Re: digital camera indigo blues

Dear Seeking,

I don't think there is currently a camera made that meets all your
requirements—and only a few digital cameras actually had swivel monitors.

Check out the Nikon Coolpix 4500—which you probably already have done. 12
oz, 5 x 3 x 2 inches and 4 megapixels—it does have a swivel monitor.

Otherwise, there are a lot of really nice cameras out there that are much
smaller and offer more megapixels.

The Pentax Optio S4, which fits into a box of Altoids (the one you saw at the
Carnegie Deli) is a slick, tiny camera that takes very good photos at 4
megapixels—I have a friend who is a proctologist and he uses one. The only
improvement I would make in this camera is to have a RAW file mode, since I
sometimes find the JPG compression gives you those annoying little artifacts. The
memory card certainly can accommodate enough storage to handle RAW mode.

It would seem that if you like the disposable cameras, then you are able to
get by without the swivel monitor. Is it that the disposable camera
negatives are crappy, or the scans?

If you want to make a 13 x 19 negative, with a 5 megapixel camera, you will
be printing at about 140 ppi—unless you up-rez the file. A 360 ppi file is
the best resolution to print. Fortunately, digital camera images seem to
survive more up-rezzing.

If you wait a little while longer, Nikon may come out with a 6 megapixel,
swivel monitor, disposable, digital camera that accepts a Polaroid back, however,
judging from the current speed of the megapixel race, you will probably have
to wait about a year for the camera you are looking for, but it may not have
the swivel monitor you want.

There are some Photoshop tricks that you can use to reduce noise in digital
images. There are also some plugins and programs that are supposed to be very
good at extracting noise and smoothing images without loosing sharpness. A
trick that sometimes helps— if you take an image that you know is going to
have noise due to low light, try shooting another shot with the same settings and
the lens covered with a lens cap—then in Photoshop subtract the latter from
the former. If your camera doesn't have a lens cap, improvise.

Good luck.

anonymous user of both film and digital devices

In a message dated 11/7/03 8:36:09 PM, jseigel@panix.com writes:

> Still seeking digital camera :- 0
>
> As I recall, a while back ALL digital cameras seemed to have swivel
> monitors, but now that I'm trying to buy one I've only been able to find
> swivel in 3 or 4 megapixels.
>
> I figure that to make large negs (at least 13 x19 inches) I should have at
> least 5 megapixels... Five megapixel cameras are available in 7.1 ounces,
> and a neat shape that DOES fit into your pocket -- but I've only found
> them with regular flat monitor. The idea is to carry the camera at all
> times, but I know from experience that if it weighs more than, say, 8
> ounces, it's a drag & I'll leave it home. In the city we're walking &
> schlepping our groceries, plus everything else.
>
> I'm using disposable cameras now -- and I adore them, am addicted in fact
> -- 27 frames including film for just $3.99, and weighs only 2 ounces !
> However the pictures are usually awful :- ( So I plan to reform. (My old
> Nikon weighs 2 pounds, and after the disposables feels like carrying 2
> bricks.)
>
> The Nikon Coolpix 5700 has a swivel monitor & 5 megapix, but weighs 16.9
> ounces and is sooo bulky (and ugly, tho that shouldn't matter-- should
> it?), plus its swivel monitor is actually clunky too... Anybody know
> anything else out there?
>
> The B&H catalog from ancient history (5 months ago) said the Pentax
> Optios, both 4 & 5 had swivel monitors, but they either changed it, or the
> catalog erred... Any other ideas before I settle for 4 megapixels?
> And/or any comments about what kind of neg I can get from 4 megapixels?
>
> Oh and by the way, for those who shop analog in NYC, I found Adorama's
> prices at least 10% less than B & H -- and Adorama is MUCH pleasanter to
> deal with (besides being in walking distance from here, if you 're feeling
> perky, that is).
>
> Thanks in advance for advice or info.
>
> cheers,
>
> Judy
>
Received on Fri Nov 7 23:50:42 2003