Features
Digital Camera Roundup
Plenty of choices, and what to look out for
By
Hirk Linsky
Okay, so what is a digital camera roundup doing in Handheld
Computing Magazine? Good question. But our answer has been plain
to see in the last several issues of HHC: handheld computing isn't
just about PDAs anymore. More and more, PDAs interact with all
the other wonderful techno gizmos in our lives. And handheld computing
itself is no longer reserved for just PDAs. The processor in your
average digital camera, for example, could run rings around the
chips found in the first and even second generation PDAs. These
days, handheld computing is truly everywhere. And there's yet
another tie between PDAs and digital cameras: imaging. Ever since
the emergence of the multimedia PCD (remember the old Casio E100?),
there has been a strong link between pictures and PDAs. I have
been carrying around a dozen or so of my favorite pictures in
my Pocket PC for years now. I also use the same SD and CF cards
for my PDAs and my digital cameras.
There
are plenty of links, and there will be more. And most of you probably
already have a digital camera. However, while as readers of Handheld
Computing Magazine you can probably recite all the vital stats
of every Palm and every Pocket PC in your sleep, with half your
brain tied behind your back, chances are you're on shakier grounds
with all the digicams out there. There are a lot more of those,
they have often arcane specs, and by the time you've narrowed
down your selection to just a few, chances are those are already
obsolete and discontinued. That's where we come in. In this feature
we'll not only give you a refresher course in all things digital
camera, but we've also compiled a list of over 100 of the major
digital cameras from the best and most experienced manufacturers
for you. And we won't bore you with a mountain of tech specs;
we give you just the basics: price, size, weight, megapixel, zoom,
type of storage and batteries, and so on. That way you can decide
which ones might be for you, and then look up all the detailed
specs. So let's begin with reviewing some digital imaging basics.
We shouldn't have to, but this is a field where even self-appointed
experts in photography told us less than four years ago: ãYou
think WHAT? Digital cameras replace film?! HA-HA-HA! That will
NEVER happen. Digital cameras are just nice little peripherals
for PCs. Now get out of here, punks.ä Well, ha-ha-ha, things turned
out otherwise. Film is nearly dead. Kodak is frantically trying
to reinvent itself, and hordes of old-school photographers are
seen aimlessly wandering the streets, muttering obscenities, and
shaking their disheveled heads at the inhumanity of it all.
Digital Camera 101
Megapixel ö that describes the physical size, in pixels,
of the largest image a digital camera can take. It's quite possibly
one of the most overused and abused terms in digital photography.
The salesman at the Best Buy or OfficeMax will try to shame you
into the camera with the most megapixel (read, the most expensive
one) and sneer at you like a valet at a guy in a clapped-out Corolla
if you spring for a lesser one. Fact is, while the industry treats
megapixel like Intel treats processor speed, it's really not that
important. If all you want to do is take nice snapshots of your
family, filling up your card with a few 8-megapixel images makes
little sense. And getting a megapixel monster if your goal is
to snap shots for the web, even one or two megapixel will do.
The game changes a bit if you want to print out high quality or
very large prints. As a rule of thumb, you'll want 300 dots per
inch for maximum quality prints and 200 dots per inch for prints
that are plenty good enough. So for a good quality 8x10 print
you'll need 1600x2000 pixels, or 3.2 megapixel. For a perfect
quality 8x10 you'll want 2400x3000 pixels, and that gets you into
the current 6-8 megapixel frontier. However, if you mostly view
your pics on a PC, keep in mind that computer screens generally
display at 72 to 100 dots per inch and that even a large display
rarely shows more than 1600x1200 pixels. So even 2 megapixel is
plenty for that. On the other hand, it's always good to have some
extra pixels to play with. In the early days of digital imaging,
you always had to make sure whatever subject you wanted to take
a picture of filled the image area completely. That's because
if you had to crop a lot of empty space around it, an already
marginal one megapixel quickly became even less. With today's
multi megapixel cameras you do have the luxury of cropping away
a couple of megapixels and still be left with plenty enough data
for a good image.
Moral
of the megapixel story: Figure out what you need before you buy.
Get a camera with as many megapixel as you need for the way you
use your pictures. If you get less, the pics will look good on
the screen but won't print out very well. If you get more, you'll
quickly fill up expensive cards and forever have to crop and resize
gigantic images. As far as we're concerned, the current sweet
spot in terms of price/performance is four to five megapixel.
Zoom
ö almost all digicams have zoom. That tradition goes back to the
early days of cameras with a very low pixel count. You simply
HAD to get close to the action to get a meaningful shot. Thankfully
for us consumers, that tradition carried over, and most digicams
still have very good zooms. Now what's the difference between
optical and digital zoom? Optical zoom is done via the lens. This
is true magnification and you'll get a very good close-up. Digital
zoom is really a fraud. For the most part, the camera simply enlarges
part of a picture without adding any detail at all. So if you
have a four megapixel camera and zoom in on part of the image
that comprises a quarter of what you see, the digital zoom will
enlarge that quarter until it uses up the entire four megapixel.
It will be a grainy, blurry four megapixel that may or may not
be useful. Only optical zoom is ãrealä zoom. Manufacturer often
combine optical and digital zoom. For example, 4X optical and
3X digital become 4X x 3X = a combined 12X. Make sure you know
what this means.
You
do need zoom, and in general a good 3X optical offers the best
cost/benefit ratio. One thing to look out for is the construction
of the zoom and how it operates. Some of the compact digital cameras
have endlessly annoying motorized zooms that constantly motor
the lens in and out. What looked like a nice compact camera becomes
an unwieldy little beast that you can't stick in your pocket.
Battery
ö battery power is the bane of all digital camera owners. This
simply was never an issue with film cameras. Even the biggest
motorized film SLR ran forever on a set of four simple AAs. Not
so digital cameras. Even the tiniest one can drain a set of batteries
in no time flat. It's gotten a bit better, but it still seems
almost spooky that taking pictures and running a tiny little LCD
should kill a power pack so quickly. For that very reason I continue
to prefer cameras that take four good old-fashioned AAs. I use
rechargeable NiMH cells for them and always carry an extra set
or two with me on trips, but if push comes to shove, I can always
use standard AAs which are available anywhere in the world. I
hate proprietary powerpacks that cost a fortune, are easily lost,
and cannot be found when you most need them. That said, some of
the advanced Li-Ion packs, like Sony's InfoLithium technology,
work marvelously well. If you can afford a spare or two, they
are a good solution, too.
35mm
equivalent ö why in the world do digital camera specs always
include ã35mm equivalentä data for the lenses? Because with film
cameras a lens is a lens is a lens. 35-105mm always means the
same and anyone with the least bit knowledge about photography
will know what images this will produce. Not so with digital cameras.
Look at ten cameras with a 35-105 ãequivalent' lens and they will
have ten different specs. It can be 4.7 ö 14.1mm or 7.9 ö 23.7mm
or whatever. You never know what it really means until you get
the ãequivalentä rating.
LCD
ö this is where it can get VERY annoying. One of the truly great
things about digital cameras is that they have LCDs so you can
see what you're taking a picture of AND you can view the picture
on them right after it's been taken. Or later. Problem is that
many (or let's be honest here: most) digital camera LCDs are crap.
Most are way too small (1.5 to 1.8 inches) to really see if an
image is sharp. Pixel count varies greatly and sometimes a LCD
that is reasonably large, say two inches diagonal, has such a
low pixel count that it's nearly useless. By far the worst quality
of most digital camera displays is that they are standard transmissive
LCDs. Which means you can't see a thing on them outdoors. Where
do most people take pics? Outdoors! Major duuh! Some LCDs at least
have a coating on them, but most don't. Given that even a bargain
basement PDA these days has a large transflective display it is
simply inexcusable that digital camera manufacturers saddle us
with those unusable tiny screens. There are some very notable
exceptions. The awesome Sony T1 has a huge 2.5-inch transflective
display that is absolutely terrific. Kyocera has some as well.
This can really be a deal breaker!
Storage
ö While we're seeing a bit of a shakeout, the digital camera industry
is still bedeviled by a plethora of different storage cards: Compact
Flash of different sizes, SmartMedia, SD/MMC, Sony's Memory Stick
in various denominations, xD Cards, you name it. It can be a real
drag. I have a good number of large CF cards and some SD cards,
so guess how likely Sony is to get my business? Or Olympus with
that ghastly xD Picture card? I know I may be shooting myself
in the foot and miss out on some great cameras, but I just don't
want to buy yet another set of expensive cards every time I get
a new camera. And an additional gripe here: These days my storage
medium of choice are USB keys. I carry them around with me all
day. On my key ring. Guess which format is never used by digicam
and won't fit into any of those handy new paper print machines
in drugstores? You got it: USB keys. Silly.
Menus and such ö don't get me started on this. I may have
my gripes with Microsoft and Windows, but at least Windows means
that that I can walk up to almost any computer in the world and
use it. Not so with digital cameras where every manufacturer uses
their own interfaces that's usually not even consistent within
their own products. And all those one-of-a-kind interfaces usually
require both a bunch of eensy little buttons and those tiny illegible
displays to get anything done. It's a nightmare and likely the
main reason why most people simply use digicams as point & shoots
even if they have powerful features locked inside.
Viewfinders
ö most are optical but some are digital. Not much to say about
the optical ones. They work pretty much the same as they did with
film cameras. Some are very basic, some provide extra information
via lights and HUD indicators. Some even zoom. In general I much
prefer them over digital LCD viewfinders. Most of those are very
grainy, like the viewfinders in really old video cameras of a
decade ago or more.
SLRs
ö Until recently, the very high price and marginal features of
digital SLRs made them the province of affluent, open-minded professional
photographers. But that is changing. The Canon Digital Rebel was
the first to break the US$1,000 barrier. Others followed. SLRs,
just as they did in film, have their pros and cons. Compared to
a dinky LCD or a conventional optical viewfinder, the mirror technology
of a SLR is like looking at the Grand Canyon in an IMAX theater.
You see everything. SLRs also address another bane of digital
cameras, delayed shutter response. Some digicams seem to have
a mind of their own and you never know when and if they take a
picture after you push the shutter. Not so with SLRs. They react
instantly. Price remains an issue. Early digital SLR adopters
are now saddled with very low megapixel bodies that cost a fortune.
Still, if you're serious about photography and love collecting
all those lenses and exchangeable accessories, a digital SLR is
for you!
Various
glitches ö apart from some of the more appalling shortcomings
of current digital cameras (LCDs, battery life, inconsistent interface,
etc.), many digital cameras suffer from other minor problems.
I already mentioned the delayed shutter response. Some makes and
models are much quicker than others. Auto focus is another issue.
Some are quite good, others simply never seem to focus on what
you want. So you end up with, for example, a nearby tree branch
in perfect focus and then a bunch of blurry heads in the distance.
Then there is the dreaded purple fringing. This refers to an annoying
purple and green halo around objects, especially in areas of big
contrast. If you zoom in it looks like something right off an
old 1960s-style color TV on its last leg, all purple and green.
And also keep in mind that with digital cameras it can be garbage
in, garbage out. If you have a lousy lens, resolution is irrelevant.
Instead of two unsharp murky megapixel you'll have six unsharp,
murky megapixel. All this means you'll have to do some extra research
once you've narrowed down your selection to just a few cameras.
Use Google and Froogle to search for references and information
on the exact model you have in mind. Chances are you'll find plenty
of opinions on some bulletin board somewhere.
Finally,
keep in mind that digital cameras are a new and very rapidly evolving
category. What's new and hot today will be obsolete and replaced
tomorrow. Exercise caution and don't get duped into paying top
dollar for a just-replaced, discontinued model, but also don't
second-guess and hold off either. Once you find the digital camera
that fits your needs, get it! A year from now you'll get more
power and features for less, but that's always the case. You can't
wait forever, and you'll have plenty of fun with this year's (or
this month's) model.
-Hirk Linsky
Home
