New Digital Camera

[Greg12]

I may have to buy a new digital camera, here's my question.

Is there a good camera with ISO 800 sensitivity. I use my camera inside alot and the flash on the old one (DX4900) was always overcompensating because it was only ISO 400.

[racer-x]

Cannon 300D Rebel Digital SLR.

Look here for excellent camera reviews:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/INDEX.HTM

There is a section on ISO settings results.

[Conquest10]

Is there a good camera with ISO 800 sensitivity.

Film cameras.

Seriously, dSLRs (don't know about medium format digital backs as I don't have $12,000 lying around) are the ones to use if going up to ISO800 and you don't want to do heavy filtering to make the image useable. The more affordable ones are the Canon 300D (Digital Rebel) and the Nikon D70.

EDIT: just to go on some more: Digicams have a sensor that is at least half the size as those found on dSLRs. More information is packed into those tiny sensors (especially those 8-megapixel cams), thus resulting in higher noise. That's why an image at ISO1600 on a 10D looks better than an ISO400 on a digicam.

[Greg12]

I was more looking for a personal camera not a DSLR

[DVD_Ripper]

Canno A80 (I think its a 4MP camera) sweet and I think at 800

[mickle]

Cannon 300D Rebel Digital SLR.

Look here for excellent camera reviews:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/INDEX.HTM

There is a section on ISO settings results.

I second this, it's an excellent camera and I get some great pics with it.

[Conquest10]

I was more looking for a personal camera not a DSLR

What is a personal camera?

If you're looking for a digicam, I tried looking some up but its amazing at how few have ISO800. Can't really blame them. I own a Sony DSC F717 and its horrible at anything greater than ISO200. Even 200 looks bad and the only time I use it is when I have no other choice. But then I have to bust out Noise Ninja. The Fuji FinePix S5000 is the only other one I've found so far that has ISO800. Looks pretty nice. Its small as hell. I saw the picture and assumed it was a nice size til I saw it at the shop.

[Doramius]

I'm a little biased from growing up in Upstate NY around the Rochester area. All I can say is just spend the money for a really good Kodak Digital Camera. If you have any problems, let me know and I know the names and addresses of many CEOs. They'll get your camera fixed or a new one sent to you if anything happens. I used to get free 35mm film from them up until the year 2000 because of an internship/apprenticeship thing from my high school. I would get 2 36exp. rolls every month. I just gave the film to my parents. I think they still have a ton of rolls left.

[Greg12]

I had a Kodak DX4900 but it took some really crappy indoor pictures, it would fire it's flash and the picture would come out really dark.

[lordsmurf]

Canon non-pro dSLR = shutter lag hell = you've been warned.

[Greg12]

more than 10 seconds?

[Conquest10]

more than 10 seconds?

No but after a while it does get annoying as hell at the missed shots.

[lordsmurf]

more than 10 seconds?

Ummm ... I don't think you're understanding what I'm referring to.

You hit shutter button ... it waits .. then takes image.
A good DSLR (ala NIKON) will be *INSTANT*
A crappy one has a lag.

[Greg12]

My kodak had a terrible delay. I'd be at a soccer game, push the button as a play happens and get what happened after the play. I had to guess the play was going to happen then hope n push the button

We can only spend about 400 dollars.

[DivXExpert]

I have to agree with Conquest10. Film=Good. Unless you're getting a nice DSLR. You can get a good 35mm SLR for 50 bucks on Ebay, fully manual, with nothing automated. And you can get like 3200 ISO if you want. Faaast.
Plus its instant, no lag at all, and the quality is unmatched. Plus its cheaper than digital initially, but film and developing costs adds up quick, unless you get some darkroom access, and buy film by the foot. Then it gets very cheap.

[Doramius]

just spend the money on a good film camera and scan pics in with a hi-res scanner.

[DVD_Ripper]

just spend the money on a good film camera and scan pics in with a hi-res scanner.

Maybe my scanner sucks (yea... a few years old) but I notice 'banding' on the scans I do.... very, very slight color banding. Have you ever noticed that on scan you've done in past?

[Doramius]

I have a really nice Lexmark scanner. My employer also has a REALLY nice scanning machine. I haven't had any problems or bars in my scans.

[Conquest10]

My Epson doesn't show any problems. I'm going to have to say that film is a good thing. Its way cheaper than even the cheapest digicams and WAY better quality. Plus, I don't know if its just because I just got into film, but film just has that look. I don't know how to describe it, but its nice. Plus if you experiment with different films, you can get some really nice images.

I love this new Quick Reply!

[Greg12]

me to reminds me of Zeropaid.com

We have several film cameras, I have an N75, my mom has a Cannon AE-1, and we have an olypmis point and shoot but my parents like the digital camera option because they can take lots of pictures and preview them and if they are bad, retake, i like that option to.

Dad wants 5 megapixels, mom wants ISO-800. I want to get one that gives mom what she wants because she uses the camera alot and understands how bad the ISO-400 is. Dad only uses it in the daytime.

[Conquest10]

5 megapixel, ISO800, and under $400. I've found the CASIO QV 5700 and Kodak EasyShare LS753.

[Greg12]

i'll look into those, thank you.

[Greg12]

i'm curious, what sites allow you to search by ISO setting.

[vitualis]

ISO 800? Definitely a digital SLR.

Nikon D70 is what I would suggest.

No digicam has reasonable image quality at ISO 800 and the majority won't even have that setting.

As for you film people, the advantage in using a DSLR is that you get good quality digital images from the word go. That is, you take the image and you instantly have a pretty good idea if the image is good or not.

Film definitely has its advantages but there is none of the spontaneity of digital (unless you are willing to spend $$$ on film). IMHO, depending on what sort of photography you are interested in, digital pays itself back VERY quickly compared to film simply because you can take thousands of photos at no cost. It is taking a lot of photos and the experience you gain that makes you a good photographer... not really the camera itself.

And yes, you can get pretty good quality scanning photos from film (arguably better than DSLR). However, if you are serious about it, you wouldn't be scanning prints made at your local photolab. You will need to buy a film scanner, get high quality film and use a pro-lab. This will cost much more than your amateur DSLR in the long run.

Regards.

[lordsmurf]

And if you get a film scanner, get a NIKON or KODAK scanner. No Minolta or Polaroid or other budget jobs (it'll be hell to pay later).

[Conquest10]

No Minolta or Polaroid or other budget jobs (it'll be hell to pay later).

What about the DiMAGE Dual Scan IV?

[lordsmurf]

No Minolta or Polaroid or other budget jobs (it'll be hell to pay later).

What about the DiMAGE Dual Scan IV?

The MINOLTA's are by far the worst of the worst.
Been there, done that, never again.

Save your pennies, go for the NIKON.

I have a DSII that still works, but it's so slow and no ICE.

[vitualis]

Are the Minolta's really that bad? Damn...

I was thinking of buying a second hand film scanner for the negatives of my wedding photos and then selling it once the job was done... The Minolta scanners are SO much cheaper than the Nikon CoolScans.

Regards.

[Doramius]

I tell ya, Kodak is top quality, but you're going to pay for it. I haven't ever used a Nikon for scanning, but Usually Nikon and Kodak are listed as the top companies. Xerox should be up there, but lately I think the CEOs are more interested hookers and internet porn than the growth and upkeep of their company. It's been downhill ever since they sold the most useful software programing known to man to a young, sneaky and smart business entreprenuer.

[thor300]

Possible Minolta is not good, but who would belive someone that manage to post something like "Canon non-pro dSLR = shutter lag hell = you've been warned."? Thats just too annoying even for the ones who are used to that user.