I use a Canon S45 digital. I just bought my girlfriend an Olympus Stylus
300 which is "water resistant". I like the camera a bit better because
of this and its smaller size but haven't used it much yet. I burn a CDROM
of the photos and take it to Costco for 14 cent/copy prints (cheaper
and faster than an inkjet printer).

On the plus slide of the S45, it takes 3 minute video and sound clips which
is nice sometimes (although not the quality that a camcorder would take).

b.

After 2 months of research I finally decided on a Kocak Easy Share DX6490
digital camera.

So far it has been great. It is 4.0 megapixels. It has a 10X optical zoom and a
3X digital zoom. It can also shoot video although I don't believe it to be
quite the quality of a video camera but I have only toyed with the video
portion of the camera.

The 4.0 megapixels is supposedly good for prints up to 20" by 30". I have made
several 4 X 6 prints and the quality, in my eyes is almost as good as a regular
old 35 mm print if not as good.

There are several modes of operation. Auto where the camera does all the work
and you just point and shoot.

Manual mode where you can be creative.

Sport mode for subjects that are in motion.

Portrait for full frame portraits of people. It allows the subject to be sharp
and the background indistinct.

Night mode for night scenes or low light conditions. For this mode a tripod is
recommended because of the slow shutter speeds. I am waiting for the next full
moon and plan to take several shots especially in full 10X optical zoom and the
additional 3X digital to check out the quality of the photographs.

Lastly there is video mode. You can take snippits of 5 sec, 15 sec, 30 sec or
unlimited limited only by the amount of memory available.

There is a burst option whereby you can take a series of 6 photos in rapid
succession 3 per second for sporting events or objects in motion.

You can even adjust the picture quality from the full 4.0 megapixels down to
3.5, 2.1 or 1.1 depending on the quality desired.

I have had the camera since late may and I currently have over 300 photos
downloaded onto my computers hard drive. I have shot everything from portraits
and still scened to athletic events to moving boats and even jets and I am very
happy with the quality of the shots.

I am not going to say that it is better than the good old 35 mm cameras of the
past but for now my Ricoh 35 mm camera is in mothballs until I see the need to
use it again. Digital works great for me. BTW I paid $399 plux tax for mine at
Circuit City. I don't know if the price has come down since then but either way
I am happy with my purchase and my decision to go with Kodak.

Harry, it's worth checking out at the very least. Good luck with your purchase.
It would allow you to take great pics of GWB's inauguration next January. Just
kidding, I know you would not be there unless Mr. Kerry wins. Anyway check it
out there are many, many different digital cameras to choose from. I am
surprised it only took me two months to decide on mine. When I bought the Ricoh
I spent a year researching cameras before I decided on that one.

RGrew176 wrote:

I am not going to say that it is better than the good old 35 mm cameras of the
past but for now my Ricoh 35 mm camera is in mothballs until I see the need to
use it again. Digital works great for me. BTW I paid $399 plux tax for mine at
Circuit City. I don't know if the price has come down since then but either way
I am happy with my purchase and my decision to go with Kodak.

Harry, it's worth checking out at the very least. Good luck with your purchase.
It would allow you to take great pics of GWB's inauguration next January. Just
kidding, I know you would not be there unless Mr. Kerry wins. Anyway check it
out there are many, many different digital cameras to choose from. I am
surprised it only took me two months to decide on mine. When I bought the Ricoh
I spent a year researching cameras before I decided on that one.

I have a couple of digital cameras and, in fact, recently sold off my
35mm film camera. My wife, though, prefers her little 35 mm film camera.

As for Bush, if he is elected, we're facing a future of terror on our
soil perpetrated by the growing number of radical Islamists who hate him
and his misbegotten war on the wrong people. Bet on it.


--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 10:33:11 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


I switched to digital and in fact recently sold off my film SLR.

Welcome to the early ninties dimwit. Prices for digital cameras have
finally fell low enough for folks who say "Would ya like fries with
that?" for aliving, can afford them. But of course, you know that now.

My
wife, though, prefers a small film camera she can tuck in her purse when
she travels.

And where exactly does your cousin "travel" to?

I've never gotten involved in home movies or videos. I figured it was
ocmplicated enought holding and focusing a camera for one steady shot!

read: Ive never had the smarts or money to get into video.

I'm still experimenting to find the "right" digital software package.

Dont worry...theres a lot of freeware out there.

I've been playing around a little with the trial version of Adobe's
Photoshop CS, but man, it is complicated, but it is one of the few that
reads the "raw" images my digital camera outputs.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahh!

Here you go again...trying to impress the group, only for it to
backfire in your face...

Photoshop is one of the most user freindly software packages out
there...I have been using it for many years. Its obvious you have
never used it. And I like the your use of the buzzword "raw"...nice
try idiot. LOL!

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:25:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Forgot...another reason to go digital. With digital "negs" and some
decent software, you can much more easily take care of "problems" in
your shots without having to scan a real negative or slide (and thus
lose a generation of sharpness). Take a nice inside shot and there's a
damned wastebasket you can't crop out? Make it disappear digitally!

Heh heh...lets see...wasnt Corel doing this in the mid 80s?

You are such a moron...

JohnH wrote:

Harry has been on rec.photo.digital trying to pick up some words to use over
here. So far, he hasn't impressed anyone over there. I guess I'll have to filter
the --- out of that group also.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


I'd be delighted to match my photographic skills against yours any day
of the week, crap for brains.


--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

Cleesturtle1 wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:25:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Forgot...another reason to go digital. With digital "negs" and some
decent software, you can much more easily take care of "problems" in
your shots without having to scan a real negative or slide (and thus
lose a generation of sharpness). Take a nice inside shot and there's a
damned wastebasket you can't crop out? Make it disappear digitally!

Heh heh...lets see...wasnt Corel doing this in the mid 80s?

You are such a moron...

Where did Harry say that this was NEW technology, and/or wasn't being
done in the "mid 80s"?

You are such a moron.

Cleesturtle1 wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 10:33:11 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


I switched to digital and in fact recently sold off my film SLR.

Welcome to the early ninties dimwit. Prices for digital cameras have
finally fell low enough for folks who say "Would ya like fries with
that?" for aliving, can afford them. But of course, you know that now.

My
wife, though, prefers a small film camera she can tuck in her purse when
she travels.

And where exactly does your cousin "travel" to?

I've never gotten involved in home movies or videos. I figured it was
ocmplicated enought holding and focusing a camera for one steady shot!

read: Ive never had the smarts or money to get into video.

I'm still experimenting to find the "right" digital software package.

Dont worry...theres a lot of freeware out there.

I've been playing around a little with the trial version of Adobe's
Photoshop CS, but man, it is complicated, but it is one of the few that
reads the "raw" images my digital camera outputs.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahh!

Here you go again...trying to impress the group, only for it to
backfire in your face...

Photoshop is one of the most user freindly software packages out
there...I have been using it for many years. Its obvious you have
never used it. And I like the your use of the buzzword "raw"...nice
try idiot. LOL!

Oh, really? So, what red saturation index do you typically use for
portraits? How about unfiltered scenics? How do YOU decide a
particular picture's sharpness needs?

basskisser wrote:
Cleesturtle1 wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:25:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Forgot...another reason to go digital. With digital "negs" and some
decent software, you can much more easily take care of "problems" in
your shots without having to scan a real negative or slide (and thus
lose a generation of sharpness). Take a nice inside shot and there's a
damned wastebasket you can't crop out? Make it disappear digitally!

Heh heh...lets see...wasnt Corel doing this in the mid 80s?

You are such a moron...

Where did Harry say that this was NEW technology, and/or wasn't being
done in the "mid 80s"?

You are such a moron.

Cheesyturtle is in my bozo bin.

As for "digital" versus "film" photography, most pro photographers are
still using film for all sorts of reasons, although "the switch" is
underway. One of the reasons is this: even on the best glass-tube
computer monitors, because of the limitations of screen resolution, you
cannot see enough detail in most digital photos to determine how sharp
focus is, and therefore which are the best shots for publication. Until
very recently, most of the pro photogs I've worked with have worked
strictly in film, and in medium format at that - usually 2-1/4. Now,
many carry along a pro digital outfit, too.

The most strikingly beautiful television commercials are still shot on
35 or 70 mm film. The cheaper ones, or the commercials where great tonal
range and feel are not that important, are shot on tape...digital, as it
were. Most movies are still shot on film.



--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:12:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

And
it's much easier to learn than Adobe.

====================================

Almost anything is easier in my opinion but my brother-in-law is in
the ad business and says that Adobe has become the defacto standard
with the pros he works with.