Digital Camera Funtime

http://www.kenrockwell.com/casio/exz750.htm

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Ken Rockwell is pretty funny and knows what he is talking about. Anyway, I actually bothered to read the entire review, and I'm stunned and the sheer amount of features that camera has. It can do things even $10,000 digital view cameras can't do. There is a lot more to a digital camera than its megapixel rating. Features, ease of use, and other capabilties matter just as much, even more. Also, keep in mind that the differences in megapixels between cameras is very small. The difference between 5 and 7 or even 5 and 10 is miniscule at best.

If you want a personal recommendation, a higher-end Olympus camera would probably very nice. I've been using a C-5050Z for three years now, and it still looks great. I know that the C-7070 must be at least as nice, if not more so.

http://blaisefrazier.zoto.com/galleries

Taken with a years-old 5 megapixel camera. Most cameras today are probably not significantly better in image quality. My C-5050 is actually better-looking that my friends Nikon D-70.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

People at camera forums don't like him? I wonder if it's because they're too busy measurbating and talking about equipment, and not out taking pictures. Ken dislikes those kinds of people.

And I don't know about his other reviews, but he does own and use this particular camera. Why not read the review and find out about the features? One feature is has that even huge cameras like the EOS-1DS Mark II don't have is the ability to store literally hundreds of presets. Or how about being able to record MPEG-4 video? It has a massive screen, near-instant startup time, and loads of other nice additions.

As for my friend, I have used his D70 extensively with several different kinds of lenses, and I simply wasn't impressed with the image quality. The camera also had a very strong tendency to overexpose almost every shot I took, and I had to end up using it in manual mode.

If you'll read the review on Ken's site, you can see a side-by-side comparison of a shot from the Casio camera and his D-70. They're surprisingly similar in quality.

Honestly, if all you want to do is take pictures at the beach, a camera from 2002 would be just fine. Most of today's best isn't any better.


See? Something like that would be more than enough for Kostaki's needs.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

"Contrary to popular belief, the lens has little to do with the performance of a digital camera."

I really agree with him here. A truly skilled photographer can take beautiful pictures, even with a kit lens, but joe blow will still take crappy pictures, even with the best L-series glass. I regularly browse at the DSLReports digital imaging forum, and I have seen some truly beautiful pictures taken with cheap kit lenses and even cheaper third party lenses. What it all comes down to is the eye of the photographer.

Anyway, it's nice to have extra features, if you ever need them. If you don't, don't use them. But it's good to know that they'll always be there.

Just pick up one of these and you'll be good to go. If you know what you're doing, it takes extremely sharp and well-detailed pictures. It has a nice range of shutter speeds and custom settings. It is easily better than most mid to high-end cameras on the market today, and it's nearly 4 years old.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

Well, aside from all the rambling about Ken Rockwell (who I'll agree, has no right reviewing cameras as a photographer and not a camera reviewer.

Who better to review cameras than photograpgers? They're the ones that actually go out and use cameras to take pictures, as opposed to sitting in labs and taking pictures of test charts, as he would say. Perhaps Ken hasn't used every single camera he's written about, but you get what I'm saying.

I was speaking idiomatically.