Looking for digital camera with specific features
OhioGuy
price up $20 on me.
So, I'm still looking. Here is what I want:
1) fixed focus (no optical zoom), or with a lever that lets you get very
close to things
2) 4+ megapixels
3) 4 AA batteries, or else a 3 Amp-Hour or better
rechargeable battery built in (absolutely no AAA
batteries! - they don't last long enough.) I'd really
rather have one that used a couple of C cells.
4) Camera defaults to putting all of the pictures taken on
the same day into a folder labelled with that date
(this is VERY important to me - for a short time I
had a Kodak that just put them all in the same
communal folder, and I hated it)
5) under $100
6) good reviews online
7) no proprietary flash format
Unfortunately, I've found lots of cameras under $100, even a 10 megapixel
one, where people are saying it is fuzzier than they expected, slower than
they expected, etc. The HP e427 was one of only a few where people seem to
be MORE satisfied than they expected to be, after trying it out.
Anyone have any suggestions? Thanks!
skar...@gmail.com
within your budget. What am I missing?
Rod Speed
James
> I was about to buy an HP e427 digital camera, when circuit city jacked the
> price up $20 on me.
>
See the comments below
> So, I'm still looking. Here is what I want:
>
> 1) fixed focus (no optical zoom), or with a lever that lets you get very
Focus and zoom are NOT the same thing.
Very few cameras have fixed focus - that means the lens does not move
and every thing from X feet out is more or less in focus. Cheap
disposable film cameras use this technique. I actually have an old
digital camera that does this, but not many do. You will probably not
find one, except for the real cheap ones, or the cameras in cell
phones.
Zoom is changing the length of the lens - which impacts the size of
the image - wide angle to telephoto. Optical zoom does this by
cropping the image - which loses you quality. You can find non zoom
models, again, most have some zoom these days - if you don't want to
use it, don't.
> close to things
>
> 2) 4+ megapixels
Pretty standard these days.
>
> 3) 4 AA batteries, or else a 3 Amp-Hour or better
> rechargeable battery built in (absolutely no AAA
> batteries! - they don't last long enough.) I'd really
> rather have one that used a couple of C cells.
>
This varies. I have one camera (Kodak z700) which gets me 400 pics on
2 photo grade AAs. I have another which gets me 200 pics on 4 AAs. It
depends on the LCD display needs, power of the flash etc.
C cells are too big for most digital cams.
> 4) Camera defaults to putting all of the pictures taken on
> the same day into a folder labelled with that date
> (this is VERY important to me - for a short time I
> had a Kodak that just put them all in the same
> communal folder, and I hated it)
>
If you use the MS Windows XP camera wizard, you can create a folder
every time you download pictures. Name it whatever you want. Thats
what I do
> 5) under $100
Check out places that sell refurbs, like Tigerdirect - I bought one
there 2 years ago and its still working fine.
Or craiglist - lots of people selling good older cameras cause they
are trading up.
>
> 6) good reviews online
>
I trust Digital Photographiew review - www.dpreview.com
I don't trust the review you get on sites that sell cameras.
> 7) no proprietary flash format
Not sure what you mean by proprietary flash
>
> Unfortunately, I've found lots of cameras under $100, even a 10 megapixel
> one, where people are saying it is fuzzier than they expected, slower than
> they expected, etc. The HP e427 was one of only a few where people seem to
> be MORE satisfied than they expected to be, after trying it out.
More megapixels does not always mean better picture quality - its just
more pixels and that is one factor in image quality. I recently bought
a 6MP camera for a fair chunk of change ($300) that outperforms some
10 MP cameras on quality - good lens, good CCD, good firmware etc.
James
Anthony Matonak
...
>> 3) 4 AA batteries, or else a 3 Amp-Hour or better
>> rechargeable battery built in (absolutely no AAA
>> batteries! - they don't last long enough.) I'd really
>> rather have one that used a couple of C cells.
>>
> This varies. I have one camera (Kodak z700) which gets me 400 pics on
> 2 photo grade AAs. I have another which gets me 200 pics on 4 AAs. It
> depends on the LCD display needs, power of the flash etc.
>
> C cells are too big for most digital cams.
If the camera has an external power jack then it's likely he could
make a belt-pack of batteries in whatever size he likes. I know
A123 recently came out with C sized lithiums that are used in some
power tools. Though, honestly, how many pictures are you going to
take in a single day? I know people with expensive digital cameras
that hardly take any photos at all.
Anthony
OhioGuy
> within your budget. What am I missing?
It was sixty something when I was originally looking, but they raised it
to $89. Must have dropped it back $10 or so since then.
The main issue I have with that camera is the batteries. With only 2 AA
batteries, that is half of what I am used to. On my old camera, it was a 3
volt which had 4 AA's in it, for a total of 3.6 amp hours of power. The HP
e427 would have, at most, 1.8 amp hours of battery power, which means you
would have to swap batteries out twice as often as I'm used to.
Don K
news:1189710298.6...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Zoom is changing the length of the lens - which impacts the size of
> the image - wide angle to telephoto. Optical zoom does this by
> cropping the image - which loses you quality.
I'm sure you meant digital zoom, not optical zoom.
Don
OhioGuy
>time you download pictures. >Name it whatever you want. Thats what I do
I would hate that. I upload my pictures every month or two, and I want
them already organized by day the pictures were taken.
I also prefer to cut and paste from the camera, rather than using any sort
of wizard.
345ddd
Not necessarily, depends on what its power consumption is like compared with the other one.
Don K
I never could figure out why the digital cameras don't just name each
photo with a date and time-stamp.
something like 2007....@17.32.02.jpg
rather than some meaningless arbitrary name and number.
since every camera has a built-in clock.
You can find software that will do that automatically when it
transfers photos from a camera to a computer.
Don
Rick
I don't understand the problem. Every camera I have used that stores on
a memory card puts a date and time stamp on the file for the image -
just like any other file created on a computer. Works fine if you have
the date and time set correctly on the camera. When you copy the files
off the digital media the date and time of the image file should still
be the same. (Unless Mr. Bill screwed that one up in one of his more
recent operating systems...) The only exception I can think of is if the
software is using some god awful TWAIN interface to transfer the images
from the camera and that won't retain the date and time stamp
information when you copy the files. Better off just getting a very
inexpensive media card reader that treats the media card like a storage
device and copying the files with that rather than through the camera:
You can see what files are on the media card and the dates and times are
all there on each image file when you took the picture.
If you "hate" making a folder to put image files into I don't think
anyone in the camera industry can help you with that. I have a Sony
digital camcorder that can do that - create folders - if you want to
record still images onto a media card, but I've never seen a still
camera with that option. As it is, it's a far more confounding option on
the camcorder than it's worth. If you want the camera to do everything
for you, believe me, the way that folder option works on the Sony
camcorder is anything but intuitive, let alone automatic.
Rick
Michael Black
> I never could figure out why the digital cameras don't just name each
> photo with a date and time-stamp.
> something like 2007....@17.32.02.jpg
> rather than some meaningless arbitrary name and number.
> since every camera has a built-in clock.
>
Aren't the files dated?
With my camera, they are. And indeed a few times I've taken
photos mainly to show a progression, the content is less important
than the level of things at a certain point in time.
I move the to my computer, and the dates are kept intact. Thus
it is easy to keep track of when photos were taken.
And yes, every time I upload photos to my computer, I make a separate
directory that is named with the date of the first of the photos in
the string.
Michael
Al Bundy
Your old camera had four batteries because it was so inefficient. I
think my Canon is rated for 200 or more pictures on one set of two AA
batteries. I really don't know because I shoot pictures every day and
I get antsy over the shelf life charge on the cells and so I switch in
the alternate set anyway while the old ones are still working fine a
month later.
The fuzzy picture you are talking about you friends telling you is
simply because they don't know how to operate the camera. I felt that
way too when I switched from fixed to adjustable focus and zoom lens.
If you don't have the skill to focus, you are doomed to pictures of
limited quality.
Prices keep coming down. If you wait another five years or so, perhaps
you can find a 5MP for $50. I doubt whether you will ever be satisfied
with anything offered at any price.
George
> Don K wrote:
>> "OhioGuy" <no...@none.net> wrote in message news:fcc9m8$psm$1...@aioe.org...
>>>> If you use the MS Windows XP camera wizard, you >can create a folder every time you
>>>> download pictures. >Name it whatever you want. Thats what I do
>>> I would hate that. I upload my pictures every month or two, and I want them already
>>> organized by day the pictures were taken.
>>>
>>> I also prefer to cut and paste from the camera, rather than using any sort of wizard.
>> I never could figure out why the digital cameras don't just name each
>> photo with a date and time-stamp.
>> something like 2007....@17.32.02.jpg
>> rather than some meaningless arbitrary name and number.
>> since every camera has a built-in clock.
>>
>> You can find software that will do that automatically when it
>> transfers photos from a camera to a computer.
>>
>> Don
>
> I don't understand the problem. Every camera I have used that stores on
> a memory card puts a date and time stamp on the file for the image -
> just like any other file created on a computer. Works fine if you have
> the date and time set correctly on the camera. When you copy the files
> off the digital media the date and time of the image file should still
> be the same. (Unless Mr. Bill screwed that one up in one of his more
> recent operating systems...)
Windows explorer on XP and above (not sure about others) has 2 date/time
fields. One is "date modified" which is the date/time it was copied onto
the hard drive and "date picture taken" which I assume it reads from the
EXIF info that is on each image. It also has a "dimensions" field.
Al Bundy
Most people choose a digital camera so they can see the results
immediately, not two months later. If you want great pictures and
don't give a fig about time, then a 35MM camera will do a much better
job and end your woes over battery life too. Let Wal-Mart or CVS put
the pictures on a CD and you can dance them around how you prefer. The
simple fact is, this technology is not designed around your atypical
desires. Sometimes we have to bend a little to enjoy all the benefits
of things.
Logan Shaw
>> If you use the MS Windows XP camera wizard, you >can create a folder every
>> time you download pictures. >Name it whatever you want. Thats what I do
>
> I would hate that. I upload my pictures every month or two, and I want
> them already organized by day the pictures were taken.
As others have pointed out, the information is still there; it's just a
matter of having a tool that will let you view and manipulate the photos/files
with that organization.
It doesn't have to be some intrusive wizard thing that takes control away
from you. I would look at using Picasa. Not only is it a great photo
organizer tool, but it's free, and I know it can group by year, and it
can probably group by the individual day on which the picture was taken.
It's also a good tool for viewing photos.
> I also prefer to cut and paste from the camera, rather than using any sort
> of wizard.
Just be aware that by including such a constraint, you're limiting your
choices and might have to trade off a lot to satisfy that constraint.
- Logan
Don K
news:fcchig$egh$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
> "Don K" (dk@dont_bother_me.com) writes:
>
>> I never could figure out why the digital cameras don't just name each
>> photo with a date and time-stamp.
>> something like 2007....@17.32.02.jpg
>> rather than some meaningless arbitrary name and number.
>> since every camera has a built-in clock.
>>
> Aren't the files dated?
>
> With my camera, they are. And indeed a few times I've taken
> photos mainly to show a progression, the content is less important
> than the level of things at a certain point in time.
>
> I move the to my computer, and the dates are kept intact. Thus
> it is easy to keep track of when photos were taken.
The date is intact until you edit the photo and resave the result.
Then it has a new date.
When I edit 2007....@17.32.02.jpg
I'd save it as 2007....@17.32.02a.jpg
or maybe I'd rename a batch of files as
2007.09.13_outer_banks-001.jpg or something.
An encoded date as part of the file name makes it a lot easier to
sort and organize photos. It makes a lot more sense than something like
P5220075,jpg,
P5220076jpg,
etc.
Don
Anthony Matonak
...
> An encoded date as part of the file name makes it a lot easier to
> sort and organize photos. It makes a lot more sense than something like
> P5220075,jpg,
> P5220076jpg,
> etc.
Perhaps you'll do better with a utility on your computer that will
rename the files the way you want them to look. Then you don't need
to worry about how the camera generates filenames. It won't matter.
For example...
http://www.download.com/Renamer/3000-2248_4-10614579.html
Anthony
Rod Speed
> "Michael Black" <et...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
> news:fcchig$egh$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>> "Don K" (dk@dont_bother_me.com) writes:
>>
>>> I never could figure out why the digital cameras don't just name
>>> each photo with a date and time-stamp.
>>> something like 2007....@17.32.02.jpg
>>> rather than some meaningless arbitrary name and number.
>>> since every camera has a built-in clock.
>>>
>> Aren't the files dated?
>>
>> With my camera, they are. And indeed a few times I've taken
>> photos mainly to show a progression, the content is less important
>> than the level of things at a certain point in time.
>>
>> I move the to my computer, and the dates are kept intact. Thus
>> it is easy to keep track of when photos were taken.
>
> The date is intact until you edit the photo and resave the result.
> Then it has a new date.
There is more than one date in the datestamp.
> When I edit 2007....@17.32.02.jpg
> I'd save it as 2007....@17.32.02a.jpg
> or maybe I'd rename a batch of files as
> 2007.09.13_outer_banks-001.jpg or something.
> An encoded date as part of the file name makes it a lot easier to sort and organize photos.
Only for those who dont have enough of a clue to
work out how to see the other dates in the datestamp.
> It makes a lot more sense than something like P5220075,jpg, P5220076jpg, etc.
Nope.
What makes a lot more sense is more than one datestamp for each photo.
The Real Bev
Or you can have your beloved husband write it for you for free!
I think that Irfanview (free and downloadable) will convert the filenames to
some variant of the date+time, or maybe it's Photoshop Elements (not free,
but it sometimes comes with hardware).
--
Cheers,
Bev
***********************************************************
"Everyone ought to stop and smell crayons once in a while."
-- DA
Don K
news:46e9f87f$0$24281$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Well that's essentially what I do. I'll use a freeware thing called rename-it,
sometimes a freeware thing called digital camera contact sheet, or sometimes
do a batch rename in thumbsplus.
My point is that the cameras should give photos more meaningful names in
the first place. What would be the downside of doing that?
Don
Rod Speed
More fool you.
> What would be the downside of doing that?
Its never going to be as good as proper datestamps on the files,
where you can sort on the creation date, editing date etc etc etc.
Anthony Matonak
>> Perhaps you'll do better with a utility on your computer that will
>> rename the files the way you want them to look.
>
> sometimes a freeware thing called digital camera contact sheet, or sometimes
> do a batch rename in thumbsplus.
>
> My point is that the cameras should give photos more meaningful names in
> the first place. What would be the downside of doing that?
I guess it's a question of what people believe are meaningful names.
Myself, I would prefer GPS co-ordinates. Add compass heading, an
inclinometer and laser-range to each pixel and you've got some real
context.
In my opinion, a cameras main thing should be taking good pictures.
I'll take good photos with ugly filenames over bad photos with good
filenames anytime.
Anthony
OhioGuy
>in the camera industry can help you >with that. I have a Sony
I don't hate doing that - which is why I cut and paste from the camera
manually.
However, what I do hate is when the pictures aren't already grouped into
folders by day taken, like my old Argus was. Then I have to manually go
through hundreds, perhaps even 1,000 or more photos, creating many, many
folders by day taken, then cutting and pasting in multiple operations.
Why would I enjoy that, when it was done for me automatically in the past
with my old camera?
OhioGuy
We do, using the LCD screen on the camera. It displays the pic
immediately after we take it.
However, the main reason we are taking all of these pictures is so that
later on, we can look back at our kids when they were 3 and 4 years old, to
remember old trips, etc.
For some reason, using the USB cable to transfer pictures took forever, so
I was used to using the SD card, which was much faster. Since we only did
it every couple of months, it wasn't too much of a hassle. However, as soon
as we got a Kodak digital camera, it became one. That camera had the SD
card in the same compartment as the batteries, which meant that every single
time I transferred pictures, it would forget the date, etc.
Anyway, yes, if you transferred pictures every day or something, it
wouldn't matter too much how the camera organized the pictures. However, if
you prefer to only transfer them every month or two, then it becomes quite
important.
My main point is that an inexpensive Argus digital camera got it right -
each day that pictures were taken, it created a new folder on the SD card
named after that date, and all the pictures taken that day went in there.
All I had to do was copy over to the computer, then organize by month. It
was very little work, and we had all of our pictures organized in a way
where it was very easy to find specific pictures by month and day. Now I
find out that some of these more expensive cameras don't have this feature,
and I simply can't stand owning any of those, because it is so much more
work.
That's why I'm asking if anyone knows, from experience, what brands/models
organize pictures into folders by date taken, and create a new folder each
day. That's what I expect, because that makes sense. To just put them all
out there into a communal folder is stupid.
Rick
That's one reason why I never edit original image files. Or to be more
correct, I never over write an original image in order to keep the date
time stamp the picture was taken. The edited version is just saved and
renamed something else. If the original image file name is DSCF2497.TIF
I save the edited version as DSCF2497B.TIF. If there's a second edit or
version it gets the next obvious name of DSCF2497C.TIF etc. Keeps it all
in order.
The other, much more serious reason reason I never over write original
images is because you can't un-ring the bell when over writing the
original. If you screw up and don't like the editing, or the computer
screws up and writes out a corrupted file you don't have your original
to back track to.
> > And yes, every time I upload photos to my computer, I make a separate
> > directory that is named with the date of the first of the photos in
> > the string.
> >
> > Michael
Do you take that many pictures on a single day? To each his own, but I
find just a single folder for each month of the year is sufficient.
You and other's may also want to look into a good image cataloging
program like Graphics Workshop. It's the program I prefer - there are
other ones out there. But the pertinent function is the creation of
thumbnails for images. In the case of most of these programs you can
store text information about the image file in the thumbnail - like the
date and time if you want to be redundant about that, along with any
other notes you care to make about the image. The programs provide a
search function for that text information you enter into the thumbnail.
I just like the way Graphics Workshop does this better than the other
programs I have looked at. Other programs are more rude and crude about
thumbnail creation and aren't all that useful.
Although these types of programs provide image editing filters, the
focus is cataloging images for easy organization. You can take a look at
Graphics Workshop here:
http://www.mindworkshop.com/alchemy/gwspro.html
Rick
Rick
Meaningful to who? And for what?
This is a lowest common denominator issue since the camera and it's
associated files won't be used just with the next Mr. Bill Windows
8,219th version of a Windoze operating system. If you start screwing
around with the complexity of the files and naming conventions you end
up with "Works with Mr. Bill's operating system only" cameras. And that
pisses off people who don't use the camera with Windows. And cuts into
market share for selling the cameras. You get sequentially named files,
no long file names, with the date and time stamped on the file. That
provides the most basic - and obvious - level of digital photo
organization that (almost) everybody can comprehend and that can be
downloaded into any operating system of your choice. If you want a
custom camera with only the features you want you are gonna have to pay
a heck of a lot more than 90 bucks to get it... It may need to be made
from scratch.
Rick
Shawn Hirn
> That's why I'm asking if anyone knows, from experience, what brands/models
> organize pictures into folders by date taken, and create a new folder each
> day. That's what I expect, because that makes sense. To just put them all
> out there into a communal folder is stupid.
Check http://www.dpreview.com for info on digital cameras. I shoot
thousands of photos on a typical one week trip and how my digital camera
stores them is of no interest to me. I just download them into iPhoto on
my Mac and let it sort out how they're organized. The latest iPhoto
sorts photos into folders called "events" and it does this based on the
date the folder was taken. It works great!
Don K
> Don K wrote:
>> My point is that the cameras should give photos more meaningful names in
>> the first place. What would be the downside of doing that?
>>
>> Don
>
> Meaningful to who? And for what?
>
> This is a lowest common denominator issue since the camera and it's
> associated files won't be used just with the next Mr. Bill Windows
> 8,219th version of a Windoze operating system. If you start screwing
> around with the complexity of the files and naming conventions you end
> up with "Works with Mr. Bill's operating system only" cameras. And that
> pisses off people who don't use the camera with Windows. And cuts into
> market share for selling the cameras. You get sequentially named files,
> no long file names, with the date and time stamped on the file. That
> provides the most basic - and obvious - level of digital photo
> organization that (almost) everybody can comprehend and that can be
> downloaded into any operating system of your choice. If you want a
> custom camera with only the features you want you are gonna have to pay
> a heck of a lot more than 90 bucks to get it... It may need to be made
> from scratch.
>
> Rick
The main purpose of a filenaming convention is to generate a unique
filename. If you can also embed a human-readable datecode into the
filename, it becomes more than just a simple indexing reference,
and would be a much more elegant solution, IMO.
Even 070915-001 would be a good choice for the 1st photo today.
I use digital photos from a few digital cameras and they each
use a different file-naming convention. It results in an annoying
hodge-podge. Every piece of proprietary software wants to take
over organizing all the photos in its own way, and I'm don't
want to keep flipping from one system to another.
Don
Rod Speed
Nope, a better choice is to have the datestamp separated from the
name so you can sort it more effectively if you want to sort it and to
have more than one datestamp, one for the creation date, one for
the modify date etc. And other fields for other attributes too.
The days of trying to get everything into the file name are long gone.
> I use digital photos from a few digital cameras and they each use a different file-naming convention.
And that doesnt happen with proper datestamps.
> It results in an annoying hodge-podge.
And that doesnt happen with proper datestamps.
> Every piece of proprietary software wants to take
> over organizing all the photos in its own way, and I'm don't want to keep flipping from one system to another.
And that doesnt happen with proper datestamps.