Digital Camera Update -- 1997

Digital cameras have come a l o n g way.

There can be little doubt that, since the days of my old Canon Xapshot, digital cameras --

• Have improved tremendously in quality.

• Have come down dramatically in price.

• Are arriving, ironically, at the same time that manufacturers are introducing APS (Advanced Photo System) cameras and film.

BUT, have digital cameras come far enough for you?

I think that many of you will want to purchase digital cameras. Manufacturers are certainly hoping you will!

But what will your criteria be? Here are my suggestions!

General recommendations for choosing a digital camera (or anything else).

• Consider your needs and your pocketbook.
  • How can you tell if a camera is suitable for your needs if you haven't the foggiest idea of what your needs are?

  • Realistically, we all have to live within our means.

  • You must consider "cost of ownership." Buying a digital camera may require additional expenses.

• Although it may sound like a contradiction of the above recommendation, don't underestimate your needs.
  • I recommend getting more capability and functionality rather than less.

  • At first, everything seems so complicated that it seems you couldn't possibly want more.

  • Then, you come to grips with things and wish you had gotten more.

  • Now you are left with vague dissatisfaction. Your purchase is too new and too expensive to be upgraded but possibly too inconvenient for what you want it to do.

  • Even if you do not feel that this scenario applies to you, you still must admit that as new applications present themselves, you want to be able to meet them.

Considerations when choosing a digital camera.

• Let's dispense with the obvious -- The more pixels the better (and the more expensive).
  • You really need to keep your application in mind. Internet (and TV) applications demand far less detail than large prints.

  • At the current time, there is no reason you have to settle for less than 800 x 600 in the sub $1000 range.

• Most cameras will compress the images you take.
  • They allow you to store more images in a "standard" mode and fewer in a "fine" mode.

  • This typically means more versus less JPEG compression.

  • The more the JPEG compression, the more images can be stored but the less quality (detail) they will have.

• Some cameras are limited to internal ("flash" RAM) storage, while others can store their images on removable PC cards.
  • The advantages of removable cards is obvious -- storage becomes unlimited. Great when you travel.

  • The downside is that PC cards are, at the moment, expensive, potentially damageable, and, I suspect, not readable from one digital camera to the next (I could be wrong on this).

• Good resolution doesn't mean good color -- or even sharp pictures.
  • For optimum results, you would need three pixels to capture Red, Green, and Blue independently.

  • In the April, 1997 issue of PC Computing, (p. 292) five digital cameras in the $400 to $600 range were compared.

  • The Olympus D-200L gave the best picture quality.

  • The Epson PhotoPC had "the most colorful and realistic photos."

  • The cameras, all with internal storage, differed in their storage capacity.

  • In the June, 1997 issue of Byte Magazine, Jerry Pournelle had kind words for the Olympus D-300L.
    • The Olympus D-300L might be my choice as well were it not for its lack of external storage.

  • In the May, 1997 Computer Shopper, Stephen W. Plain gave the nod to Epson PhotoPC over the Olympus-200L.

• Some digital cameras have standard optical viewfinders while others have, or offer, LCD previewers or monitors.
  • As you might imagine, standard viewfinders are easier to use because .... you are already used to them.

  • An LCD previewer is supposed to be more accurate in terms of what your picture will be, i.e, the framing is more accurate.

  • You can also review the pictures you take on this LCD viewer and delete them, if you want.

  • This is a crucial feature if you are limited to internal storage.

• Judge a digital camera as you would a 35 mm. camera -- on its quality, features and handling.
  • You might be tempted to forget that a digital camera, is after all, a camera.

  • If it is awkward, heavy and ugly, you may not wind up using it no matter how many pixels it has.

  • Have I mentioned that you will also be getting some software to download pictures from the camera to your computer (provided it is a PC or Mac) and also do some image processing?
  • Because cameras differ in so many ways, you really should try before you buy.

• Forget (for now) about interchangeable lenses.
  • I cannot see this situation lasting very long. There is just way too much money that can be made from "accessories."
    • Is a "Digital Cameras for Dummies" book very far away?

• Different cameras may have different features. Some cameras offer --
  • Sound recording as well as photo capture.

  • Detachable lens and sensors for unique shots.

  • A "video out" connector so you can see your snapshots on TV.

  • Video capture directly into MPEG format, such as the $2500 unit from Hitachi.

• Last words -- if there ever can be such a thing.
  • In some ways, these are the very early days of digital cameras for consumers. With our dollars we will be voting as to which features will become standard or even available in the future.

  • Don't expect salespeople to be able to help you much at this point, although you (and I!) may be pleasantly surprised.

  • Read several photography and computer magazines that recognize the overlap of the two.
    • The June, 1997 issue of PC Photo had an excellent review of digital camera features, which gave me some material and ideas for this review

    • The May, 1997 issue of Popular Photography had a review of many digital cameras (pp. 32-38).

  • Expect rapid evolution of the technology -- provided there is at least some positive consumer response.

revised -- December, 2002

List of Projects-->

Return to "Imaging Update"