10,500 feet is way the heck up there!

I know, I know - it's way OT, but I'm about to spend significant money on a
digital camera, and it seems like the people in here may know more than any
advice I'm getting from friends. I posted over on alt.photography, but it is
a pretty quiet newsgroup.

So, here are some parameters:

$1,000, including enough memory to make the camera useful

10x or greater zoom for youth sports - soccer and basketball

ability to increase zoom for wildlife, nature photos - maybe attach to my
Kowa TSN 822 scope

use for pictures in my 182

What else should I be asking? Is this enough info to make a decision? I am
leaning toward the Fuji S-5000. Any opinions?

Thanks,

Michael

Canon just came out with a 6 megapixel "SLR" digital that will use all of
the Canon lenses from their 35mm line. This includes sever image stabilized
lenses/ I've seen it for $899 with a 55-80mm lens. That is slightly longer
than it would be on 35mm due to the imaging chip's size. You can have
something like 50 or 60 lenses to chose from. It's the Canon EOS-300D
Digital Rebel.

Look around for prices, but here's a link-if it comes through.

http://www.everyprice.com/cgi-bin/se...00D&Qualifier=
mike regish

"Michael 182" wrote in message
. net...
I know, I know - it's way OT, but I'm about to spend significant money on
a
digital camera, and it seems like the people in here may know more than
any
advice I'm getting from friends. I posted over on alt.photography, but it
is
a pretty quiet newsgroup.

So, here are some parameters:

$1,000, including enough memory to make the camera useful

10x or greater zoom for youth sports - soccer and basketball

ability to increase zoom for wildlife, nature photos - maybe attach to my
Kowa TSN 822 scope

use for pictures in my 182

What else should I be asking? Is this enough info to make a decision? I am
leaning toward the Fuji S-5000. Any opinions?

Thanks,

Michael

Canon just came out with a 6 megapixel "SLR" digital that will use all of
the Canon lenses from their 35mm line. This includes sever image
stabilized
lenses/ I've seen it for $899 with a 55-80mm lens. That is slightly longer
than it would be on 35mm due to the imaging chip's size. You can have
something like 50 or 60 lenses to chose from. It's the Canon EOS-300D
Digital Rebel.

That's a great deal, on a great sounding camera, but I want to throw
something in the mix he Convenience.

I used to own a Nikon SLR. All the bells and whistles, all the lenses. The
pictures it took were stunning.

I never used it.

Well, I shouldn't say "never" -- but it was so big and unwieldy that I never
caught that candid shot at the birthday party, or that image of the fall
colors on my way to work. It was just too danged big to be considered
"portable", and it was a major production to get it set up.

That's why we went with the Canon Elph a couple of years ago, even though
photographically there were superior choices. The danged little thing
actually, REALLY fits in your shirt pocket, has a useful little zoom lens,
easy to use controls, and takes pretty darned good pictures. (All the
pictures on our website were taken with it.)

Best of all, it's ALWAYS in my top pocket, or Mary's purse, waiting to be
used... When it breaks, I'm buying another one. (They've now got it up to
4 megapixels, I think...)

Just something else to consider.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Very good points. I just bought my first digital. It's a Canon Powershot
A70. While not as small as the Elph, it does fit in my pocket and I take it
just about everywhere. Portability is a bigger factor than most people
realize. But there are times when it just doesn't get quite as much as I'd
like it to. What really tempts me about the Rebel is the capability of using
an image stabilized lens. While not quite as good as a gyro platform, it's
got to be a great help. Have to find out more. And I think you'll find that
for aerial shots, the clearest days are also the bumpiest. It's the nature
of the beast. It's fairly rare, at least around here, to get a clear AND
calm day at the altitudes I like to shoot from. Another thing to consider is
that with a 6 meg camera set to highest resolution (why shoot anything
less?), you're going to need a big card. My CAP unit has a Kodak 6 meg
camera with a 1 gig card in it. I think it's good for about 300 shots, but I
don't know if that's at highest res. Didn't get to play with it much. Don't
know how much a 1 gig card goes for either.

mike regish

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:tKkjb.140986$%h1.140943@sccrnsc02...
Canon just came out with a 6 megapixel "SLR" digital that will use all
of
the Canon lenses from their 35mm line. This includes sever image
stabilized
lenses/ I've seen it for $899 with a 55-80mm lens. That is slightly
longer
than it would be on 35mm due to the imaging chip's size. You can have
something like 50 or 60 lenses to chose from. It's the Canon EOS-300D
Digital Rebel.

That's a great deal, on a great sounding camera, but I want to throw
something in the mix he Convenience.

I used to own a Nikon SLR. All the bells and whistles, all the lenses.
The
pictures it took were stunning.

I never used it.

Well, I shouldn't say "never" -- but it was so big and unwieldy that I
never
caught that candid shot at the birthday party, or that image of the fall
colors on my way to work. It was just too danged big to be considered
"portable", and it was a major production to get it set up.

That's why we went with the Canon Elph a couple of years ago, even though
photographically there were superior choices. The danged little thing
actually, REALLY fits in your shirt pocket, has a useful little zoom lens,
easy to use controls, and takes pretty darned good pictures. (All the
pictures on our website were taken with it.)

Best of all, it's ALWAYS in my top pocket, or Mary's purse, waiting to be
used... When it breaks, I'm buying another one. (They've now got it up
to
4 megapixels, I think...)

Just something else to consider.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" writes:

Well, I shouldn't say "never" -- but it was so big and unwieldy that I never
caught that candid shot at the birthday party, or that image of the fall
colors on my way to work. It was just too danged big to be considered
"portable", and it was a major production to get it set up.

That's why we went with the Canon Elph a couple of years ago, even though
photographically there were superior choices. The danged little thing
actually, REALLY fits in your shirt pocket, has a useful little zoom lens,
easy to use controls, and takes pretty darned good pictures. (All the
pictures on our website were taken with it.)

Exactly so. I got a Canon Powershot S10 3 years ago for that very
reason: the camera that you don't carry around won't take any pictures
at all. I've taken over 1000 pictures with the S10, so have easily
paid for it with savings on film. OK, maybe not, 'cause I wouldn't
have taken so many pix with film.

Some observations:

- I rarely print photos, viewing them on the computer instead. So
more pixels simply means you get to crop more of the original
picture. I'm still happy with 2.1 MP.

- More important to me now are faster startup time, faster time
between shots, more powerful optical zoom, better battery life.

- I usually don't use the LCD display 'cause it runs down the
battery. Get one with a good optical viewfinder too. I only
occasionally use the manual adjust for light quality or exposure. But
control over the flash is critical (force on/force off).

- I really like the panorama feature...this is where you take multiple
overlapping shots, aided by the camera, and software later stitches
them all together. Good fun.

Bob Fry wrote:

- I rarely print photos, viewing them on the computer instead. So
more pixels simply means you get to crop more of the original
picture. I'm still happy with 2.1 MP.

More pixels means more detail captured so that *when you crop* you still
retain a good quality picture.

I used to have a 2.1mp but I found that cropping more than half the
picture would result in a remaining picture that was too grainy. Having
more megapixels means having more cropping options for those times the
subject was too far away.

--
Peter

In article om, Peter
R. wrote:

I used to have a 2.1mp but I found that cropping more than half the
picture would result in a remaining picture that was too grainy. Having
more megapixels means having more cropping options for those times the
subject was too far away.

"Grainy" describes film. (grains of silver-halide crystals)

"Pixilated" describes digital images. (little square elements, pixels,
that make up the ccd image sensor)

EDR ) wrote:

In article om, Peter
R. wrote:

I used to have a 2.1mp but I found that cropping more than half the
picture would result in a remaining picture that was too grainy. Having
more megapixels means having more cropping options for those times the
subject was too far away.

"Grainy" describes film. (grains of silver-halide crystals)

"Pixilated" describes digital images. (little square elements, pixels,
that make up the ccd image sensor)

Uh... Pixilated looks grainy to this uneducated, amateur photographer when
the picture is printed out.

But, if it makes you happy I will try to remember to use the technically-
correct term in future posts. :-)

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

EDR writes:

In article om, Peter
R. wrote:

I used to have a 2.1mp but I found that cropping more than half the
picture would result in a remaining picture that was too grainy. Having
more megapixels means having more cropping options for those times the
subject was too far away.

"Grainy" describes film. (grains of silver-halide crystals)

"Pixilated" describes digital images. (little square elements, pixels,
that make up the ccd image sensor)

What you're most often actually seeing that looks sort-of like film
grain in digital photos is CCD noise. "Pixelated" tends to mean you
can see all the pixel boundaries, which dosn't happen with modern
techniques (bicubic interpolation and such).

(And there does seem to be a word "pixilated", but it means
"whimsical, prankish, behaving as if mentally unbalanced, very
eccentric", deriving from "pixie", and doesn't seem to have anything
to do with picture elements).

I'd venture to guess that "grainy" is going to hang around in the
language to describe that appearance of digital photos.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: noguns-nomoney.com www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: dragaera.info/

"EDR" wrote in message
...
"Grainy" describes film. (grains of silver-halide crystals)

"Pixilated" describes digital images. (little square elements, pixels,
that make up the ccd image sensor)

Not really.

Digital pictures have both "grain" and "pixelation". As David notes,
"pixelation" refers to a very specific situation, in which the pixels are
large enough to differentiate. You can still get "grain" in a digital
photo, when there is not enough light to take a good picture and noise
starts taking over the CCD's response.

What Peter was referring to is "pixelation", but it's incorrect to say that
there's no such thing as "grain" in digital photography. There is, it just
doesn't come from literal grains of crystals in the film.

Pete