What's new
By:
Guest viewing is limited

Digital Cameras

S

Ski Bum

Established Talker
PF Member
Messages
81
Highlights
0
Reaction score
0
Points
102
Peak Coin
0.000000¢
DB Transfer
0.000000¢
I'm in the market for a digital camera, but I really don't want to spend more than $400-$500 US on it. I've seen and used the Kodak PC290 a few times, and I've found a refurb that's in my price range. I'm a little leary of many reviewers especially if they get advertising money from the manufacturer.

Anyone have any suggestions pro or con with the DC290, or other comparable digital cameras?

Thanks,

Ski Bum

----------------------------
Sacred cow makes the best burger.
 
Originally posted by Ski Bum:
Anyone have any suggestions pro or con with the DC290, or other comparable digital cameras?
[/B]
Click to expand...

SB, I personally have and use this particular camera. I had a HP c200 before this one, and there is no comparison. The DC290 is extremely well built and takes excellent pictures. I took it with me on my recent trip to Europe and the pictures it took were remarkable. If you want to see a few, let me know.

T.
 
Personally, I've found you get better results with a regular camera and a good scanner. I've got a Canon Sureshot 135 that takes outstanding pics. My scanner (believe it or not) is a five-year-old Mustek. It's a bit slower than today's models, but still does great imaging.

Digital video cameras are good, because it's easier to edit an already digitized movie. Most of those also have a still function to capture a photo. You'd be better off spending the couple hundred more on one of those, because you get so much more out of it.
cool.gif
 
AGGrrSSIVE,

What a great nick, some will say that it fits me, but not anyone that knows me.
smile.gif


I have a great 35mm SLR, and a good scanner, but like most, I WANT INSTANT GRATIFICATION!! and I'd like to toss the extra couple of hundred at new wheels for my new ride. You can take a look at it here.

lol.gif


Ski Bum



----------------------------
Sacred cow makes the best burger.
 
WaterB, thanks for the link, and Gameboy, thanks for your input. I have it boiled down to the DC290 or the Nikon CoolPix 990, and I think I'll go with the DC290 just because it's quite a bit less expensive.

Thanks again folks,

Ski Bum

----------------------------
Sacred cow makes the best burger.
 
Gameboy writes:

I feel the 990 is superior in color and quality. Dont get me wrong, the DC290 is an awesome camera, but if I had to pick between the two, I would go with the 990. Just My $.02
Click to expand...

Well, if you know where I can get the Coolpix 990 for under $500, please share.
wink.gif


Ski Bum
 
Originally posted by Ski Bum:
WaterB, thanks for the link, and Gameboy, thanks for your input. I have it boiled down to the DC290 or the Nikon CoolPix 990, and I think I'll go with the DC290 just because it's quite a bit less expensive.
Click to expand...
SB,

My cousin has the 990 and when I compared photos, I have to admit, I feel the 990 is superior in color and quality. Dont get me wrong, the DC290 is an awesome camera, but if I had to pick between the two, I would go with the 990. Just My $.02
 
Just some personal experience I'll relate:
If you want photos that will rival film prints, don't go for anything less than 3 megapixel.
I had an Olympus 2.2 megapixel camera that took fantastic shots. Even took it on vacation with me to Aruba, where I got some great shots of the island.
However, I just got the next model up, the 3.3 megapixel, to review, and the difference is eyepopping.

I know it may be out of your pricerange, but it might be something to consider.

As for that Kodak, some things to consider...
The zoom's are reversed in terms of priority. You really don't want to use digital zoom, since it significantly enlarges the pixels. Even at it's lowest zoom, digital zoom turns your photos to utter crap. You want the highest optical zoom possible.

It's certainly a bonus that it has a USB interface, but you might want to look into getting a USB Compact Flash reader for your PC. They're not that pricey, and they add a great deal of convenience.

The audio record feature is a nice add-on, but you'll likely never find a use for it.

On a final note, I would point out that http://www.pcphotoreview.com is one of the best digital camera resources on the web.
Good luck with your decision.

----------------------------
spidergoolash: "heh, a cup of diesel dan - mwahhha"
me: "heh, a cup of me is like a cup of heaven!"
 
Originally posted by Ski Bum:
...and I've found a refurb that's in my price range.
Click to expand...

No one's commented on this yet. If you're going to shell out a couple hundred dollars for a camera, is it a good idea to pick up a refurbished piece of equipment? Anyone have any thoughts on that from personal experience?

----------------------------
My knob tastes funny.
 
Since you asked...
With some things refurb is okay. However, with things like monitors, scanners, and digital cameras, I would recommend against it.
Refurb monitors have a way of dying very quickly. Likewise, refurb scanners have a way of having their movement mechanism slip off track.

If you're set on saving the extra few bucks by going refurb, I would at least take the trouble of looking at the specific unit first hand and make sure that it works up to expectation.
If it's not possible to inspect the unit first hand, I would avoid making the purchase, especially on a purchase of a $500 piece of equipment.

Used it one thing... if you know the owner or you know the type of owner, then you have an idea of how a piece of equipment was used or cared for. This is especially true in an area such as photography, where equipment can be cared for, or severely abused.

Refurb is another matter entirly. Basically, that's the factory saying that it's in working order, but it's unlikely that you'll ever find out what exactly stopped working until it breaks on you. Or it was a store's floor model that could've been handled by countless people and possibly dropped a time or two. Have you ever seen the meaty paws on the people who check out the merchandise at Wal-Mart?!?
smile.gif


----------------------------
spidergoolash: "heh, a cup of diesel dan - mwahhha"
me: "heh, a cup of me is like a cup of heaven!"
 
Actually, poss, I disagree with a lot of things mentioned in that article.

While I do agree that, if you're going to consider buying used, that you should see the camera first hand and try using it, I don't agree with the following statements:

"Physical abuse doesn't even mean very much; a fall that would permanently cripple a film camera won't do much more than put a dent on a digicam's case."
This is just WRONG. Consider this - the digital camera that you're holding in your hands most likely has a mechanical zoom mechanism, glass lenses, and and LCD screen. All of these things will be utterly destroyed if you drop a camera, or even bang it the wrong way.

"For starters, you need to make certain that the camera will work with your computer"
Most cameras use some form of removable that follows some sort of standard. The most common are Compact Flash and SmartMedia. If your camera uses either of these forms of media, you don't even need to hook them up to your PC to transfer photos. You can just buy a CF or SM reader, which usually hooks up via USB. Most cameras prior to the 3+ megapixel models have a serial interface, so the USB media reader will actually be much faster to transfer photos, and you don't have to lock up your camera and use battery power while you're transferring photos to the PC.

And the worst faux pas of them all:
"There's nothing dishonorable, disreputable, or even inherently risky in buying a used digital camera"
Apparently, this guy has never conducted any sort of transaction online. One look at Reseller Ratings will irrefutably show that there are plenty of disreputable and risky vendors out there.

FWIW, I am doing freelance writing. Specifically, product reviews. The one I'm working on right now is an Olympus C-3030. Very nice, but kinda pricey.
The C-3000 is the same camera, but with a reduced internal buffer (8kb vs. 32kb). The nice thing is that, while there's really no reduced functionality, the price difference is about $200 less. If you're looking for a really nice digital camera in the $500-600 range (very reasonable for a 3+ megapixel), look into the C-3000. If you have high demands, the C-3030 is excellent. When I finish the review, I'll be sure to post it, as some of you might find it helpful.

----------------------------
spidergoolash: "heh, a cup of diesel dan - mwahhha"
me: "heh, a cup of me is like a cup of heaven!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top