.

Quoted message said:

I've also read repeatedly how impressed users are with li-
ion batteries compared to AAs.

Size for size, yes. But I am frustrated by the small Lion
batteries (550mAh) in my Minolta tiny camera which runs out
much faster than my Canon 4xAA.

--
Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland

In article <[email hidden]>,
Fran <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

- What's the lifespan of batteries, assuming I use the
viewfinder primarily (rather than the LCD screen)?

It depends a lot on the type of battery and the
milliamperage thereof. If you can find 2100s or above the
battery life will be good; however always carry a couple of
spare sets if you're going to be away from your car for
more than a day at a time (see below). Use your camera at
its maximum resolution. You'll get fewer pictures to your
cards, but you'll be able to crop and play with them better
if they're bigger to start off with. Always have at least
one spare card with you, of whichever memory your new toy
uses, and don't necessarily go for the biggest cards (in
terms of Mb) you can get. Oh, and you'll probably want a
card reader to plug into your computer, so that you don't
need to use the batteries whilst transferring your photos
to the HDD. tinyurl.com9bg2Open ↗

Thinking of batteries, I bought myself a 'new toy' over the
weekend and I'm very happy with it: one battery charger
from Maplins. It runs from either the mains or a car
battery (via the lighter) and can charge NiMhs or Ni-Cds as
long as you don't mix them. The big things for me are:

* Works from car battery;
* It can charge *single* batteries! So if, like me, you
have the odd 'flattery' that you can't otherwise charge
because it's on its own - well now you can;
* As long as all the batteries you're charging have the
same chemical wotnot, they can have different
milliamperages, as each is charged separately;
* It came with 4 x 2300ma NiMhs, which it charged up in
just over an hour in the car.

It's a... hang on.... <rummages> Vanson 1-hour
NiMh/NiCd Battery

After a while my Vanson from Maplin never stopped charging
on one cell position. I could charge 3 batteries reliably
but that was not much use...

Cost me £40 too.
--
Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland

In article <[email hidden]>,
SteveOrrell@?.?.invalid writes

Quoted message said:

Paul Saunders said:

Steve Orrell said:

First of all, I'd suggest you're more serious about your
photgraphy than you give yourself credit for, anyone who
can shoot 4x36 in a week is not hanging back for bets!

Ha! I take that many in a day! Half a roll a day is really
restrained
IMO. :-)

Ah, but you've got that itchy finger thing that makes you
hit the shutter release shutter release shutter release,
plus I'm sure spaceitis will get you, even
subconsciously? ;-)

I'd take praps a roll-equivalent in a trip oot (Weds eve)
but I'd tail off in my enthusiasm over a week ;-)

One reason I changed to digital was that I took typically
700 photos in a week of holiday in good weather on my film
camera. I recovered the cost of the digital mighty quickly
in not developing film, especially as I had them all scanned
to CD at the same time.

--
Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland

In article
<[email hidden]>, Iain
Jones <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

For now, the Olympus MJU 300 or 400 are looking tempting.
Any more advice is welcome.

My advice is to buy cheap. Regard the £100(?) you spent as
learning money to decide what you really want. You can
always sell it on eBay afterwards anyway.

I went for a Canon A20 as my learning camera. I moved up to
Olympus E10 SLR. But the A20 takes most photos for me as I
take it on all my walks as a visual record.

--
Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland

<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>, Iain
Jones <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

For now, the Olympus MJU 300 or 400 are looking tempting.
Any more advice is welcome.

Take a look at the Canon A80 and A75 as well. The weather
resistance of the Mjus are a plus but Canon has a very good
reputation for image quality.

Seconded.

Always worth downloading full pictures from

www.imaging-resource.com

so that you can print the same picture taken on
different cameras.

--
Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland

In article <[email hidden]>,
rob burton <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Not so long ago I saw amazon selling Canon A60's for £100,
which is a very good deal, though I'm not sure if you can
still get them.

You can, but beware when they're from abroad. You pay VAT
and import duties amounting to perhaps 20% extra.
--
Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland