To buy, or not to buy

[John_Hartley]

I recently replaced a 35mm camera that had been stolen. A few pounds of insurance pay-out remains which Mrs H has decreed can be added to forthcoming birthday present monies from the family.

My questions for the Pals are:-

1 Is it worth me now taking the plunge and also buying a digital camera?

2 With specific relation to our "hobby", what benefits might a digital offer over a conventional. I'm understand digital quality may not yet always be as good as film

3 What sort of things do you use your digital camera for (Great War only. None of the "nudge, nudge" stuff you might use it for)

4 Is approx £150 going to get me the right kit

Reply quickly - birthday looms.

John

[ianw]

I have used a now rather primitive 1.3 megapixel camera for a year now and love it . I also still use 35mm.

I think a good 4 or 5 megapixel camera will produce results as good as 35mm but you currently won't get one for £150. I would recommend taking the plunge and hunt around for a good name brand Nikon or Canon for your budget. You will get a fair chunk of your money back in a year or so when quality digital will be further down in price if you want to upgrade.

I use mine for sending images to friends and ebay - my camera paid for itself as an essential aid to a few ebay sales.

[John W]

4 Is approx £150 going to get me the right kit

Ok I have been using digitals semi comercially for about four years,

So maybe 4 or 5 mega pixel is as godd as 35mm but to be honest you don't need somthing that good. what is usefull is an optical view finder (its why I got rid of my Sony) and also an optical zoom

Bad news is it comes to a bit more than £150 but a good Fuji 2800 should set you back new about £225-£250 or maybe less on ebay

John

[MartinWills]

John,

Firstly consider what sort of pictures you take.

If you need colour slides digital is not a solution.

If you need large colour prints digital can still be expensive.

If you generally only have 6x4 or 7x5 colour prints digital is fine expensive digital camera will run to larger prints.

Next consider whether you need a zoom or not. Non zoom is cheaper. Ignore digital zoom offerings/figures - all this does is look at a smaller part of the picture you take. Work only with optical zoom figures.

Do you need it to be idiot proof or not. Some cameras will offer idiot proof operation with an option for more advanced settings if you want them.

You will also need to consider running costs.

It's best to use rechargeable batteries - so a camera using AA batteries (cheap and universal) is probably best. Digital cameras use a lot of power so alkaline batteries are expensive to use but are easy to obtain in an emergency. Best are the high capacity NiMH rechargables (1800 - 2000 mAh) are a good source is Maplins - especially if there is a two for one offer on. You also need a battery charger for them.

You also need memory cards. Most cameras come supplied with one - usually of small capacity, eg 16MB. There are a variety of types of card some of which are costly. The mostly widely used at present, especially by high-end camera users is Compact Flash. Quality CF cards can be bought very economically from www.crucial.com/uk (eg 256 Mb for about £38). You need enough cards to keep you going until you can download them onto a computer or a portable gizmo.

The camera wil probably allow you to transfer the pictures to your PC but is typically very slow. A card reader (around £5 at www.ebuyer.com, or up to £30 elsewhere..) is a boon

You will also probably find you want some picture editing software. Some can be found for free, better packages cost between £35 and £80. This will allow you to edit out things like telegraph wires, birds flying past, mothers-in-law etc. You may already have some, say bundled with a scanner. You may or may not get something useful with your camera.

You do need a computer, but you presence on the forum suggest you have the equipment.

You also need to consider your printer, its quality (photo quality is a boon but by no means essential) and running costs. For example Lexmark printer ink cartridges can be very expensive. You inevitably use more ink than printing text (100% coverage against about 5%. Compatible cartridges offer massive savings for some printers - if you know where to look to buy. You are also likely to want to use photo quality paper for your prints.

Consider, also, how you will save/archive your pictures - especially if you take a lot. A CD Writer is ideal for this and they are not too pricey at present (£30 to £40 should suffice if you can install your own). The CDs cost as little as 20p each in bulk.

Having said all that the running costs can be very low - no need to buy film over and over again; no need to pay for film processing and no need to print out the pictures if you are happy to look at them on screen. Something to count against the initial expense.

On top of that you can simply delete your failures. Indeed you can simply check the result on the camera screen immediately after taking and delete it and try again. No wasteage there.

As regards a camera, general opinion is that camera manufacturers produce better digital cameras than electronics manufacturers (so consider Nikon; Canon; Minolta in the first instance) which is not to say that others are not decent cameras. Quality lies in two things, the lens and the image size (i.e. megapixels and the more the better). Most cameras will allow you to reduce quality and size to get smaller image files (and poorer images). The highest quality you will want to use is probably the key factor and I would suggest to anyone not to settle for less than 2 megapixels and aim for 4 megapixels if you can.

A good starting palce might be the Nikon Coolpix 2100 and 3100; Canon A70 and Minolta Dimage S414 the cheapest (Nikon) can be got for about £160 the most expensive (Canon or Minolta) of these for about £260 by shopping around.

As for buying a camera, internet prices are generally cheaper (Amazon; InternetCamerasDirect etc) - a search on a camera make and model is a good start. Some retailers on the high street will match Internet Prices if they are in stock and UK goods with manufacturers warranty - though sometimes only if you ask. In the UK Jessops amongst others will do this, a facility I have used most effectively. You will almost certainly want to visit several shops to try cameras out, whether you buy there or not.

Two tips.

Don't buy a camera that does not feel comfortable in your hand - you will tend not to use it.

Don't buy a camera purely on size and weight - smaller is not necessarily better.

Mrs W. has just joined the digital fraternity and is delighted - having taken around 150 pictures in the last week.

I have been a happy digital user for a couple of years, though I still use 35mm film as well - in particular for quality colour slides.

By all means email off-line if you want to discuss any aspects any further.

[Muerrisch]

The sheer immediacy of printing a picture you took ten minutes ago is a great asset, not just Great War studies, but in a family setting, or a committee, or a parish council, or whatever. My Canon EOS100 with a huge zoom and a bottom end zoom is my main camera, BUT it cannot do what I have just described. Revolutionary [mine was buckshee ... son in law upgraded and passed his old one down, or is it up?]

[Terry_Reeves]

I must agree with the comments made so far. Much depends on what you want from your camera. I use both types of media. I am very comfortable with my SLR and a supplementary zoom lens; it provides me with the results I need although much depends on me getting it right in the first place.

My digital camera is about mid-range price wise. It find it useful as a reserve if I start to run short of conventional film and very useful for photographing things which I am happy to store on CD ROM or my hard disk, such as war memorials and the recording the names thereon, particularly those with large numbers of names. An increasing number of archives, such as the National Archive, allow the use of digital cameras to photograph documents ect, subject to certain restrictions. This has saved me a lot of time and costs in photocopying.

Terry Reeves

[stevew]

I've got a digi still camera and a digi camcorder, which can do stills. Recently pail my first trip to the Somme and The Salient and took just over 150 photos - I know I would'nt have taken that many with my slr, I was practising alot, so next I will probably take fewer!! Burnt them all to cd - absolutley great!

I would recomend a 3megapixel. Fuji, Sony and Olympus do very good entry cameras.....buy yourself a magazine, go to jessops to play about with them (and pick their brains) and then order it off the web and save yourself about a bullseye!!

[Alan Lines]

John

I love mine, it came with an idiots guide and I was taking pictures and sending them on the net. in minutes. But I only use it to send pictures to friends etc. via email. If you want to get the best out of your digital camera you will have to have a reasonable printer and worst of all spend some time working it all out. Be warned, I've had mine for a year now and still can't be bothered with all that.

[garyem1]

John,

I think Martin has covered the subject very well. I used a Bronica 6x45 for nearly 18 years doing wedding/portraits. I had to stop this type of work, so the expensive film camera became redundant, then my wife purchased a simple point and shoot autofocus Kodak DC240 Zoom 1.3mb digital for me one xmass and it changed my view on the camera, it takes lovely pics. Four years later and i have upgraded to an Olympus 4mb Camedia. 500.00 pounds on ebay (second hand) 1000.00 new. you can set it for idiot proof pics or pro,

it costs nothing to run, if i like a pic or two i upload them to Kodak UK and the prints come back on real photographic paper and cheap to. Look at the UK Kodak site for cameras in your price range, 500.00 pound cameras (secondhand/reconditioned by Kodak) are going at very good prices.

garyem1

[Greenwoodman]

Which one is you?!!

[garyem1]

Greenwoodman, did you see that pic ?

I deleted it of before I got a rollicking from the admin, it was a bit big

[john w.]

2 million pixel is fine.. check it out on kellkoo.com and buy... £178 plus vat

John

[armourersergeant]

i bought the wife a digi for a birthday pressie and i use it more than she does. Would never go back, i rarely print but save to disk on a rewriter and this disk then becomes my photo album ,thus saving on printing etc which to do properley can get expensive.

Mine is a 2million with some zoom its quality is brilliant.

Arm.

[CROONAERT]

John.

Most of the (non-scanned) photos that I've used on this forum have come from my 2.1 megapixel Jenoptik camera that only set me back £79 from Computer World. The photos I sent you of the Tyne Cot memorial back in April were also from this camera, so you can see the quality of shots. The only drawback (apart from lack of LCD screen - which is'nt all that necessary and eats batteries) is the lack of optical zoom. Jenoptik also make a 3.1 Megapixel version that has a 3X optical zoom and screen, currently £170 (ish).

One thing to remember, though, is no matter how good your camera, the photos still rely on the abilities of your printer for quality.

Dave.

[Greenwoodman]

For garyem - which admin would have dished out the rollicking?

As regards the now-disappeared picture, as I'm sure you already know, if you opened it into your image manipulation software (I use Photoshop 6 - or at least the half dozen features of it that i understand!), select Image size, set it at width 450, save the photo under another title as a jpeg you would then get the right size for ForumPhotos.

[j.r.f]

I bought an AIPTEK from Lidle stores for £80.It has 3.5 million pixels.I bought a 64 meg insert for £19.99 from Maplins as far as I can see it works a treat for grave stones and memorials.

Lidle buy in bulk yhen sell in their stores.You might have to waight for some time & be prepared and able to quew,but it well worth it.

JOHN

[Alison Arnold]

John,

I would say go for it. My husband bought me my digital camera last year for my birthday/christmas present. My fault for having my birthday 2 days before christmas!!

I use it a lot!! What I like about it is the fact I don't have to pay out and then find out the pics were useless!! If I don't like anything I just delete it very useful if other half/kids have had their hands on it!!

I use mine for war memorials, graves, kids activities, days out, husband washing up!!

I have just been moaned at that I am using to much space on the hard drive so am in the process off burning it all to cd.

Happy Birthday for whenever

Regards

Ali

[Paul Reed]

I'd agree with all the comments above; you don't need much above 4mill pix unless you want to take commercial photos; I opted for a 6mill pix when I got mine simply because I do use it for these sort of purposes, and most of the photos I take are for my websites; but I rarely take such images above 1mill pix as they are too big, and I have to reduce them down anyway.

Mine also has a zoom and an 'SLR' style viewfinder, which I have found much more useful - but it is down to personal taste and money available.

I personally wouldn't go back to 'conventional' photography now, as its much easier to store images on a CD rather than have to have dozens of photo albums and negative albums!

Take the plunge!

[Kate Wills]

For garyem - which admin would have dished out the rollicking?

As regards the now-disappeared picture...

Yes Garyem, to which admin do you allude? Surely not your fully-digitised 4 million pixelated Moderator?

Consider yourself rollicked for oversized postings.

Consider youself further rollicked for not reposting a suitably resized picture and identifying yourself and the camera used.

[CROONAERT]

most of the photos I take are for my websites; but I rarely take such images above 1mill pix as they are too big, and I have to reduce them down anyway.

John.

Pauls hit on a good point here. Even with a 2.1 Mpx camera, I rarely take photos at the highest resolution (those I sent you weren't at the highest!).My camera's "normal" (as opposed to "high") setting probably takes pictures at around the 1.4 Mpx mark which is fine for "album" sized prints. You can do larger (clearer)prints with higher settings , but for most peoples purposes, album sized is ideal.

On my journeys to the "front", my digital always accompanies me, as I'm extremely happy with it's results (and it fits in my pocket!), but for those "special" shots, I always turn back to my trusty SLR (especially for the "arty" shots). Mind you, though, I would say that, having my own darkroom and having been "proffesionally" trained as a photographer! (anyone want to buy a Durst colour enlarger, by the way?).

If I could get (afford!) a digital camera to exactly replicate my SLR for quality and control, then I would (and it breaks my heart to say it!) definately abandon the SLR in favour of digital (PC's aren't as messy or smell as bad as a darkroom!).

Dave.

[Greenwoodman]

OK chaps, been following the discussion with interest as I'm also about to take the plunge.

What sort of settings are people using for documents at the PRO? Specifically war diaries?

[MartinWills]

A useful feature on some cameras is a program specifically for photographing text. Given the form of many documents and small print a fairly high reolution in terms of pixels is useful. Those who photograph documents regularly use a copy stand (mine is invaluable), but you can't really cart it to the NA/PRO though other archives may let you use your own. Beware long exposures (camera shake and fuzzy images) and remember that you are generally not allowed to use flash as this can help aid document deterioration.

[Michael]

As Martin says, you are not allowed to use a flash or tripod at the PRO

I've got a 2 Megapixel Canon A40 and it is superb. I've taken 6600 images so far and its as good as new. I use the highest resolution which uses about 1 Mb for each shot. I then keep downloading them to my laptop.

Here is an example for you.

[Michael]

Er sorry, here it is

[MartinWills]

Michael,

At 40p a photocopy saved 6600 images is a potential saving of um...... £2640 which must have paid for the camera numerous times.

In the field, of course, you could take a snap of something like an interesting cemetery register entry as well as the headstone. Digital is perfect for recording this sort of info.