Joined on 08-20-2007
TechSoup Member
We're about to buy a digital camera for office use.
Ideally -- it needs to be moderately priced, indestructible and easy to use. Oh, it would be nice to get good images too.
Can anyone recommend any particular models or point me toward resources that would help narrow the field a bit?
Thanks for your time!
Joined on 03-21-2001
Los Angeles
You do not mention what features you need the camera to have, such as zoom range, image stabilization, etc. (Resolution has become almost a non-issue now, with most cameras having at least 6MP images.) These small cameras have various performance limits that probably are not very important to you, but there are significant differences in shutter delay, delay between successive shots, flash recycling speed, lens quality, etc. There is also the fact that digital camera technology is improving continually, so benefits that don't show up in the raw specifications may make a newer camera better than the discontinued model that looks virtually the same. And "indestructible" is a relative term -- I don't know what you would be looking for. Taking account of these marginal limitations, it seems that there are very good point-and-shoot cameras, with 3x or 4x optical zoom, for less than $200, but if you want a very small camera, the price will be higher for comparable performance. I just bought such a camera, based on researching some reviews. (You might search the web for reviews yourself.) I have very little experience with the camera yet, so I don't have an expert assessment of it myself, but I like it. It is very easy to use, but, as with virtually any digital camera, learning all the features, and how to use them, takes some time and effort. It is plastic -- sooner or later the silver paint will probably wear thin -- but it seems sturdy.
Here is a brief tutorial that will help you choose a good camera for your needs:
How To Choose A Digial Camera
Note that there are lots of such tutorials. Just do a web search for "How to choose a digital camera"
Joined on 06-09-2003
Davenport, Iowa USA
Easy to use -- Good Images -- Cheap
Choose two
Unfortunately that's not an easy situation to figure out.
What is the end result you want for the images?
A camera to grab images to post on a blog would have different requirements than a camera to get images to enlarge to 30x40 inch prints.
What is the skill of the end users and can they be trained and educated into the art of photography plus the skills in running a digital camera?
You may want two different cameras a easy to use 'disposable' one the lend to anybody and a better camera for trained users that you intend to use in print publications.
Dave
Joined on 08-20-2007
TechSoup Member
Thanks so much!
This discussion has already been so helpful!!
The responses have helped clarify some of the issues we'll need to think about, and decide which route we want to go.
A few points where I think I can get more specific:
* We do not need a camera to be ultra-small.
*I imagine we'll have one user who is most familiar with settings etc., but operation needs to be simple enough that it can be handed off to three or four others with limited instruction.
*Images will probably be used for posting on our web sites and possibly in our publications. The largest I can imagine us blowing up an image is 8x10.
I'd love to find out what others think about image stabilization. That feature appeals to me, I think mainly since even with film cameras you often wind up bracing very carefully when the viewfinder is up against your face. I'm afraid I'll be wobbly when just holding a camera out in front of me.
And what about shutter delay? It seems maddening, but it may be easy to work around once you get the hang of it.
Thanks for helping direct my thinking!!!!
Sallie
Joined on 03-21-2001
Los Angeles
I have to disagree with the supposed choice between ease of use, image quality and cheapness, if you consider less than $200 cheap, because for less than $200 you can get very good images and ease of use. I tend to be too interested in the technical specifications, and worry about the tradeoffs of lesser quality and higher price. I am pleasantly surprised at what I got last week for less than $200. (Well, with some accessories, shipping and taxes added in, it was more than $200.)
"Ease of use" has several meanings, though. Almost any camera can be put in "Auto" mode and is easy to use. Most cameras have other modes that take some learning, but, once learned can be easy to use. Then there are user-interface issues, where two cameras with comparable features are operated differently and one will be easier to use.
With resolutions of 6 megapixels and up, you can blow up any photo to a large print. The quality of the lens will make a difference with vignetting of the corners, distortion, etc. I would do some research, but I would not be too worried about that, either.
Image stabilization is becoming rather common, doesn't add a lot to the price, and it can help a lot in low-light situations.
The tradeoffs between ease of use, image quality, and cheapness remain the same. It is the definition of "cheapness" that is debatable.
The prices are dropping across the board, just as they do with any consumer electronic item. Look at the prices of plasma TVs for proof of this!
You can buy a digital camera for under 20 bucks (Argus DC-1088). But that does not mean that the twenty dollar camera is right for you.
My suggestion is to narrow down your camera choices based on factors OTHER than price, and then choose the best value for you based on that subset of cameras. The pleasure of getting the right camera for the job will persist long after the feeling of saving money would have subsided.
Joined on 06-09-2003
Davenport, Iowa USA
I put the choice there exactly to raise discussion, plus I first heard this comparison in bicycling :
strong -- light -- cheap choose two
and it does give pause when considering your options.
I have seen (a few months ago ) a 6 mega pixel camera for under $180 that was like a Samsung brand and it did seem easy to use. So that could fill a middle ground nicely, if the camera holds up for multiple users.
Part of the problem is the wide range of pricing between free in your cell phone to $10.00 to $5000.00 to $15000.00 for the high end pro equipment, it really comes down to what your needs are, what is your return on the investment, and what will the user be able to effectively use.
So when you look at the $3000.00 camera the $180.00 camera is cheap.
I'd love to have a nice Nikon digital body but I don't shoot enough to even justify the price, and can meet my needs with what we would call a point and shoot. And in this planned obsolescence digital world, if you can't recoup the camera price in the first year of ownership, you end up with a very expensive door stop. Back in the film camera days you could spend big money on a nice camera body and expect 10 - 15 years of very good service life (if not more). As fast as the digitals change, two years old and the camera is ready for retirement.
Dave
Joined on 02-18-2004
New Hampshire
You can get a great digital camera in the $200- $300 price range. Most of the cameras in this price range offer point and shoot functionality for the novice user, and also offer some manual settings for more advanced users. Image stabilizers are very handy in low-light, or high zoom situations. Since you aren't using this camera for anything larger than 8x10's, I wouldn't go overboard on the image size. I would stay around 6 megapixels. If you have to crop the image, it will crop and resize nicely and still be high quality. As far as indestructible, you'll have a hard time finding something like that. They all seem to be using plastic these days on the camera bodies.
Joined on 03-21-2001
Los Angeles
You have not had much response to your particular requests: camera models and resources.
I would serach "camera reviews" or some variant. Some websites give technical reviews of lots of cameras, and some give reviews of stuff they actually like and use. I look at both types.
In digital cameras I have an old (4-5 yrs) point-and-shoot that gives very nice 3MP images, but has performances issues (shutter lag, in particular) that cause me to dislike it and I don't use it any more. I have a 3 yr-old "Single Lens Reflex" or "SLR" camera (superseded at 18 month intervals by two other models) that performs well (no shutter lag, reasonably fast repeat shots, et c.) and is very versatile (with an endless choice of additional lenses and accessories), but those models are relatively large and relatively expensive (>= $1000). I've
read good things about the smaller and less expensive (~$500) Nikon D-40 and the lens that is packaged with it. I just bought a point-and-shoot with image stabilization, which can be had for about $180 and which can be fitted with lens adapters and external flash. The image quality seems not quite as good as the SLR (and I cannot compare it to newer SLRs which are probably better), but it is small, cheap, versatile and "easy" to use. ("Easy" ... I was able to use my first two digital cameras immediately, but it took me about three readings of the user's manual before I felt that I could use almost all the features. Now I know what to expect with digital cameras, and generally how to use the features, but I'm still reading the user's manual for the new camera.) There are a few point-and-shoot type cameras (typically at the higher price levels of $300-500) that allow external flashes and lens adapters; these could be useful. Besides a glowing review by someone who uses the year-old precursor of my new point-and-shoot camera, I was influenced by the possibility of lens adapters and external flash.
I am much more than happy with the mid level Kodak cameras that I have purchased.
Mind you, my choice of Kodak was influenced by employee pricing, but after using them for years I am quite content with the compromise between quality and price.
Joined on 02-18-2004
New Hampshire
Our org has 3 Kodak 5.0 megapixel cameras with 10x zooms. They are over a year old and work great. The batteries are pretty pricey!
Joined on 06-09-2003
Davenport, Iowa USA
I've liked the Kodak cameras I've seen but EasyShare is in my opinion one of the worst pieces of software ever found on a PC. (though the first version wasn't too bad, it just keeps getting worse)
I always look to be sure you can get the images off of the camera with out any additional software on the PC, by using a media reader or that the camera has a disk emulation mode for the USB connection.
Dave
Good point on the Easy Share software. It is atrocious. I failed to mention it simply because I never install it anymore. Out of sight and out of mind, I guess.
Although I must admit that my daughter used to LOVE to convert pictures into coloring books using the EasyShare software and then fill them in with crayons!
Joined on 02-18-2004
New Hampshire
I agree on the shortcomings of Easyshare software. If I have any image editing, I use Adobe Photoshop. My laptop has a built in SD card reader, so I just use that to load my pictures.