New to digital photography... not impressed with my first camera.

[SinfulWeeper]

I just got a new Vivitar Vivicam 3735 3.3MP camera with a 256mb CF card.
I must say the quality of the pictures when properly taken are great. But taking a 'proper' picture is difficult @ best. I have to hold the camera totally motionless or the picture will not turn out at all. This is a very bothersome annoyance for me. I want a digital camera that takes pictures in a '35mm' type of way. Point, click, walk away.
Is there any digital cameras that do this? Is a CF card too slow? Whats my problem (it is a 4x memory module?)

 

[JimRaynor]

I don't know all that much about digicams, but I know that if I were going to buy one I wouldn't get a vivitar. The canon powershot a70 seems to be popular around here.

 

[AIWGuru]

decent camera = decent pictures.
Get a camera with a nice parallel design ala dig!c processor.
Try a canon

 

[Hyperfocal]

Shooting digital is a lot like shooting slides. You have a very slim margin for error. Plus, almost all consumer digital cameras have considerable shutter lag.

You may be moving the camera before the image is actually taken. On some cameras there is nearly 1/4 second between the time you press the shutter button and the time the image is exposed.

To get speed and image quality, you are going to have to spend some bucks. Cameras like the Canon EOS 300D and Nikon D70 give nearly instantaneous exposure, but with a hefty price tag.

If you can get great pictures, then it is just a matter of working with the camera until you get a higher percentage of great pictures. At least you can shoot as many shots as you need at no cost.

A faster CF card can help you take more images consecutively, but won't speed up the time it takes for the camera to take a single image.

 

[mechBgon]

How much manual control do you have with that model? I'm not a photography expert by any means, but if you reduce your f-stop, you let more light in and can increase the shutter speed, so you don't have to hold as still. You may also kick the ISO up from 50 to 100 or 200, which has a similar effect as well. Basically, you need to either accomplish a fast shutter speed using a flash, or lots of lighting, or by manipulating your variables (ISO & f-stop), or hold very still and use stationary subject matter (which I do a lot when photographing computer hardware... tripods rock and non-flash photos look sweet). Or there may be an advanced technique, such as using a flash combined with a slow shutter speed in order to capture the foreground well while allowing the dimmer background to get captured for longer... my Canon A60 has a dedicated mode for this, but I've never tried it.

Sample photos, no flash, scaled down from 1600x1200 to 50%:

hi, Mr. Memory Module!
hi, Mr. Mobo Tray! (illustrating the concept of "standoffs" for newbies, I'm doing a newbie build-a-PC guide)

Incidentally, for maximum possible stability, I also use a 2-second time-delay so I can get my hands off the camera. Those were shot at f8.0 and ISO50 on a $40 Canon tripod.

 

[SinfulWeeper]

Originally posted by: Hyperfocal
Shooting digital is a lot like shooting slides. You have a very slim margin for error. Plus, almost all consumer digital cameras have considerable shutter lag.

You may be moving the camera before the image is actually taken. On some cameras there is nearly 1/4 second between the time you press the shutter button and the time the image is exposed.

To get speed and image quality, you are going to have to spend some bucks. Cameras like the Canon EOS 300D and Nikon D70 give nearly instantaneous exposure, but with a hefty price tag.

If you can get great pictures, then it is just a matter of working with the camera until you get a higher percentage of great pictures. At least you can shoot as many shots as you need at no cost.

A faster CF card can help you take more images consecutively, but won't speed up the time it takes for the camera to take a single image.

Exactly the type of answer I'm looking for
I hate having to wait a while after pressing the button. I looked at some prices for the two models you mentioned. I am wondering, where would one find these camera's for less than $1400? They both seem to meet my requirements... except for their price tag. I am not even a photographer.
The only photography I do is was with a $15 35mm camera throuw away I bought. It takes great photo's... but getting film developed is rather expensive where I live. About ~$13.99/24 roll. I printed out a photo with my new digital camera and I seen no difference in quality. But the digital camera requires perfect conditions. I am a bar fly and bars do not have good photography conditions. This was a picture I took last night of my g/f who entered a wet-t contest and had a picture come out decent. Most of the pictures ended out like this. Outside distant pictures come out... decent ly

 

[SinfulWeeper]

Ouch... just discovered another problem. On my computer those pics are sharp as hell. But opening them in a web browser makes them rather... crude

Setting on the camera, ISO=400
EV Comp = 0 - +0.6
Quality = high
Resolution = full

 

[Confused]

It's not the "auto resize" in IE that's causing your problems?

But, I must admit, i've never heard of "Vivitar"

Stick to something like Canon, Sony or Fuji


Confused

 

[SinfulWeeper]

I'll keep that in mind for the future. But as part of those debt consolidation thingies for lower interest rates and blah blah blah. My cards had to be frozen. So I had to find a retailer that ships COD. After months of searching I finally found one. But their only line of camera's were Vivitar and Sony... I absolutely loath Sony. So naturally I chose the Vivitar line-up.
From what I gather the problem I am having is very common amoung most digital cameras.

For the auto resize... I use Mozilla. I do not think it gives me that option. I am running my screen resolution @ 1024*780 and viewing them on my desktop takes up almost ¾ of the screen. Viewing them on my web browser has them @ 1024*780
As far as printing them to 4*6 photo paper. They are every bit as good as a 4*6 print from the photo store... only better being water resistant . From the printer to a test bucket of water, it did not smudge or anything.

 

[Jeff7]

I'm a Kodak fan.
I had two of their cameras, both bought used on the forums here. The first was a 1MP DC3200 - no frills thing; just took pictures, that was it. No optical zoom, and a little bit of digital zoom. It would mainly work in good lighting; the flash had a tendancy to wash out the picture. In terms of movement, it had a kind of slow shutter speed - a picture of a cat turning its head gave a lot of blur. But overall, as my first "real" digital camera (I'd tried cheap "webcams already, which were pathetic), I liked it.
My next one was a DC3400 - 2MP, 2x optical zoom, and decent 3x digital zoom. It also has a macro mode, for closeups. These two pics were taken in macro mode:
Pic1
Pic2
They are of a computer-in-a-scanner project that I hope one day to finish.

And this 180 degree panorama, taken of my room during The Great Cleaning, still in progress, 663KB, 7000+ pixels wide, is comprised of 4 or 5 pictures...5 I think, taken from atop a cheap little tripod, and put together with iPhotoPlus. I did do some image resizing on a few of them to make a better "fit" at the seams, and I know I did change the brightness and contrast of the rightmost image, don't know about the others.

 

[SearchMaster]

I had a 1MB Kodak (DC210) that was really pretty good for its time. Then we "upgraded" to a DC4800, which is an absolute POS. Its indoor pictures look like yours, SinfulWeeper, and I've done everything I can wrt macro definitions, etc. I have since gotten an Olympus C4000Z on clearance for $200, and it is a remarkable camera. Soooooooooo far superior to the DC4800 it's not even funny. I can use automatic mode and get great pictures in moderate light, without the fuzziness of the Kodak.

So if you want a quality camera, go with the names mentioned above. Also refer to digital camera specialty sites for their recommendations.

 

[TwiceOver]

I have an Olympus and also have problems taking pics at something that is lit up. Such as taking pics of an xmas tree turn out horrible. Low light or bright seem to be the best pics.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Check out dpreview.com for digicam reviews. By all means visit the forums there too. I find it/them to be an invaluable resource.

Personally, I started with a Toshiba PDR-Mxx (where xx = something I can't remember...64 or 61 maybe...anyway...). Its optical quality was pretty decent, I liked the pictures I got...but I hated the slow camera response, shutter lag, etc.

After that I upgraded to a Canon Powershot S230 (digital elph). I really like it as a P&S digicam. Very fast response times, great Canon optical quality, 3.2MP (more than enough for just shooting pics), wonderfully small.

Now I have that as my everyday, bring-to-bars-and-get-pics-of-friends-and-hot-girls, camera....and then the Canon EOS 300D Digital Rebel as the replacment for my Canon film SLR (gotta love the EOS compatibility).

So yeah, I'm a Canon fanboy, but for good reason. Canon products, in my experience, are good quality...especially when it come to cameras.

This will be an awesome P&S digicam for $500.

 

[tdawg]

I looked at some prices for the two models you mentioned. I am wondering, where would one find these camera's for less than $1400? They both seem to meet my requirements... except for their price tag. I am not even a photographer.

I'm not sure what sites you're looking at, but the Canon Digital Rebel (US Version - 300D is Japanese gray market version and won't carry a US warranty) has an MSRP of $899 for the body or $999 for body and lens. The Nikon D70 -- the camera I desperately want, since it's more feature-packed and seems more sturdily built -- MSRP is $999 body only and $1199 or $1299 body and lens. I don't think the D70 has been officially released to dealers, but the Canon can be found for the above prices all over the place. Use www.pricegrabber.com to find both of these cameras at these prices. Of course, you then have to worry about the cost of new and different lenses.

You may not be a photographer now, but I can almost guarantee that if you have the money to buy either of these cameras and start playing with them seriously, you will become a photographer. There's nothing quite like running around with a nice SLR and snapping off pictures with virtually unlimited exposure control!

tdawg

 

[Bozz]

Digital photography is something I'm really into, the biggest mistake people make is shopping for price.

A good quality 2 megapixel camera will have far better pictures than almost any 5 megapixel Kodak camera. An analogy can be made with MHz here, its like saying the more MHz your computer has, the faster it is. Same deal with camera's, the megapixel number means almost SFA when it comes to picture quality.

I just purchased a mid range digicam, an Olympus C-5060, it has an ED lens, 4x optical zoom and full manual control over all features. It allows stunning photographs like this one:

http://www.fullysikmate.com/bozz/street.jpg

Thats a 35 second shutter exposure at night time as a car drives past. ISO 80, f4.0.

How about http://www.fullysikmate.com/bozz/mtdandy.jpg - thats a view over Melbourne (Australia) at night time.

Day shots, http://www.fullysikmate.com/bozz/dylansmall.jpg - thats on auto mode, no user interaction at all.

You pay for quality, you get it. You buy something cheap or not take other people's advice, you'll end up with junk.

Have a read through the forums at http://www.dpreview.com After you've sorted the trash, there are some very worthwhile posts in there.

 

[Hyperfocal]

It looks like your flash didn't fire and the camera is taking very long exposures to compensate. Make sure the flash is set to fire and that the camera can focus under the dark conditions in the bar. You may need to focus manually in a dark bar like that.

The first shot in the bar looks like your camera had a long exposure that caught another camera's flash which made it better than the second shot.

If this is your first camera with autofocus and auto flash there are a few tricks to keep in mind.

1. Use the Fill in flash mode whenever you are in a dark area or in shadows. This forces the flash to fire and will help keep your subject properly lit.

2. Center your subject in the focus mark, depress the shutter button half way to lock focus and recompose. If you have two people on either side of the focus point, the camera will focus on the background rather than on either of the two people.

3. Your flash will only work to about 10 feet. Keep that in mind whenever you are shooting in a dark room.

4. Don't use the digital zoom. You will get better results just cropping and resizing the image in an image editing program.

5. Always use the highest quality and highest resolution settings.

6. Use the lowest ISO setting you can. Use 100 outdoors unless it is dark and you are getting blurs from slow shutter speeds. 400 is appropriate for indoor shots and gives you more flash range. Your flash will also work better with the lens at wide angle since most cameras lose speed as they zoom.

After reading the manual for your camera there is one thing I noticed: The flash will not fire if you set a custom white balance, so leave the white balance on auto if you need to use flash.

I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to get good snapshots with this camera. Yes Canons are better, but most people never push them to their limits. Play around with your camera and figure out what works best.

 

[SinfulWeeper]

Originally posted by: Hyperfocal
It looks like your flash didn't fire and the camera is taking very long exposures to compensate. Make sure the flash is set to fire and that the camera can focus under the dark conditions in the bar. You may need to focus manually in a dark bar like that.

The first shot in the bar looks like your camera had a long exposure that caught another camera's flash which made it better than the second shot.

If this is your first camera with autofocus and auto flash there are a few tricks to keep in mind.

1. Use the Fill in flash mode whenever you are in a dark area or in shadows. This forces the flash to fire and will help keep your subject properly lit.

2. Center your subject in the focus mark, depress the shutter button half way to lock focus and recompose. If you have two people on either side of the focus point, the camera will focus on the background rather than on either of the two people.

3. Your flash will only work to about 10 feet. Keep that in mind whenever you are shooting in a dark room.

4. Don't use the digital zoom. You will get better results just cropping and resizing the image in an image editing program.

5. Always use the highest quality and highest resolution settings.

6. Use the lowest ISO setting you can. Use 100 outdoors unless it is dark and you are getting blurs from slow shutter speeds. 400 is appropriate for indoor shots and gives you more flash range. Your flash will also work better with the lens at wide angle since most cameras lose speed as they zoom.

After reading the manual for your camera there is one thing I noticed: The flash will not fire if you set a custom white balance, so leave the white balance on auto if you need to use flash.

I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to get good snapshots with this camera. Yes Canons are better, but most people never push them to their limits. Play around with your camera and figure out what works best.

That was very informative. Thanks.
After work I'll get around to trying some of these suggestions. When comparing to my fathers Kodak on our computers. Mine takes slightly better pictures... however his is clearly easier to work. Guess I'll have to crack open that manual after all. All this time I thought camera's were just camera's that you point and click.

 

[high]

my canon a60 owns

 

[Cerb]

Aren't Vivitars the POSes that Sam's usually has for like $150?
Get a decent Sony, Olympus, or Canon. Each brand and series has its strong and weak points. IMO, Nikon is best for snapshots, but it's all down to preference (Sony ones aren't bad, but I can't stand the menus), but the ~$300 aren't as tolerant of odd lighting when doing macro shots (I think I might go with a Canon next time for a good balance). I have a Nikon Coolpix 775, and it works great. Most shots are snapshots, with only enough planning time to run and get the camera, and I can't hold my hands still very well.

Edit: just searched a bit, and yeah...return the Vivitar (edit #2: ack, you can't?). The nice ones are $250 or more, but very much worth it.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: SinfulWeeper
I'll keep that in mind for the future. But as part of those debt consolidation thingies for lower interest rates and blah blah blah. My cards had to be frozen. So I had to find a retailer that ships COD. After months of searching I finally found one. But their only line of camera's were Vivitar and Sony... I absolutely loath Sony. So naturally I chose the Vivitar line-up.
From what I gather the problem I am having is very common amoung most digital cameras.

For the auto resize... I use Mozilla. I do not think it gives me that option. I am running my screen resolution @ 1024*780 and viewing them on my desktop takes up almost ¾ of the screen. Viewing them on my web browser has them @ 1024*780
As far as printing them to 4*6 photo paper. They are every bit as good as a 4*6 print from the photo store... only better being water resistant . From the printer to a test bucket of water, it did not smudge or anything.

You should get a magnifying glass cursor, and eb able to click to make it full size.
If not, that's how Firebird does it, and it's not annoying that way, IMO.

 

[Mem]

I`ve my eyes on the new Konica/Minolta Z2 Digital 4MP camera that has 10x optical zoom with the new GT lense,Pre-production review here .

 

[ponyo]

I don't know much about photography but I purchased Sony F717 on clearance at Circuit City for $474 plus tax. It's 5 mega pixel camera w/ 5x Carl Zeiss optical lens. It takes excellent pictures and shutter speed is very fast compared to my old Sony P72. I really wanted the Canon Digital Rebel but didn't want to pay $900-1000 for one. I figure I'll use this F717 for couple of years until technology gets better and cheaper and pick up the Digital Rebel down the line. If you have Circuit City nearby, check out the Sony F717. It's great camera for the money IMO.

 

[SinfulWeeper]

...
No Circuit City, no Best Buy, no CompUSA, no Radio Shack.... I live in a small town accessible by sea and air only. We do have the freshest supply of Alaska King Crabs though

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: SinfulWeeper
...
No Circuit City, no Best Buy, no CompUSA, no Radio Shack.... I live in a small town accessible by sea and air only. We do have the freshest supply of Alaska King Crabs though

Then ask around here next time. There are a lot of us who get the deals and often guy and return several times before finally keeping a product like that.

 

[SinfulWeeper]

Been looking on the FS/T forums. I haven't seen anything that caught my interests until a couple days ago.