Is this one good ?

[The_Phantom]

What do you think of this camera ?? I want a camera so I can take good close ups of my ts. Although not MEGA close, but you know. I know NOTHING about cameras and I want a few opinions. Is this one any good ? Its 1600 airmiles, and I have 982.


Canon SureShot 85 Zoom Cam

Airmiles Says:

You can't go wrong when you're taking pictures with this 35mm camera. Features include 38-85mm, 2.2X power zoom lens, auto focus and red-eye reduction. Plus automatic film loading, advance and rewind make things even easier.
era Kit

 

[Fuggrur]

I wouldnt get it, if you are going to get a camera, It might as well be digital

 

[Vys]

Perhaps..but in a hundred years, chances are there will be no trace of that digital camera..as well as its pictures...analog(ue?) cameras leave something substantial behind, at least. That being said, why the hell do we slaughter the forests like stupid sheep, throwing words like 'controlled cutting' and 'no permanent damage' around when we might as well carve runestones?
Once again I manage to write a post that is a sidetrack, and only halfly ironic

 

[JacenBeers]

I agree that film and priont cameras are the best. THey leave something behind that isnt just a printed image from a printer and I like that. Although the convenince of a digicam is something I cant do without and I need to get me one.

 

[Fuggrur]

If you buy one of those "Photo printers" you can have the best of both worlds.

I've seen them ( HP ) print before, the picture clarity is beautiful..

Once its all said and done, Digital would be much cheaper in the end.

 

[Vys]

That's true, of course. While it would take a while for such an investement to be more economical than a normal camera, it would happen given enough time(and use). I wonder though, how is the endurance of printed photographs , compared to normal ones ?

 

[Lasiodora]

Originally posted by JacenBeers
I agree that film and priont cameras are the best. THey leave something behind that isnt just a printed image from a printer and I like that. Although the convenince of a digicam is something I cant do without and I need to get me one.

I sort of disagree. The negative (35mm cameras) is the only thing that is left behind that is of value. You cannot make quality doubles from prints, you need the negatives. With that said, negatives can become damaged and lose natural color over the years. This is making them obselete.
There are now digital cameras that can produce very hi res pics. They can be blown up to wall size without losing clarity. The pics can be stored on DVD-R's, CD-R's, or hard drives which can stand the test of time better than negatives. I think that in ten or twenty years film will be replaced with digital.;P
Go With Digital!
Mike

P.S Please don't use this picture without my permission. I don't own the snake.
nikon coolpix5000:

 

[Mister Internet]

Originally posted by JacenBeers
I agree that film and priont cameras are the best. THey leave something behind that isnt just a printed image from a printer and I like that.

As opposed to photos from the lab that are basically printed images from a printer?

 

[Mojo Jojo]

You can even take your digital pictures and have them develped into real glossy photos at camera shops. You can do it online too, with companies like Ofoto.com which is owned by kodak.

The current issue of consumer reports has a good article about this situation, as well as ratings and review of many of the big name digital cameras out there!

Big Dragonfly

 

[MrDeranged]

Originally posted by Vys
That's true, of course. While it would take a while for such an investement to be more economical than a normal camera, it would happen given enough time(and use). I wonder though, how is the endurance of printed photographs , compared to normal ones ?

I have pictures of my kids from when they were born (2 and 4 yrs ago) that I printed at home. They're still fine. No more image degridation than a photo from a lab. You just have to use photo paper, not copy machine paper and they'll last.

Scott

 

[Mister Internet]

That, and now they ave "archival quality" paper (companies such as Epson), that is supposed to hold pics for 75 years or something like that....

 

[looseyfur]

crock of sh*t

Basically .... there is no home printer which can even handle the dpi output of a decent camera. Another thing to remember ... the whole comsumables market should show you that its geared towards you getting hit in the pocket questing for "photo quality " prints i.e. you will spend more money in paper and ink then you would ever spend on a printer... what it boils down to is your eye. your naked eye can only appreicate so much so what good is it to pay for this crap and buy into the consumables game. There is still a billion reasons to shoot film, the digi cam is about handiness and if youve seen the digital photos I have posted and like the quality of them then you like the quality of a cam which is only 1.3 megapix (with a macross function) and cost me the grand total of 60 bucks ... (a discontuined fuji finepix a101 ) wheee huh? anyone who bought a cam for over 200 bucks feel stupid yet? let the technology catch up and then enjoy TRUE archival inks and papers with TRUE 2880 dpi and musem replica quality photos. untill then I guess you could buy a cam for around 1899.99 and a pegsus printer for god knows ( you would more then likely have to morgage your house)...
happy hunting-
looseyfur

btw I dont mean to come off sharp about buying a cam over 200 and getting taken for a ride on quality it may have functions you like or enjoy so more power to ya ... you rich bastard heheeheh!

again have fun.
loo;P

 

[Vys]

What looseyfur said is basically true.

Anyway, over a long period of time , we still don't know if normal pictures or printed ones are better. Of course human made evolution is kicking digicams in their backs now, and for this reason it is perhaps only a matter of time before time-resisting printer-papers become mainstream. Until then however, I appreciate the common way of getting your film developed into pictures. It sort of has to happen, it is no extra.
Hard-drives and such..bwah, if our civilization ends, chances are those hard-disks will be hurt beyond recognition, and 'people' (or whatever) will study runestones and such. Ones and zeroes can't exist on their own.

Kind of exteme, but it was to get my point across, since I see most of you are very attached to your ones and zeroes

 

[Wade]

I know little about cameras of any kind, but I'd like to make a few observations...

35mm is still the choice for profesional photographers, but to take close-up shots of your spiders, you'd have to invest in a REAL 35mm camera, AND a decent quality macro lens...big bucks, even if you buy used. Those little auto focus, auto zoom jobs like the Cannon Sure Shot are great for vacations and birthday parties, but it will be useless for shooting tarantulas less than 4 feet away. Even after you make the initial investment, then you have to learn to use the thing...which is expensive in and of itself, because you have to shoot and develop so much film!

While it may be a few years before we see digital photos being used in National Geographic, digital is a more logical choice for most people (assuming they have a computer). For starters, most cameras let you see the shot immediately on a screen, so you know if it worked or not...if it didn't, you can erase the shot and take annother! No wasted film. Many affordable digital cameras have great macro features. Even the low end digital cameras will give you better results UP CLOSE of a tarantula than that Sure Shot, simply because the SS just isn't made for that sort of photography.

Wade

 

[MrDeranged]

Re: crock of sh*t

Originally posted by looseyfur
There is still a billion reasons to shoot film, the digi cam is about handiness and if youve seen the digital photos I have posted and like the quality of them then you like the quality of a cam which is only 1.3 megapix (with a macross function) and cost me the grand total of 60 bucks ... (a discontuined fuji finepix a101 ) wheee huh? anyone who bought a cam for over 200 bucks feel stupid yet?

Nope, I don't. See the picture at the end of this post for the reason why. When your piddly little 1.3 megapixel can take a picture like this on it's low resolution setting then maybe I'll feel stupid. ;P

Originally posted by Wade
but to take close-up shots of your spiders, you'd have to invest in a REAL 35mm camera, AND a decent quality macro lens...big bucks, even if you buy used.Wade

Have to disagree with you Wade. There are currently digital cameras out that use normal lenses that take photos just as good as "Real" 35mm cameras. For example the Nikon D1 and D100. Of course these cameras run about $2000 for just the body. You then have to purchase all the "normal 35mm" lenses to use on it. BTW, the attached photo is from my Nikon coolpix 5000 on a low resolution setting.


Head shot of my freshly molted S. subspinipes. That's peat moss particles you can CLEARLY see on it's head

I just want to say that I agree with most of the other points you guys made.

Scott

 

[Botar]

Well, since I don't know squat about photography, I wasn't going to respond to this. However, on the 35mm/Digital debate, I can say that a digital is perfect for someone who doesn't know squat about photography. The ability to instantly see the shot, not pay for developing a whole roll of crap, and not having to invest a lot of time, effort, and money into getting a decent set of pictures is more than enough reason for me to go digital. Simply put, I take one heck of a lot more pictures now than I ever did with my 35mm.

Botar

 

[Wade]

Scott-

My point was about using 35mm cameras, not about digital. The point-and-shoot 35 mm cameras, like the cannon sure shot that Spider Savior was asking about, are virually useless for close up photography. To take good macro shots with 35mm film, you must purchase a good camera body and an expensive macro lens...not to mention the assortment of flashes, etc. I know several semi-professional (semi meaning they write as well) photographers who have thousands of dollars worth of complicated camera equipment. They all say, the only way to be sure you get the shot is to shoot alot of film. Very expensive.

There is also a range of quality in the digital cameras, of course, but decent quality macro capabilities are within the reach price and skill wise of most people. As Botar put it, digital is the way to for people who don't know squat about photography. I have no doubt that digital is rapidly catching up, and for 99.9% of people can probably take better pictures with a digital camera than they could with 35mm. As far as getting photos published in major magazines goes, 35mm is still the standard, but that will no doubt change eventually.

Wade

 

[MrDeranged]

Ahhhh, a misunderstanding on my part then. Sorry

Scott