Camera Oasis

24 Hours with a Kodak M583

2011-07-07T06:53:00.000-07:00

Had a day to play with a Kodak M583 camera, described in the previous post. A quick summary:

Image quality: pretty good, edge-to-edge. Nice handling of low-light/twilight images at 28mm wide-angle. At 224mm full zoom, however, subjects looked softer. OK for general snapshots and travel images in bright daylight.
In very low light, the camera could not lock focus on a table candle.
Image stabilization (optical) worked well. Camera selected a moderately low ISO 125 for a portrait shot in twilight, and didn't fire its flash, making for nice skin tones and no blowouts.
Menus are now so heavily layered that you're really forced to choose your settings in advance, because there's no quick-set beyond the basic "Smart Capture" function.
Camera uses a micro SD card, which big-fingered hands will find hard to load and unload.

For me, the most challenging feature were the microscopic buttons on the right side of the LCD screen (see the red camera, above). They access menu flash, delete and other functions. They are impossibly tiny, and make for an unhappy user experience if your fingers are anything but dainty.

In contrast, consider the button layout on this Canon 790is:

The buttons are actually flush "tabs" above and below the four-way selector. Even a big-fisted football player can easily depress these buttons without bumping up against another function.

Camera designers, take note: the Kodak M583 and its GE clone would give a far more satisfying user experience if the buttons didn't require a jeweler's screwdriver to press.

Separated at birth, sort of

2011-06-27T06:50:00.000-07:00

Can you spot the difference between these two digital cameras?

The black camera is a new Kodak M583, a 14-megapixel compact with a Schneider lens, 8X optical zoom.

The red camera is a GE Power Series E1680W, with 16 megapixels and an 8X optical zoom.

To me, they appear to have come off the same assembly line, someplace in Asia. Their prices are nearly identical, too. At the moment, Kmart is offering the GE camera at $20 under the Kodak.

On the other hand, 16 MP on a 1/2.3 sensor will probably result in less than satisfactory images.

GE is one of those drugstore brands that hardly any camera review website takes seriously. Kodak, on the other hand, said earlier this year that they would re-strategize their camera business to sell only profitable cameras. I'm thinking this meant sourcing some cameras from GE's General Imaging business, just as Hewlett Packard appears to have done.

Can you publish a photo from 2004?

2011-06-24T09:14:00.000-07:00

You shot some pretty decent digital photos in the Bahamas in 2004. In fact, they might be useful in a book on travel photography. Can you use them?

Maybe, maybe not. If you used a Nikon D70 -- one of the leading digital SLR cameras sold at that time -- you have some pretty sharp files. Six megapixels isn't bad.

However, if you went back to Marsh Harbor in 2011 to shoot additional photos, you'd be using a 12- or 14-megapixel camera, likely with a better image processing algorithm. Your 2011 photos will have more detail. And your 2004 photos will pale, in some ways, when compared with your new photos.

Documentary photographers who spend years capturing images for a project frequently encounter this issue. Digital advances turn their earlier digital photographs into, well, yesterday's photos. But photos captured on film in 2004 have exactly the same resolution as those captured on film today. Negatives and transparencies from years ago can be scanned into high-resolution digital files today. This makes photographic film, in many ways, more future-proof than many digital imaging systems.

I learned this while interviewing photographer Damaso Reyes (in striped shirt, at left) for a Kodak Close-Up podcast. Have a look.

This week's camera: Canon Multi-Tele

2011-06-20T14:51:00.000-07:00

I'm a sucker for stretching the limits of 35mm negatives. And, with a little creativity, I get some nice rewards.

This week, I'm shooting with a rarity: the Canon Multi-Tele, a 35mm automatic film camera that captures either full-frame or half-frame images. Depending on how you set the selector, you can grab either 24 x 36 or 18 x 24 mm pictures. So a 36-exposure roll of Kodak Portra VC 400 becomes a 72 exposure roll.

Why do this? 18 x 24mm is roughly the same size as the sensor in digital SLR cameras, and I'm curious to see if the half-frame images come out with any more clarity or detail than the same-size JPEGs from a Nikon D60. Besides, I get the added satisfaction of driving the photo lab a little bit crazy, as the half-frame adapter required to print "normal-size" prints from the smaller negatives is rarely found. (You can easily create acceptable prints by editing a scan or digital negative).

Downsides: the Canon Multi-Tele uses a loud, spring-loaded lens that literally pops out from behind a porthole on the front of the camera. It's jack-in-the-box annoying. You cannot sneak up on a subject without them knowing you're shooting a photo. Although relatively compact at the time of introduction in 1988, the Multi-Tele is part of Canon's Sure Shot line, and physically larger than any point-and-shoot digital camera built after 2005.

Point-and-Shoot vs. SLR Cameras: What the Author Missed!

2010-09-20T09:38:00.000-07:00

Point-and-Shoot vs. SLR Cameras: What Are the Real Differences?

Problem with this article: it's written for idiots.

The biggest difference between point-and-shoot and digital SLR cameras?

DSLRs have larger sensors that capture more light. They'll capture great photos in dimmer light, too. DSLRs also have more processing "horsepower," while p/s cameras ask one chip -- the same one that captures the image -- to do all the computer-type data management and processing. That's why small cameras have shutter lag.

All the other differences are aesthetic. If you don't want to carry a four-pound camera, choose a smaller one. Unless you enlarge your photos to fit on the side of a building, you'll probably be pleased with the results from the camera you have with you, rather than the bigger camera you left at home.

Get with the program (and off "Auto")

2010-08-22T14:01:00.000-07:00

For a few hours, Woot.com offered the Samsung HZ30W camera today for $129.99. It sold out fairly quickly.

But I read with interest the comments left by Wooters trying to decide whether to buy the camera. About half pointed to online comments from previous buyers, many of whom complained that the camera's images were too noisy.

I'd guess those users probably did the following:

They charged the battery and added a memory card.
They turned the camera on.
They shot their photos on Auto, and got poor results.

"Auto" is the default mode on many cameras. The camera makes all the decisions: shutter speed, aperture, flash, and ISO (or sensitivity to light). More often than not, cameras left in Auto mode select a higher ISO (200 or 400) so the flash reaches further.

The higher the ISO, the more likely their will be digital noise in your photos.

The way around this? Learn how to use the camera's "Program" mode. It's similar to Auto, but it should allow you to lock the ISO at a lower ISO 100 or 200, where you'll have less incidence of noise. You may need to take a step or two closer to your subject so you get more detail, but the exercise won't kill you.

By the way, I have the Samsung HZ35W -- nearly identical to the HZ30W, but with a better viewing screen. The daylight images are really quite nice. There's some noise in the shadow areas, but nothing objectionable. I need to play with it some more.

Layers of sunset: how I made this photo

2010-08-17T19:43:00.000-07:00

This photo had little to do with the model of camera I used, or the lens, or anything very technical.

It had everything to do with the calendar and the weather forecast.

November, 2009 saw a small hurricane called Ida wander across the Gulf of Mexico. Hurricanes leave a trail of clouds. A quick consultation of a good calendar told me when the sunset would take place. A few minutes with the Weather Channel told me where the worst of the storm had gone.

All I needed was a camera and a wristwatch. And a boardwalk to shoot from.

The camera was a Canon Powershot A630, one of the great underrated Canons that uses AA batteries and lets you manually adjust shutter speed, aperture, and other settings. The current A-series Canons don't offer this level of control. (The camera itself is no longer made, but used models may be found at online auction, or maybe www.KEH.com.)

Exposure details: handheld, 1/1000-second exposure at f4.0, with a -0.67 underexposure to deepen the clouds a bit.

Tip: lens flare can be a problem when shooting into the sun, so make plenty of exposures. You may have to edit out lens flares in an editing program.

It's the sensor, not the megapixels

2010-08-16T08:09:00.000-07:00

Last week brought thrills galore in my camera collection. One example: I found a name-brand 12-MP digital camera online, with manufacturer's warranty, for $39.99. Even with $5 shipping, it's still a great deal -- especially since I plan to give the camera as a gift later on.

At the other end of the spectrum, I visited Wally World for a few supplies, and wandered past the camera bar, where a salesperson was telling someone why he should by a 12-MP camera instead of a 10-MP camera: "You can make larger 8 x 10 prints with the 12-megapixel camera."

I wanted to interrupt the conversation with:

"When was the last time you printed an 8 x 10 print?"

For many of us, photographic prints are an afterthought. I print only a few photos a year, usually as gifts or to frame and display. When I get a frame-able photo, I have Adorama Pix or KodakGallery do the printing. But most people lean toward 4 x 6-inch prints, if they print at all.

(The discontinued camera above is a 5-MP camera with a 1/1.7 sensor. It delivers more detailed photos than the 12-MP camera below, which has a smaller sensor.)

The only reason to choose the 12-MP camera was IF that model's image sensor was physically larger than that of the 10MP camera. (It wasn't.) A larger sensor generally will give better image quality, because the pixels aren't as tightly packed. If it helps, think of how you got better photos from your 35mm negatives than you got from your old 110 pocket film negs.)

If the sensors are the same size, all the consumer will get are larger image files, which mainly clutter your hard drive.

Camera manufacturers: please do your consumers a favor. Tell us the sensor size on the box, before you get snarled up in megapixels. Larger sensors = more detailed photos, and even better photos in poor lighting conditions.

Sounding off on video

2010-08-12T18:52:00.000-07:00

Pocket video camera in your future? They've become as popular as most "standard" digital cameras, mostly because of their form-factor.

Most pocket video cameras often do less than a digital still camera that shoots HD video. The video cameras usually don't have a zooming lens; almost all digital point-and-shoots have an optical zoom lens. Point-and-shoots offer scene modes for nighttime, portraits, etc., while videocams have only a couple of options: stills or different size videos. And I haven't seen a pocket video camera with a flash or fill-in light, which would help improve still photography.

But for all the video choices, I don't understand why so few offer a key feature: dual microphones. Video without audio isn't terrible, but video with poor audio is almost intolerable. Canon and Kodak make cameras with two microphones; the Kodak V1253 pictured above does a pretty decent job, captures HD video, and has a fairly nice feature set in a svelt form factor, including a 3-inch LCD, Schneider lens, and about two-dozen modes for still photos.

One problem: the V1253 is no longer in production. Need to hunt for it in online auctions, or look at somewhat bulkier Canons with twin mikes.

The big-name camera makes, Nikon and Canon, now offer digital SLRs that capture HD video, too. The results are gorgeous, and some allow you to add an external mike, like Kodak's Zi8 pocket video camera. But they are not inexpensive.

For my money, a point-and-shoot that grabs video is far more useful than a camera that emphasizes video first.

What whine goes with your camera?

2010-08-10T07:37:00.001-07:00

Every time I read of someone's disappointments with their new digital camera, the whines fall into three categories:

The batteries don't last long at all.
The camera manual is inadequate.
I can't see the LCD in bright sunlight.

Quick answers:

Batteries: alkaline batteries weren't ever intended to run a high-drain device such as a mini-computer with an always-on LCD (which is what a camera is). Buy some name-brand rechargeables. I use Duracells, and I've heard good things about Sanyo Eneloop AAs. To avoid frustrating yourself, buy a charger that doesn't require 8 hours to charge your batteries. As for the lithium-ion batteries that come with most cameras: they need to be charged first, then completely drained, then recharged before you get optimal performance.

Manuals: Funny, hardly anyone read these things when they came with film cameras. Learn how to download the full PDF version from the CD that came with your camera, or the manufacturer's website. Print out ONLY the pages with essential information, then photograph them in "Text" or "Document" mode so they're in your camera's SD or fixed memory. Problem solved.

LCDs in bright sun are always hard to see. Buy a pop-up shade that's the same width as the LCD on your camera. Delkin makes pretty good shades, and the shade part can be unclipped from the camera when you don't need it. (Note: you can't use Delkin shades on a camera with a touch screen LCD. I've tried.)

Okay? Any other whines, please leave a comment below. Thanks.

Mavericks don't sell cameras. Quality does.

2010-07-28T15:13:00.000-07:00

Say you're a big company in the camera biz. Your brand's grown a little dusty, and competition heats up. If you're like a few companies, you realize where you've gone off-track. You switch from building awkward, robot-looking cameras, and try to inject a little color, ruggedness and quality into your products.

Here I'm thinking of Panasonic, which probably manufactures many digital cameras for other brands, but chose to beef up its own cameras, too. They made water-proof cameras that actually take nice photos. They use Leica lenses in almost every camera. And they often lead the way in innovation, which results in image quality -- which is all that really matters in a camera.

What Panasonic didn't do:

They didn't sink skillions in a U.S.-only sponsorship for rich white men.
They didn't decide to cheapen every camera model in their line with chrome paint and plastic bodies that look like metal, but aren't.
They didn't let a maverick marketing VP build his brand at the expense of the company's brand.
They didn't blow off making a waterproof digital camera.
They didn't introduce a camera model with great features, then delete the hot shoe and call the succeeding model an improvement.
They didn't squander resources talking about "design innovations" that didn't translate into sales.

I can't tell anyone how to run a business. But I can look at whose cameras are getting great reviews and fetching high prices -- and whose aren't.

But, by George, I wish I could.

Target Photo CD -- is it just capacity?

2010-07-22T05:40:00.000-07:00

Over in Target-Land, I asked the photo department "team member" the difference between a Target Photo CD and a Kodak Picture CD. She replied: "The Kodak CD holds more pictures."

Say what?

Unless the Kodak CD is actually a DVD, it holds the same 800 MB as every other CD on the planet. Less, perhaps, because Kodak's CD's usually contain viewer software and a file to download and install Kodak's EasyShare photo-editing software.

Sure, I could be mistaken. But if there's no premium aspect to the Kodak CD, why is there a $1.50 price premium over the Target CD?

Target, are you listening?

POS, or at the bar

2010-07-08T16:55:00.000-07:00

No, not what you're thinking. Here, "POS" abbreviates "point of sale." As in, where you go to buy cameras.

I hate the camera bar. Or, as I've described it elsewhere, the "camera anchorage." That semi-circular tier of cameras on display, where every camera is attached to a weighty metal anchor which, in turn, is cabled to the display.

This is the worst way to experience a camera. You can't tell how a camera feels in your hands if it's bolted to an anchor. You can't tell if it's lightweight or too heavy. And you probably can't tell whether its tripod socket is in a centered position or off to one side.

I want that experience.

More to the point: I want to power up the camera and see if it works as I expect. That means the power connector from the camera bar has to operate. Which it seldom does.

Target, Walmart, BJ's and Best Buy all have a variant of the camera anchorage, and every one I've experienced has electrical issues. Kmart still has cameras in a display case, which requires a sales clerk to extract one. You have a less-than-even chance of finding a sales clerk anywhere in a Kmart.

Can you think of a better reason to consider buying online? If you can't experience the camera without the metal anchor, why bother with noisy ol' Best Barn?

Note to retailers: remember, most purchase decisions take place at the Point of Sale. With the camera bar, you're chasing away customers by spoiling their first interaction with the product they intend to buy. You can set up satellite systems to beam daily specials onto plasma screens in the store, right?

Finding an alternative to the camera bar shouldn't be this difficult.

Reviewing the reviewers

2010-07-07T14:03:00.000-07:00

Here's a quick guide to getting information about any camera you're considering:

If you understand f-stops, apertures, and aspect ratios, websites such as dpreview.com, CNET.com and dcresource.com are good online resources. Between the writers' in-depth reviews and the opinions you'll find in the online forums, you'll trip over more details than you need. Do note that dpreview.com has lately acquired a certain ambivalence in its professional reviews, and rarely comes out to say it dislikes a camera. Maybe this has something to do with most digital cameras sharing the same lenses and sensors, to some degree.
I also recommend Steve's Digicams and imaging-resource.com, although both tend to get wrapped up in techno-speak. If I want to watch Star Trek, I'll watch Star Trek.
If all those tech terms frustrate you, head on over to amazon.com. Almost every camera has user reviews to read. These are real-world people, for the mostpart, who don't dwell on pixel depth or the deep details of lens coatings. However, take what you read with a grain of salt, as many of these writers are less experienced and objective about their cameras (as indicated by reviews that say, "this is my first digital camera").
You can occasionally find a good camera review on YouTube, but I generally don't trust them. Many reviews are simply demos of camera features put up by online retailers, and TigerDirect.com isn't going to tell you it's selling a lame product. Worse are the "unboxing" videos, where someone's recorded how he or she removed the camera and accessories from the box in which they arrived. Who cares, really?
If you go to a physical store, you can ask the sales clerk. Generally, the larger the store, the less insightful the information you'll get. Independent or chain camera specialty stores are fewer in number, but that's where you'll find the most expertise. The sales people in Walmart and Kmart sometimes have a little pocket script to help them wade through the techno-speak, but it's very easy to stump them.

I don't recommend Consumer Reports' camera reviews, much the same way I eschew their car reviews. These evaluators are lab-coat experts, and likely don't have much opportunity to use these products for extended periods in real-world situations.

How to buy this camera

2010-07-06T08:14:00.000-07:00

I'm going to tell you how to choose a digital camera -- what to look for, and what to ignore. Please pay attention.

Many people ask me which camera they should buy. It's easy to suggest one sold by my employer, but different people have different photographic needs. And an $80, 3x zoom camera with a plastic lens might not make you happy if you want to shoot wildlife that's 100 feet away.

This isn't to say my employer makes inadequate cameras; it's merely that one size doesn't fit all. I'm currently using a K odak Z950, which delivers fine performance, feels great in my hands, and costs around $150.

First, the items you can ignore:

IGNORE "megapixels". Really. If it has more than 8 megapixels, it'll give you the photos you want. If you need a 14-megapixel camera, you'd better be shooting images to display on billboards, because you'll seldom need a 14-MP file.

IGNORE "fits in a pocket." Ninety percent of today's cameras fit in a pocket or purse. Along with the 115 other items in a purse. Cameras sink to the bottom, next to the cell phone. Besides, you're going to buy a soft case to protect the LCD on the camera, and then "fits in a pocket" becomes irrelevant.

IGNORE any camera you can't try out in a store. Seriously. You need to hold it in your hands and see if the buttons fit where your fingers rest on the camera. The Target store had every chance to sell me a camera a few weeks ago, but couldn't figure out how to get power from the so-called "camera bar" (more like a "camera anchorage") to the camera I wanted to play with. No test drive, no sale.

The most important aspects to consider are: the lens, the sensor, the LCD screen, and what you like to photograph most.

Start with what you like to photograph most. If you're shooting mainly photos of kids and their sporting events, you'll need a camera with a fairly long zoom length (8x to 12x zoom), or a willingness to act like a paparazzi and barge your way to the edge of the foul line. (This is a personality decision. I'm willing to elbow my way to the front; you may not be so determined.) Remember that a flash only reaches 10 feet/3.3 meters at most.
If your preference is indoor photos of family and friends at parties and restaurants, you want a camera with a wide-angle lens and a fairly strong flash. Many manufacturers are now selling their basic cameras (Canon Powershot SD1400, Nikon S6000, Kodak M575) with a wide-angle lens that telescopes to 4, 5 or 8x zoom). Find out how "fast" the lens is -- that's the "f" number of the lens at its widest. Canons generally start at f2.8; others start at a slower f3.0 or f3.3. The lower this number, the more light reaches the sensor.
The sensor (which captures the image) is a tiny surface, much smaller than a single 35mm film negative. The larger the sensor, the more detail and low-light performance you'll obtain. Most compact digital cameras have a sensor that's slightly smaller than the fingernail of your pinkie. (All the 12x "super-zoom" cameras have this small sensor.
A few makers sell cameras with a 1/1.6 sensor -- which is somewhat larger than the "pinkie nail" sensor. If you want a camera with a larger sensor (Canon S90), expect to pay more. Larger than that, you're looking for a digital SLR camera, which is heavier. You're less likely to carry a DSLR everywhere.
Camera makers did away with useful optical viewfinders on cameras a few years ago. This wouldn't be an issue, except it changed the way we hold our cameras; we now hold them away from our faces and use the LCD screen. Most LCDs are inexpensive, low-resolution screens that wash out in moderately bright sunlight. Panasonic, Nikon, Canon, and Samsung sell a few cameras with higher resolution, high-contrast screens that are easier to view in bright daylight. These are worth the extra cost.

You can spend hours reading camera reviews and opinions online. Many of them describe "noise," or the electronic "snow" that sometimes appears in shadowed areas of photos. If you look at your photos exclusively on computer monitors at 100% size, you'll find this noise. If you mainly make 4x6- or 8x10-inch prints, it won't be a significant issue.

Where do you go for all this information? I'll address this in my next post.

Yeah, they're dead

2010-04-11T19:43:00.000-07:00

Spent some time this weekend sorting out my collection of 35mm film cameras. Way too many film cameras.

And now there are a couple in the trash can.

I'm a fan of 1970's era rangefinders, cameras that allowed you to hold the camera to your eye, look through a viewfinder, and focus on your subject. Some even allowed you to control the aperture or shutter speed.

Olympus, Minolta and Canon made the best of these. Konica made some wonderful cameras, but later jobbed out the manufacturing to a company called Cosina. Then Chinon got involved. Ultimately, the move to auto-focus film cameras doomed the rangefinders.

Not to mention the corroded electronics. Most of these cameras used mercury batteries, which seem to cause some degradation in circuit contacts.

The camera above is a Konica C35EF camera. Happens to be the very first thing Dick Kidder stuck in my hands when I started my first newspaper job. So I'm sorta fond of them.

This afternoon, I pitched two Konica C35EF cameras with this problem. Plunk in a fresh battery, and nothing. Rotted electrical contacts. They simply aren't worth repairing.

However, this leaves me with a dozen or so other rangefinders, including a Konica Auto S3 and a Vivitar 35ES -- basically identical cameras, with with less plastic than the camera above. Some just tend to hold up better than others.

How to sell cameras on Craigslist

2010-04-05T08:38:00.000-07:00

Here's a short but handy checklist to help you sell cameras on Craigslist:

Don't simply say "Nikon digital camera." Give a model number: Coolpix 5400, L20, whatever it says on the camera body.
Get the brand right. Shoppers often search by brand name. There's no "Cybersnap" or "Olympis" brand in digital cameras, but there are a Cybershot and an Olympus. Again, it's probably spelled correctly on the camera.
Write a better headline than "Digital Camera 12 Megapixels." The difference between a camera made by Kodak or Polaroid is striking. Again, brand matters.
Don't fill your ad with meaningless specs borrowed from a web page. Instead, be sure to tell us whether all the camera's functions work, if the LCD screen is cracked, and whether the essential accessories (battery, charger, connector cord, manual, etc.) are included.
Show a photo of the camera. Don't blow this off! If you're selling your only camera, set the camera for macro mode, flash-off, and place it in front of a mirror. Photos help sell items online (which may be the reason you bought the camera in the first place.)
Don't waste anyone's time by trying to sell a broken digital camera. Unless you're skilled and certified, camera repair isn't worth it, and parts are sometimes hard to find.
Post your ad in the right category: photo/video, electronics, even computers are good categories. But I won't find it in the "General" for sale category.

I have cash, now and then, so I'm watching. Good luck.

Missing two photographers

2010-03-29T13:12:00.001-07:00

When I edited Kodak's now-defunct online magazine, I wanted to do an occasional story on great photographers of the Life magazine era who worked mainly in black and white. The two I focused on were Loomis Dean and Fred McDarrah.

Mr. Dean captured the famous photo of the Andrea Doria cruise ship as it sank. Much of his career was spent with Life and, before that, the Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Circus, as a PR photographer. He had his own small elephant for publicity photo purposes. I interviewed him in the early 2000s, at his home in Venice, Florida, using then state-of-the-art digital audio tape. The tape survives. But we couldn't come to terms over use of his images, for which he owned the rights. So the story never appeared online. Loomis died in 2005.

You can see some of Loomis' photos on the www.life.com website, or go here.

Fred W. McDarrah captured the Beat poet movement and Greenwich Village life in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Some of the earliest gay pride parade images in NYC came from Fred's camera. Later, he wrote a Photography Encyclopedia of Brooklyn Yellow Pages dimensions. Fred's imagery is online here. You can buy the encyclopedia used for a few bucks here. Fred died in 2007, a day after his 81st birthday.

I ran across Fred later in life, in an online feature story published by the East Hampton Star, on Long Island. They've since taken down the web page where you could view the story.

Slice a little off the top

2010-03-23T12:05:00.000-07:00

KODAK SLICE Touchscreen Camera

I really wanted to try this one out. Sort of an iPod Touch for photography. Great concept.

Then the specs were published. The lens -- the most important part of the camera, period -- is a 5X zoom. Starts at 35mm, racks out the 175mm. Not bad.

Then I glanced at the lens specs. At the widest angle, 35mm, the lens starts at f4.8. (Translation: S-L-O-W.) On some cameras, f4.8 is the spec for the lens at its farthest zoom, not its nearest. The last camera I had with a lens that slow was a 35mm point-and-shoot Nikon.

Compare this with my 3-year-old Canon G6, which has a similar lens length. The lens starts at f2.0. It lets in three times as much light as the Slice's lens.

PR people tend to tut-tut people like me for dwelling needlessly on "speeds and feeds." But, in reality, a camera with an f2.0 or f2.8 lens needs less light than a lens that's hamstrung at f4.8 at the start. That means you either need to be closer to your subject, use flash all the time, or only take photos in bright daylight. Which few of us actually do. Unless we live in Tucson or Miami.

I really hope the Slice finds its audience, and is a huge hit. But my expectations were for a camera that can actually capture photos in mixed lighting conditions. On paper, this camera (with the same focal-length zoom and a faster lens) is more likely to get you the photo you want -- at roughly half the price.

Marketing Digital Cameras to Southpaws

2010-02-19T09:29:00.000-08:00

Why aren't there any digital cameras with shutter buttons on the top left of the camera?

SLRs, pocket cameras, ... pretty much every camera you can buy today requires actuating the shutter with your right index finger.

Less than half the world is left-handed. But among that group are artists, photographers, actors, and directors. All of whom have some influence on the general public.

Couldn't a digital camera maker connect with an under-served market segment simply by introducing a camera with power- and shutter buttons on the left side of the camera?

Just asking.

Photosmart Cameras? Why not buy a Newton, too?

2010-02-18T07:40:00.000-08:00

Best Cameras Deals, Coupon Codes Discount, Rebates at Dell Best Buy, Newegg and More!

I cannot stress enough that H/P walked away from digital cameras over a year ago. They bailed. Couldn't compete. Their products were less than reliable, and probably have no customer support.

I can't tell you which cameras to buy. But I can provide great rationale for which you should avoid.

My mistake

2009-03-05T13:24:00.000-08:00

Even those of us in the PR world get swanked.

Remember this geeky looking Fujifilm instant-film camera I shared a few weeks back?

I'm told it's from 1998.

Still homely, however.

Casualties in the megapixel wars

2009-02-28T15:07:00.000-08:00

Seriously: how long did you think camera companies could churn out higher- and higher-megapixel cameras before consumers became fatigued with it all?

They're figuring out that a new 12- or 14-megapixel camera isn't a necessity when jobs, hours and salaries are getting cut.

That 6- or 8-MP camera most of us bought a year or two ago will do fine, at least until the recession moderates.

As a result:

Ritz Camera filed for Ch. 11 bankruptcy protection this week. Hundreds of stores, stocked with Fuji, Nikon, and Olympus cameras that no one's buying. Most Ritz stores were mall-based, within easy clobbering range of the Target or Best Buy across the parking lot. If you bought a camera from Ritz, I hope you didn't pay extra for a Ritz warranty.
Ritz's court filings say they owe Nikon USA more than $20 million. That kind of liability isn't going to make things easy at Nikon. Take good care of that D90 or D300; customer service may get whacked.
Olympus downsized a portion of its U.S. sales and technical staff this week. The last Olympus digital camera I adored was the C-5060. Today's crop of pocket Olympus models have a few interesting bells and whistles. But no one raves about the quality of their photos, and it's all about getting great photos.
Kodak's 3,500-4,500 layoffs by mid-year have a lot to do with the recession, but fewer shoppers in fewer retail locations don't create an optimal situation for the inventors of the digital camera.

Bottom line: I'd expect the digital camera business to re-set in 2009. Slower shipment of the new models announced at CES and PMA, in order to preserve pricing. That may mean more deals on current inventory, but I wouldn't be the first person in line to buy a new Canon D10.

Photo Marketing Tip: bigger call-outs

2009-02-13T06:55:00.000-08:00

Blundered into a Wal-mart this week, and found a clerk and a customer in the photo department, sorting through cameras. The customer wanted a camera that would stitch together multiple photos to make panoramas. (Many Canon and Kodak cameras do this, or come with stitching software that makes it a breeze to do it on your computer.)

The customer and the clerk were baffled. This feature wasn't in the little camera cheat book that Wal-mart gives its photo departments. Because I've actually used this feature on a Kodak Z1285 camera, I picked up a box. After a good 5 minutes of squinting, I found the "call-out" on the box -- in a type-size that an ant would have trouble reading.

I helped sell Mr. Customer a camera that met his needs, and that's a good thing. But here's a word of advice to all camera manufacturers: USE BIGGER PRINT on your packaging! The people buying your products do not walk into Wal-mart with magnifying glasses or photographer's loupes. Want to sell a feature? Make it easier to find the features they're looking for.

End of rant.

Review beat: Objectivity, where art thou?

2009-02-10T06:46:00.000-08:00

When you're researching a digital camera, there are many sources of independent, serious reviews: Stevesdigicams.com, dcresource.com, dpreview.com. If you can wade through the tech-geek speak, you'll come away more knowledgeable about your particular camera.

Want real-world customer opinions? Try Amazon.com. Semi-professional video reviews can be found on YouTube, although it's sometimes painful to put up with the shaky video quality.

But I draw the line when sites such as Buy.com and TigerDirect.com tout their videos as "product reviews." There's no objectivity involved when the video clip features a sales rep from the camera manufacturer talking about the "great features" of his or her employers' camera. In the real world, this is simply an infomercial, and not a good source of objectivity.

Full disclosure: I work for Kodak. I like some Kodak cameras, and don't care for others. When I offer an opinion, I try to keep do so with a minimum of hyperbole.

Loose screws

2009-01-31T04:40:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite little digital cameras is the Kodak V603. It's nothing extraordinary -- 6 megapixels, 30 fps video, and a pretty standard 36-108 Schneider zoom lens. But it was the right size at the right price, and captured great photos.

My one mistake: giving it to my daughter, who dumped the camera into her bag along with her iPod, cell phone, and Lord-knows-what-else. All that jostling around resulted in a problem: loose screws. Cruise around the web, and you find the V603 earned a reputation for losing the screws that hold the metal alloy covers on the camera.

Last time I saw that camera, it was held together by yellow duct tape at the corners. Not pretty.

Most digital cameras have tiny screws that might work their way out. So, get a set of precision screwdrivers (usually $1 at the Dollar Store). Tighten up any loose screws. Then, place a tiny dab of clear nail polish on any screws that felt a little looser than others. (Be sure to keep the nail polish away from buttons and the lens mechanism; if you're worried, mask the buttons and other sections with easy-to-remove tape before handling the nail polish.)

And you can skip the yellow duct tape.

Separated at birth

2009-01-26T19:12:00.000-08:00

Camera companies spend loads o' cash designing cameras. They do studies. They make clay models, churn out non-working prototypes, and show 'em to would-be owners to see what'll work.

Everyone wants to have that breakthrough design.

So, I'm moseying around the camera universe one afternoon, and I spot:

And I've got to ask: was there a saloon in some European city where the camera designers get looped and take home the wrong USB drive?

Size matters -- not megapixels

2009-01-26T07:29:00.000-08:00

In my film camera days, a roll of 35mm film gave you a negative of 36 x 24mm. That area was the "recording surface" for the images I shot.

Digital cameras today are promoted for having 8, 10, or 12 megapixels. That's not the size of the recording surface; it's geek-speak for the number of tiny recording cells on the sensor.

You can squeeze millions of these cells on a sensor. But if the sensor itself is only 7.2 x 5.3 mm -- typically the size found in a pocket digital camera -- you have less overall area in which to capture an image. Add megapixels, and you're just squeezing more tiny cells on a small sensor, which leads to image degradation in the form of "noise."

So, when you're looking at different cameras, megapixels are irrelevant. It's the size of the sensor that really determines image quality. There's a semi-technical explanation of this at this web site, and a simpler (and somewhat exuberant) discussion on Ken Rockwell's website.

Most times, you don't find sensor sizes printed on the camera package. You find megapixels. But here's what I've found:

A 1/1.8 sensor generally captures more-detailed, less-noisy photos than cameras equipped with a 1/2.5 sensor.
Cameras with 1/1.8 sensors include the Canon A630, the Kodak C875, and Panasonic FX-150. They cost a little more than cameras with smaller sensors.
Cameras with (smaller) 1/2.5 sensors include the Canon A590IS, Olympus FE-350, Casio EX-V8 (a personal favorite), and most ultra-compact pocket models from Canon, Kodak, and Nikon.

Deal alert: Canon's factory-refurbushed A630 (a camera I own and enjoy) can be purchased from their web site for $149. That's much less than I paid for it new.

The last instant camera

2009-01-21T03:17:00.000-08:00

Fujifilm has come out with a new instant film camera. In light of Polaroid's discontinuing instant film to concentrate on self-destructing consumer electronics, Fujifilm's Instax camera may end up as the only game in town. Read a review here.

I'm wondering what designer thought up that outboard viewfinder on the same side of the camera as the control buttons. Or the idea of prints popping out the top of the camera.

Then again, a viewfinder on a camera is almost a rarity, these days. So even a weird, cyclops-like one is better than nothing, right?

But I'd really prefer to see Fujifilm pick up the slack, and sell instant film that fits the millions of current and recent Polaroid instant cameras that will become doorstops when Polaroid's film inventory is exhausted.

Bursting with creativity

2009-01-19T09:24:00.000-08:00

One of the least-discussed functions in point-and-shoot digital cameras is the "burst" mode. It lets you shoot a sequence of shots, usually 3 to 6 images, without removing your finger from the shutter button.

Why is this useful? Get yourself a DVD of the Beatles' film, "A Hard Day's Night." You'll see a scene where a photographer shoots a rapid sequence of portraits of George Harrison. Most of the faces he makes are goofy. A few are keepers. If you have kids, you're better off shooting a quick series of photos of them, and review them later to choose the best shots.

Unlike motor-driven film cameras, digital cameras use a burst mode to capture a sequence of images. Some cameras keep shooting images for as long as you hold the shutter button, but only save the last few frames. Or the first few frames. My old Kodak DX7630 offered the option of one or the other.

Today, all but the least-expensive digital cameras offer a burst mode.

If this sort of technique interests you, here are a couple of pointers:

Check the specs to see how many images a camera will capture per second in still mode. (Video can grab about 30 frames per second, but not usually at the same high image quality as still shots). A Canon SD700is, for example, can grab about 2 frames per second. Its replacement, the Sd850is, only nabs 1.4 shots per second -- possibly because it's capturing larger (8MP) image files.
Do a little research to see how quickly the camera saves image files to a memory card. Low-cost cameras sometimes have a very slow "write speed," leaving you waiting 10-, 20-, or even 30 seconds while your photos transfer from the camera's buffer to the card.
Find a camera with good low-light performance. Burst modes almost always mean you'll be shooting without flash. A built-in flash just cannot recharge quickly enough to fire as quickly as your shutter. Fujifilm's f31fd, f40fd, and f50fd earned praise from online reviewers for their low-light performance.
Edit on a computer screen, not on the camera. Review your burst-mode shots on a large monitor. Even the best camera LCDs won't show as much detail as a 17-inch monitor. Remember, you can always discard the unwanted shots after you've found the keepers.

Review beat: Maybe "DP" stands for "don't post"

2009-01-12T12:48:00.000-08:00

One of the digital camera review web sites has all but given up individual reviews of point-and-shoot digital cameras. They've decided to focus on DSLRs and their accessory lenses. The exception are "roundup" articles, in which they'll do a quickie analysis of 4-5 compact cameras.

Is this well thought-out? P/S cameras may not snag those magazine-cover quality images, but the abundance of intriguing photos over at flickr.com suggests that not everyone wants -- or needs -- a DSLR. A new DSLR costs more than $500; you can buy two, or maybe three high compacts from Canon, Kodak, or Panasonic for that amount of money.

I like my DSLR, but carrying it everywhere is a pain. I just don't do it. Most days, you'll find a pocket-size digital camera in my jacket. Most times, it gets the shot I want.

Memo to DP-XXXXXX.com: go upmarket, and you might lose the readership that got you where you are today -- a subsidiary of Amazon.com.

Time on my side, courtesy of Kodak

2009-01-09T13:47:00.000-08:00

This is one of my favorite photographs. It shows an 1871 lighthouse in Sodus Point, NY.

I captured the photo with a $150 Kodak point-and-shoot digital camera, the Kodak C875, an 8-megapixel camera. Eight MP is considered the "entry level" resolution in most of today's cameras, but in 2006, this was the top camera in Kodak's 'entry level' line up.

The secret to this photo is a function in the camera called "long time exposure." The C875 permits you to make exposures up to 8 seconds long. That's plenty of time to capture all the colors in the sky -- including a few that weren't obvious to the naked eye, that night.

The camera took in plenty of light. A tripod, of course, is essential. That's all I did.

And, in case you're curious, the resulting image required no post-production editing. I sent the file off to AdoramaPix, and they sent me back amazing 11 x 14-inch prints.

Have Your Cake and Shoot It?

2009-01-06T14:24:00.000-08:00

I don't know. I love this execution. But something about a camera that adds calories...?

Isn't that the 180-degree turn away from what digital's supposed to do?

You decide. Have a look at this URL. From Wired.com's Gadget Lab blog.

Next: point-and-shoot brownies???

Sell your camera or review it -- not both!

2009-01-05T09:30:00.000-08:00

Read this Craigslist ad, and you'll discover how to review a camera. But you won't do much to sell it.

Eventually, you figure out that the seller/reviewer has a Nikon D90 digital SLR. A lovely camera. He or she might have the 18-105 VR kit lens to sell, too. Or another lens purchased afterward. It's hard to tell.

But there's no asking price. And I wouldn't begin to guess what's included with the camera.

I would guess that he's suffering a pretty severe case of buyer's remorse. We've all been there, pal.

I don't miss pricey newspaper classified ads. But they had one saving grace: brevity. If you want to sell something, be accurate, and be brief. If you want to be David Pogue -- who writes funny, detailed reviews for the New York Times -- that's fine. But Craigslist isn't the right venue.

Sunday Tip: January is camera buying month

2009-01-04T06:03:00.000-08:00

Forget Black Friday; this is a very good time to buy a new or used digital camera. After the holidays, people look to unload their older cameras that have been replaced by newer models.

Also, with the Consumer Electronics Show starting in a few days, announcements of new models from major manufacturers will make what's on store shelves now seem obsolete, and thus ready for close-out.

If you're buying new: 6-, 7- or 8-megapixel cameras will meet 90% of most picture-taking needs. Really. If you need a 21-MP camera, check your driver's license: you may be the lost grandson of Ansel Adams, suffering from amnesia.

In the stores, consider display models, and ask if they'll either extend the warranty or take a few dollars off for buying a floor model. The worst they can say is, "I'll ask the manager."

The Kodak Z1012 IS camera shown here is a 10-MP camera that's been out a little over a year. Kodak recently brought out a newer, larger camera with a different lens -- making the Z1012 a potential bargain at retail or online.

Buying used via Craigslist or fee-Bay? first- or second-generation digital SLRs are a great deal on the used market. Nikon D40s and D50s and Olympus E-series cameras are, for the mostpart, very durable and receive less abuse than pro-level DSLRs, because they were targeted toward casual photo-enthusiasts.

I have mixed enthusiasm about used point-and-shoot cameras. I bought a used Kodak C330 from a fellow online, and gave it to my father-in-law as something to keep in his glove compartment. He uses that camera more than the larger, 12x zoom digital camera he purchased just two months earlier, and he's happy with the smaller camera.

On Craigslist, however, you'll see too many used digital cameras. Many come with a warning that the camera's battery hatch won't stay closed. This means the camera was dropped, and I'm reluctant too buy any electronic device that's held together with duct tape.

Resolution: Re-thinking High ISO photos

2008-12-31T22:47:00.000-08:00

The websites that compile painstaking reviews of digital cameras do a really great job. DPReview.com and DCResource.com are two of the best, in my opinion.

But they get wrapped around the axle on the topic of high-ISO photos and the noise-reduction most digital cameras apply to these low-light photos. They use words like "smearing" and "watercolor."

Here, I say: get over it.

High-ISO photos aren't meant to be Louvre-worthy portraits. They're just not. But the semi-embarassing photos below -- taken at a local high school's "air band" concert a few nights ago -- aren't hideous. They're fine as snapshots, and you could probably print reasonable 5x 7-inch prints from them with little objectionable results.

I shot these photos using a Kodak Z1012 IS camera in High ISO mode. These are absurdly high -- ISO 1600 and 3200 -- and obtainable only with the camera's lens at full 12x zoom.

These photos will not win any prizes. None at all. Nor do I expect them to.

But they will elicit an emotional response, most likely laughter, from people who see them. And any emotional response created by a photograph is better than not having a photo to start with.

Afterlife for a Konica rangefinder, sort of

2008-12-30T07:08:00.000-08:00

This may be useful for those of us with far too many classic film cameras, and no real market for them.

Today, there's very little demand for the 1970s-era 35mm rangefinder cameras I love. I have a handful of really good ones: Olympus XAs, Vivitar 35ES, Canonet GIII QL17, and a few Minolta Hi-Matics. Plus a few that need a little work, but I simply couldn't devote time to resuscitating. These have "DOA" tags on them. And on their own, they're useless.

But in trolling for a Konica Auto S3 on fee-Bay** the other night, I found 27 separate auctions for parts for the camera. Only one actual S3 camera, but more than two-dozen parts for sale.

So if you have the patience and precision screwdrivers to disassemble and tag the working pieces of a camera -- and the skill to photograph them using your digital camera's macro mode -- parting out a non-working 35mm camera might be a way to get some value from that old buddy on your shelf.

And, in case you're wondering: my Auto S3 works fine, and no -- it is definitely not for sale.

***

** I rarely sell items on fee-Bay anymore. When they decided to become son-of-Amazon.com, and abandoned the individual casual seller by messing with their fee schedule, I went to Craigslist.

Would Adorama lie to you?

2008-12-29T18:03:00.000-08:00

Addendum: One more "one" camera that earns a raspberry for one of my favorite photo merchants.

Adorama, where I've bought my share of digital and film camera bits, sent me an email hyping a deal on, among other items, the Polaroid One 600 Classic Ultra Instant Camera.

Huh?

"Classic" is only partly right. In a few weeks, it'll be a relic. Polaroid's discontinuing its line of instant film for these beasts. What would I do with this camera in, say, 8 months? Make a hood ornament for my wife's SUV?

C'mon, Adorama. I trust you guys, usually.

But selling this photographic equivalent of the AMC Pacer isn't playing straight. Unless you're going to be carrying Polaroid 600 instant film well into 2010, you should have a disclaimer somewhere that tells would-be buyers that the One 600-Classic is destined to be as useful as my Kodak Six-Sixteen Junior camera is today.

Admission o' Guilt Dept.: I've always had pricey habits; my first film camera was a Polaroid Colorpack II, and you had to apply lacquer to your B/W prints as soon as they developed. When my Dad gave me his original SX-70 instant camera in the early '80s, I thought I'd died and gone to heaven. I was a big Polaroo for a long time, then the digital revolution steamrolled the company. The guys who own it now have all but lost their shirts in the investment bank disaster, and they're threatening to dismantle what's left of Polaroid today. Sad, sad conclusion.

Never Buy a One

2008-12-29T17:27:00.000-08:00

Today's observation: never buy a digital camera with the "1" or "One" in the name.

My first Panasonic digital camera was the fabled Lumix FZ-1. It was a 12x optical zoom, and the aperture stayed at a constant f2.8 at all focal lengths. It took incredible photos. But it was only 2 megapixels and fairly slow to operate, even in 2003. The next iteration of FZ models fixed a lot of these issues, but I had already invested in the FZ-1.

Now Panasonic's come out with this new DMC G1, roughly the same size as my old FZ-1, but with interchangeable lenses like a digital SLR. And a bigger DSLR-like sensor. And an $800 price tag. Right, $800 for a baby DSLR. I can buy a Nikon D60 with lens for much less than $800. What are you thinking, Panasonic?

Other "ones" worthy of this list: the Kodak EasyShare One (a wireless digital camera that's about as slow as my old FZ-1). Sigma DP-1 (also slow, and $999 buys you a camera with performance characteristics worthy of a 2005 model). Samsung's upcoming HZ-1, which has lots of promises -- from a company best known for TVs and toasters.

In my experience, digital cameras with the number "1" in their name should set off a neon light in your brain: it means that version 2 is already in the works. If you need to be an early adopter, go right ahead -- but most of the books talking about the G1 now allude to the next version having, among other things, digital video capability that the G1 doesn't.

Panasonic fooled me once with the FZ-1. And as much as I think they make pretty good cameras, I'm not forking over 800 clams to be the guinea pig with the G1. When they're up to a G4 or so, give me a call.

Instant Obsolescence

2008-11-19T13:39:00.000-08:00

If you cruise Craigslist, you can get great deals on recent digital and film cameras. People are practically giving away terrific film cameras, probably because they're too lazy to get film processed. Someone in my town was selling a Yashica T4 with a great Tessar lens for $50. A year ago, you couldn't touch one of these cameras for under $100.

But if someone's offering you a Polaroid "One-Step" camera that uses instant film, run.

Polaroid -- which invented instant photography in the last century, and got a billion-dollar damages payment from Kodak in a patent case -- announced earlier this year that they'll stop making instant film for their cameras. That would leave Fujifilm, which makes the stuff overseas, and doesn't import much of it to the U.S., as the sole source.

So, unless you need another dust-magnet that resembles a camera, keep hunting for that Yashica T4.

(Full disclosure: I work for Kodak, but not in camera or film sales. My first camera was a Polaroid folding camera, and I never recovered from exposure to the "fixing" lacquer that you used to coat you black-and-white photos.)

Abandoned Sites

2008-11-04T12:04:00.000-08:00

Want to know what's going on in photography, 15 months ago?

Hop over to SLR Today, which somehow seems to have halted publication in August, 2007.

Meanwhile, over at MJU-MJU, someone started out saying nice things about the Olympus Stylus Epic -- a really great film camera that's sadly no longer in production. Then, in 2006, the world changed. And that's all he (or she) wrote.

Someone should catalog some of these timeless sites, devoted to photographic marvels that once showcased the technology at its pinnacle. Given all the '70s - era rangefinder cameras I own, you'd think I'd take on the job.

But, no. I just have to delete them from my bookmarks list.

Is that a Vivitar in your pocket? Probably not.

2008-10-13T10:52:00.000-07:00

Vivitar used to make some exceptional lenses, and the 285 strobe flash that was every news photographer's workhorse. My favorite 35mm compact rangefinder camera was, and still is, the Vivitar 35ES camera -- built by Cosina, which made and makes low-end cameras for many big brands of the day.

(Trivia: Vivitar's original name was "Ponder and Best.")

More recently, they slapped their brand on inexpensive digital cameras. One was a decent 6-MP underwater camera that sold for around $100 USD. But most insiders knew that Vivitar -- like Polaroid -- was a brand for hire. You could, for a price, slap it on a digital picture frame, a TV screen, or a toaster. But it didn't have that legendary Vivitar lens quality us film dinosaurs so enjoyed in the 1980s.

Fast-forward to today: Vivitar's name has been sold yet again, to Sakar. (Read it here.) Sakar markets a wide array of plastic photographic accessories that you won't find advertised in Popular Photography.

So, get set for Vivitar lens cleaner fluids and LCD protectors.

When image stabilization matters

2008-10-10T12:08:00.001-07:00

If you're shopping for a camera, here's some advice on image stabilization:

In general, it's nice to have. Mainly on cameras with a long optical zoom. Because a longer lens tends to magnify mistakes, including camera shake.
Contrary opinion: if you're looking at cameras with short zoom lenses (say, 3X optical zoom), you don't really need image stabilization. That short-range zoom won't magnify your mistakes as much as a longer lens.
If you religiously shoot without a flash, then image stabilization can be your friend. (Think: football, basketball, wildlife photos.)
If you religiously use a tripod, you must turn off image stabilization. The resulting images will be flawed. (Think: natural light portraits, still life scenes.)

I tend to use sensor- or lens-based image stabilization, in which the camera's mechanical parts perform the steadying work. Cameras that boast of "digital image stabilization" automatically increase the ISO (or light sensitivity) of the image, so your camera can select a faster shutter speed. This isn't bad in some situations, but higher shutter speeds almost always result in digital noise -- multicolored speckles in your image -- that reduce the accuracy of the shot.

Historically, Panasonic Lumix cameras delivered the best optical image stabilization -- but the company used that technology to compensate for tiny image sensors that resulted in noisy photographs. Now, the playing field is slightly more level; almost all superzoom cameras have image stabilization.

Consumer Reports and digital cameras

2008-10-06T19:56:00.000-07:00

Consumer Reports had nice things to say about the Kodak Z1012 IS digital camera. You can read a little bit about it here.

This 12x optical zoom camera is handy for those occasions when you're far away from your subject and there's plenty of daylight. Like when you're up in the bleachers at a football game, or trying to photograph a wild animal from a distance. Superzoom cameras like the Z1012 IS and Panasonic's FZ series are reasonable substitutes for a digital SLR, which can cost a few hundred dollars more.

One really good feature on this camera: it's got a very good digital HD video function. I've used a Kodak superzoom to record a concert in a college recital hall, and got very satisfying results. (The lights were on throughout the performance; I don't know how well it would work in a dark auditorium.)

All this said: Consumer Reports is like the Kmart of product reviews. They review toasters, dishwashers, Hyundais, and DVD players. If you find this particular camera intriguing, I'd suggest hunting up a few reviews on other websites, like Steve's Digicams or DPReview; they spend most of their time reviewing digital cameras and lenses, not toasters. So I tend to take their recommendations a bit more seriously.

Sunday Tip: Taming the Ghostly Orbs

2008-10-05T19:36:00.000-07:00

In the days of film cameras, you hardly ever saw these little translucent circles in your photos. But for some reason, digital cameras seem to capture them with alarming frequency.

In the photo at right, the mystery orb is in the lower left corner. It's called "dust." My guess: most compact digital cameras have a flash very close to the lens, which may serve to amplify the appearance of these imperfections in the photo.

Of course, they're more evident when you're making pictures against a dark background. Had the photographer moved in a little closer, you'd see less of the dark wall mural of Jim Croce -- and probably not see the ghostly orb.

So, there are two tips here:

Clean your lens once in a while. Use a microfiber cloth or a lens pen. Try not to use facial or bathroom tissue. Breath lightly on the lens, then wipe gently in a circular motion.
Get closer to your subject to decrease the likelihood of distractions in your photos. Zoom with your feet, not the camera's lens.

Midnight Compression

2008-09-30T18:41:00.000-07:00

One good indicator of whether you'll get sharp photos from a camera is if the camera lets you adjust the image quality setting. This is generally found as a menu option called JPEG Compression.

Inexpensive digital cameras generally don't allow you to adjust JPEG compression. Other cameras let you choose different compression levels, such as "Standard" or "Fine." Choosing the "fine" setting results in slightly larger image files, as the camera's processor isn't squeezing your image file into a smaller "standard" setting.

If you visit Flickr and use their Camera Tracker, you can track down a specific camera and view the output quality. (Check out full-size versions, not the default snapshot size). Then see if the image quality meets your expectations -- and visit the manufacturer's website to see if the camera's specs list several JPEG compression levels.

Don't confuse this with image size. Most cameras permit you to select a smaller megapixel size; say, a 7-MP setting instead of the camera's maximum 10- or 12-MP setting. Choosing a slightly smaller megapixel setting will save a little space on your memory card, and if you never print photos larger than 8 x 10 inches, you can easily reduce the file size to a 6-, 7- , or 8-MP setting.

(The photo above was taken with an 8-MP camera, but I've cut the file size down to what you might get with a 1.5-MP camera, if you could find one. Click the image for a larger view. The image looks OK on a computer screen, but the original file -- 1.32 megabytes -- was used to 8 x 10-inches in prints.)

But since I never know whether I'm going to want an enlargement, I'll use the camera's largest file size (usually painted on the camera itself someplace). I can always reduce the file size in a photo editing program later on.

For what it's worth: 8-MP is usually all anyone ever needs.

Sunday tips: bargain digital cameras and printing online

2008-09-28T10:38:00.000-07:00

In the bargain department: refurbished digital cameras. It's no secret that most digital cameras are built in Asia. Check the label on the bottom of any camera. And, like any other consumer electronics device, they're bound to have an occasional problem. In the U.S., some brands have such cameras refurbished in this country, often by employees who are a little better compensated than the people overseas who assembled the camera.

So, refurbs are a good deal, as long as you get a decent warranty. Example: Geeks.com is offering one of my current favorite cameras, the Kodak M1033, for $119.95, and Kodak offers a one-year warranty (same as on a new camera).

In the printing department: online photo printing services sometimes have "default" settings that can enhance your photos before printing. This won't turn a fuzzy print into an award-winner, but it tends to punch up the colors in digital photos. If you do a great deal of Photoshop or Picasa manipulation to your photos before uploading, maybe you don't need that enhancement. Jay has an excellent suggestion about this on his blog here.

Design vs. Function - Rangefinders Revisited

2008-09-22T18:33:00.000-07:00

Over in Germany, all the camera companies are trotting out their latest concepts -- and a few actual cameras-- at the Photokina trade fair. Olympus served up this retro-looking concept camera, intended to evoke the 35mm, leather-clad rangefinders of the 1970s.

I am an enormous fan of those classic rangefinders. They had fast lenses, mirror-less shutters system that made for quiet photography, and they took great photos. Among the best: the Olympus XA, a very compact rangefinder that delivered superb user control and great photos in a camera slightly larger than a pack of cigarettes.

With the arrival of electronic autofocus technology, rangefinders quickly disappeared. C'est domage. Too bad.

Today's Olympus point-and-shoots, I've found, leave a bit to be desired. They're neither leading edge nor especially user-friendly. I've owned one or two, and found them a little on the sluggish side. Olympus seems to be gearing itself to be the Mazda Motors of the camera world: making cute, almost boutique-calibre digital cameras that look terrific, but don't always deliver the imaging experience you'd assume went with the slick package.

I hope these "Micro Four-Thirds" cameras prove me wrong. But I also hope that they deliver more than a leather-and-brushed aluminum feel, especially in terms of image quality.

For about $170, which will you carry?

2008-09-18T06:40:00.000-07:00

Here are two reviews of two current digital cameras that are both going for around $170:

TrustedReviews.com gave a lukewarm review of the Kodak Z8612 IS camera. This is a 12X "superzoom" camera that won't fit in your pocket, but will get you pretty decent photos from over 100 feet away.

CNET.com had kinder remarks about the Kodak M1033 camera, a personal favorite of mine. This is a very compact pocket model with a typical 35-105mm lens, and a bigger-than-usual 3-inch LCD screen. CNET liked its image quality; in addition, I like how it's insanely light and compact.

So how do you choose? If you shoot lots of photos from the bleachers at a football game, the Z8612 is a pretty decent value.

But I've always believed that you'll get the best photos from the camera you keep with you. A pocket camera fits better in my sport jacket than a bulky superzoom. Thus, I pack the M1033 for casual shooting, and use a DSLR when photography is the main reason I'm headed out.

The M1033 replaced a Kodak V550 pocket camera that I loved for its high-visibility 2.5-inch screen. I bought that camera for $44 from eBay, and aside from the limitation of a 5-MP sensor, it's still a pretty good performer.

Full Disclosure: I work for Kodak. But I use cameras from Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, Fujifilm, Casio, Olympus, and Kodak.

In other words, I'm a gadgeteer.

It's the lens, stupid

2008-09-15T19:17:00.001-07:00

You want a fast lens. One that can capture as much light, wide-open, as possible.

My first digital camera was a Kodak DC4800 (at left) , which had a 28mm wide-angle lens. Its widest aperture was f2.8. That was about the standard on digital cameras in 2000, when this camera was introduced.

Photo enthusiasts from the film era wanted "fast" lenses that captured as much light as possible. The standard 50mm lens on an SLR clocked in at f1.8 -- a full stop faster than the DC4800's. But few camera makers brought fast lenses to compact digital cameras, except with the (long-discontinued) Olympus C-5050 and Canon G2.

Those fast lenses today are almost a bygone thing. The last fast lens on a compact camera was the Canon G6, which retained a very good f2.0 lens.

Most digital SLRs today come with kit lenses that start at a pokey f3.5. The Kodak M1033 in my pocket shuffles in at f3.1. The top-line Z1015IS mimicks the DSLRs with a wide-open f3.5.

It appears camera makers are hoping their cameras' light-sensitive sensors will compensate for these slower lenses. But remember, most compact digital cameras have pixel-packed sensors no larger than a thumbnail. It's hard to imagine any mass-market sensor picking up the slack for a slower lens.

My advice: shop around. Look at the specs. If you find a camera with an f2.8 lens that meets most of your needs, I'd bet you'll get a better yield of low-light images -- with less digital noise -- than a similar camera with a slower lens.

And it's all about the lens.

Now that you've purchased a digital camera...

2008-09-14T05:54:00.000-07:00

Here are a few tips to get the most out of your digital camera, no matter what brand you purchased or how experienced you are:

First, attach and use the wrist strap (or neck strap) that came with your camera. Even if your camera has a rugged metal body, it's really just a tiny computer and sensor. Dropped from eye-level, it can become an expensive paperweight. That wrist strap can prevent you from turning your camera into a doorstop.
Stabilize your camera. Most people hold their camera like a pair of binoculars, but out at arm's length. This invites camera shake. Instead, do this: make your left hand into the shape of a pistol (thumb up, index finger out). Point your hand to the right. Place the camera firmly in the corner where thumb and index finger meet. This helps support the camera better, and leaves your right hand free to press the zoom and shutter button.
Zoom with your feet. Almost every digital camera has a built-in zoom. But the longer your lens, the further light needs to travel to the camera's image sensor. If you take a few steps closer to your subject, light needn't travel as far. The camera will choose a higher shutter speed, and you'll get fewer blurry photos.

More later.