?? about digital cameras

[rbuzzotta]

My Nikon digital camera broke so I am looking for a new one.

I saw 2 different ones in the price range I want to spend (275-300).

One is a Kodak and is 5 megapixels and 10X zoom

the other is a Monolta with 8 megapixels and 3X zoom

Any preferences from you experts???

My girls are competitive cheerleaders and the thought of 10x zoom sounds good to me so that I can capture them on stage...........

I welcome all suggestions for cameras in my price range............

thanks

 

[safetymom]

There is more to it than just megapixel and zoom. I would go for a Minolta before I would a Kodak.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

another vote for Minolta

 

[salmoneous]

Oh, come on people. Kodak is making some really nice cameras these days. If the goal is to take pictures of cheerleaders on stage, get a camera with the zoom you need.

 

[MICKEY88]

Oh, come on people. Kodak is making some really nice cameras these days. If the goal is to take pictures of cheerleaders on stage, get a camera with the zoom you need.

sounds logical, however....with the longer zoom, any movement will be magnified,,,

using the shorter zoom, but higher megapixel camera, you can get a sharp picture and crop with your pc, enlarging the portion of the picture that you want...

 

[PurpleMonkey]

The Canon S2 IS may be over your budgest, but you should be able to get the Canon S1 IS in your price range. 10x optical zoom with image stablization.

 

[rbuzzotta]

thanks for the replies!!!

your answers all sound reasonable to me!!

any other suggestions on cameras?????? My price range is $250-$300!!

 

[salmoneous]

using the shorter zoom, but higher megapixel camera, you can get a sharp picture and crop with your pc, enlarging the portion of the picture that you want...

True, but keep in mind you'd need more than 10x the megapixels to duplicate the impact of a 10x optical zoom over 3x.

 

[elizke]

There are plenty of super happy Kodak owners out there. I'm one of 'em. I have a DX7590 and love it. I knew I wanted a big zoom. It was number one for me. With kids it's invaluable. It does great...

Full zoom at t-ball.....

But one warning...inside with lower lighting is alittle tougher with all digital mega zooms. I make sure to prop my elbow on something to hold the camera steady. I also have the option of using a whole array of settings in tough photo conditions.

Kodaks are so often dismissed, but they have excellent color, extremely good auto white balance (important for me taking pics at school), very good red-eye, and are super easy to use.

E.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Kodaks are so often dismissed

Especially amongst serious, semi-pro, and especially pro photographers. Mostly due to its poor high-ISO performance. The poorest on the market of big-brands, actually.

 

[elizke]

Okay.

 

[elizke]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1011&message=16769193

 

[Kelly Grannell]

All I can see is severe colour abberations around the picture, overly saturated unnatural colour and high digital noise. Sorry.

 

[elizke]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Whilve colour rendition may be subjective and can be argued, digital noise and colour abberation are absolute. Please don't mistake digital noise and film grain. Film grain, again, is subjective. Digital noise is not. For example, see below:

High noise vs low noise. Kodak vs Canon at 400 ISO. Kodak Z760 vs Canon S2 IS

This is the original Kodak version:
This is the colour, shadow, DNR, calibrated to 6500 Kelvin (proper, industry standard colour temperature):

(picture links removed by the request of, surprisingly, not the copyright owner)

 

[elizke]

I understand your scientific approach and just disagree. I see my prints and am happy okay?

I linked to someone else's picture on another site and it is considered good manners to ask a person (the original DPR poster ) before you directly post and especially edit their picture!

Would you please remove it?
Thanks.
E
Edit: And now I see you felt the need to drop in over there and tell the poster you didn't like it. Very unnecessary! I sure made a mistake posting that pic.

 

[Dan Murphy]

I agree, elizke, Kodak has done a remarkable job in the digital marketplace the past few years, good equipment. Rosemary, I think the Kodak is a fine choice among those out there in that price range.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Geez,just because your brand of camera is proven to be not up to the industry standard, there is no need to be catty.

Photography (in terms of colour accuracy, noise, colour abberation, colour temperature) IS science.

I will remove the said picture but just to be consistent, you should remove your link too as per DMCA (Digital Milennium Copyright Act).

 

[Kelly Grannell]

And now I see you felt the need to drop in over there and tell the poster you didn't like it. Very unnecessary!

We are all here (and every photography forums) to learn from each other. As Jimmy Hendrix put it (and I paraphrase) "I can only learn from people's criticism of my work and not from praises"

Jimmy Hendrix

 

[Kelly Grannell]

I understand your scientific approach and just disagree.

Hmm, even Kodak call its colour profile: "Kodak Color Science". I guess you agree with their scientific approach albeit not a standard adhered to by Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, Arriflex, Panavision, Sony, Fuji, Hasselblad, Panasonic, Samsung, THX, SMPTE (and more)?