Slashdot Mirror

Update:

Bibble Labs does 2.5 or so updates / year, so

I may have to wait 3 more months before getting killer photo-editing of my RAW format files.

Also, I just checked, and the Noise Ninja in the current version ( 4.9.8e ) is a cut-down version,
but if one gets a full-version of Noise Ninja ( which IS available for Linux ),
that full-version gets integrated into your Bibble copy.

Doubly-also, the demo-mode works for 14 days.

The only downside, other-than no current support for the ultimate pocket camera for manual-control freaks
( the G9: http://www.powershot.com/ . . . trustworthy camera-joint fer buyin' stuff: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ ),
is that there isn't any JPEG2000 support.
Tiff ( 16 or 8 bit ), PNG ( 16 or 8 bit ), 8-bit-JPEG, for output. . .

Cheerses ( & yeah, this is offtopic, but this information does inform, and the perceived hole in Linux ability isn't an actual gap!! :)

"SLR" stands for Single Lens Reflex. This means that light passes through the lens, off a mirror and/or CCD, and into your eye. It means that there is no parralax error due to you and the camera seeing your subject from different angles. It doesn't necessarily mean you have the ability to change lenses, nor does it mean it's a "professional grade" camera. It doesn't even have to be much more complicated than your average point-and-shoot, though I'm assuming you want to be able to grow as you learn.

In the lower class of Digital SLR bodies with interchangeable lenses, you've got the Nikon D70 and D100, the Canon Digital Rebel, and a few cameras by Sigma and Fuji. These cameras (bodies with interchangeable lenses) will allow you the most flexibility, options, and quality. However, they are also much more expensive, starting at about the $1000 mark. For the moment, I'll assume this is the area you're looking at.

First off, the Canon Digital Rebel is not the only camera in its class. Nikon just released the D70, which seems to kick the Rebel's ass. I spoke to Nikon Digital Support (800-645-6689), and they said the memory buffer was so fast that you could pretty much keep shooting continuously until you ran out of space. Compared to older models that would only do "burst mode" for up to five seconds, that's quite a feat. The D70 is only about 3 frames/second, but the D2H can do 8 frames/second for five seconds before the buffer gets full. Of course, the D2H is about $3K, but I can dream. ;-)

Second, you are not limited to (and may not want) a camera with interchangable lenses. The Nikon Coolpix 5700 and 8700 are pretty decent (the latter being 8 megapixels!), and the Canon PowerShot Pro1, G5, and S1 are also options. One definite advantage the cameras without interchangable lenses have is that they are going to be much smaller and lighter.

As per several recommendations already posted, definitely check out DPReview. Great site, lots of info, full testing, sample shots, menus and interfaces, etc. Think about what your priorities are. How high of a resolution do you need? 6 megapixels is plenty for an 8x10. (4 can actually get you by.) If you aren't printing anything larger than that, you're fine. Do you care if there's a proprietary battery, or do you need the flexibility of "standard"-sized batteries? (AA, AAA, etc.) Do you have a preference for media type? (I prefer CompactFlash, as it tends to give the best cost/size ratio, and the card size options are larger.) Do you need lens interchangeability? Do you want it? Regardless of what you want *right now*, where do you want to take your photography eventually? Make sure your camera choice now will not limit your goals later.

Personally, I'd lean more towards the larger SLR bodies with interchangeable lenses. They're bigger, heavier, and *can be* more expensive... though this is by no means true any more. However, the options you have are incredible. Of course, you may well just be leaving the camera in automatic mode all the time, which makes those options useless, overpriced oversized, etc. However, if you *want* those options later... you may not have to "upgrade" anything other than your lens options. Now that

"SLR" stands for Single Lens Reflex. This means that light passes through the lens, off a mirror and/or CCD, and into your eye. It means that there is no parralax error due to you and the camera seeing your subject from different angles. It doesn't necessarily mean you have the ability to change lenses, nor does it mean it's a "professional grade" camera. It doesn't even have to be much more complicated than your average point-and-shoot, though I'm assuming you want to be able to grow as you learn.

In the lower class of Digital SLR bodies with interchangeable lenses, you've got the Nikon D70 and D100, the Canon Digital Rebel, and a few cameras by Sigma and Fuji. These cameras (bodies with interchangeable lenses) will allow you the most flexibility, options, and quality. However, they are also much more expensive, starting at about the $1000 mark. For the moment, I'll assume this is the area you're looking at.

First off, the Canon Digital Rebel is not the only camera in its class. Nikon just released the D70, which seems to kick the Rebel's ass. I spoke to Nikon Digital Support (800-645-6689), and they said the memory buffer was so fast that you could pretty much keep shooting continuously until you ran out of space. Compared to older models that would only do "burst mode" for up to five seconds, that's quite a feat. The D70 is only about 3 frames/second, but the D2H can do 8 frames/second for five seconds before the buffer gets full. Of course, the D2H is about $3K, but I can dream. ;-)

Second, you are not limited to (and may not want) a camera with interchangable lenses. The Nikon Coolpix 5700 and 8700 are pretty decent (the latter being 8 megapixels!), and the Canon PowerShot Pro1, G5, and S1 are also options. One definite advantage the cameras without interchangable lenses have is that they are going to be much smaller and lighter.

As per several recommendations already posted, definitely check out DPReview. Great site, lots of info, full testing, sample shots, menus and interfaces, etc. Think about what your priorities are. How high of a resolution do you need? 6 megapixels is plenty for an 8x10. (4 can actually get you by.) If you aren't printing anything larger than that, you're fine. Do you care if there's a proprietary battery, or do you need the flexibility of "standard"-sized batteries? (AA, AAA, etc.) Do you have a preference for media type? (I prefer CompactFlash, as it tends to give the best cost/size ratio, and the card size options are larger.) Do you need lens interchangeability? Do you want it? Regardless of what you want *right now*, where do you want to take your photography eventually? Make sure your camera choice now will not limit your goals later.

Personally, I'd lean more towards the larger SLR bodies with interchangeable lenses. They're bigger, heavier, and *can be* more expensive... though this is by no means true any more. However, the options you have are incredible. Of course, you may well just be leaving the camera in automatic mode all the time, which makes those options useless, overpriced oversized, etc. However, if you *want* those options later... you may not have to "upgrade" anything other than your lens options. Now that

"SLR" stands for Single Lens Reflex. This means that light passes through the lens, off a mirror and/or CCD, and into your eye. It means that there is no parralax error due to you and the camera seeing your subject from different angles. It doesn't necessarily mean you have the ability to change lenses, nor does it mean it's a "professional grade" camera. It doesn't even have to be much more complicated than your average point-and-shoot, though I'm assuming you want to be able to grow as you learn.

In the lower class of Digital SLR bodies with interchangeable lenses, you've got the Nikon D70 and D100, the Canon Digital Rebel, and a few cameras by Sigma and Fuji. These cameras (bodies with interchangeable lenses) will allow you the most flexibility, options, and quality. However, they are also much more expensive, starting at about the $1000 mark. For the moment, I'll assume this is the area you're looking at.

First off, the Canon Digital Rebel is not the only camera in its class. Nikon just released the D70, which seems to kick the Rebel's ass. I spoke to Nikon Digital Support (800-645-6689), and they said the memory buffer was so fast that you could pretty much keep shooting continuously until you ran out of space. Compared to older models that would only do "burst mode" for up to five seconds, that's quite a feat. The D70 is only about 3 frames/second, but the D2H can do 8 frames/second for five seconds before the buffer gets full. Of course, the D2H is about $3K, but I can dream. ;-)

Second, you are not limited to (and may not want) a camera with interchangable lenses. The Nikon Coolpix 5700 and 8700 are pretty decent (the latter being 8 megapixels!), and the Canon PowerShot Pro1, G5, and S1 are also options. One definite advantage the cameras without interchangable lenses have is that they are going to be much smaller and lighter.

As per several recommendations already posted, definitely check out DPReview. Great site, lots of info, full testing, sample shots, menus and interfaces, etc. Think about what your priorities are. How high of a resolution do you need? 6 megapixels is plenty for an 8x10. (4 can actually get you by.) If you aren't printing anything larger than that, you're fine. Do you care if there's a proprietary battery, or do you need the flexibility of "standard"-sized batteries? (AA, AAA, etc.) Do you have a preference for media type? (I prefer CompactFlash, as it tends to give the best cost/size ratio, and the card size options are larger.) Do you need lens interchangeability? Do you want it? Regardless of what you want *right now*, where do you want to take your photography eventually? Make sure your camera choice now will not limit your goals later.

Personally, I'd lean more towards the larger SLR bodies with interchangeable lenses. They're bigger, heavier, and *can be* more expensive... though this is by no means true any more. However, the options you have are incredible. Of course, you may well just be leaving the camera in automatic mode all the time, which makes those options useless, overpriced oversized, etc. However, if you *want* those options later... you may not have to "upgrade" anything other than your lens options. Now that

Its been widely known that the Canon EOS 300D Digital Rebel and the Canon EOS 10D DSLR's are similar beasts. In fact, if you look at their Side-by-side comparisons you can see that most of the features that vary are catagorized as "Customizable".

The 10D has a menu item called "Custom Functions" which allows these settings to be adjusted. Well, a fellow in Russia found that in the latest firmware, by switching a single byte in the firmware image, he was able to enable most of these 10D "Custom Functions" in the Digital Rebel. Now, some features, such as more frames in rapid shooting, are hardware-limitations but some features lacking such as Flash Exposure Compensation and embedded JPEG quality are found to be working in the 300D.

This is not the 10D firmware, it is the 300D firmware with some of the dormant 10D features enabled. The developers probably shared the codebase between the two models. The 10D firmware will not work on your 300D.

Now, be aware that this Modified firmware will violate your warranty!

Canon makes some nifty waterproof enclosures for their digital cameras. The case for the S50 is waterproof to 100' and allows you to take photos while the camera is in the enclosure.

Presumably you could overcome the low-light issue with a tripod and and a long exposure.

Canon makes some nifty waterproof enclosures for their digital cameras. The case for the S50 is waterproof to 100' and allows you to take photos while the camera is in the enclosure.

Presumably you could overcome the low-light issue with a tripod and and a long exposure.

$91 for that "SiPix Pocket DV Camcorder" is a waste of money.... oh did you say you bought one?

The A70 is the same size but takes 3mp and 640x480 video, although it's considerably more expensive.

Cameras are tools. The differences between all the higher end cameras is negligible. Check out Dpreview and do a side by side comparison of the 10D, the D100, the 1D MK ][, and the D2H. Most of the features are close enough. It's not the tool, it's the person using the tool.

Oh, and MP count doesn't really mean much of anything once you get over 4MP. It's all about the size of the sensor (less noise = Cleaner image). An 8MP P&S camera will still have a sensor half the size of a professional digicam.

I have a Powershot G3 and a Canon 10D. One of these is much nicer than the other, but it doesn't really change the quality of my pictures all that much. :)

Women said that they were treated differently, and in many cases, were assumed to be stupid or unknowledgable, compared to men.

I wouldn't use the term "stupid", but, as a generalization, women certainly need to be treated differently due to the difference in technical skill level.

I realize that there are some women who are technical. However, as a percentage, that number is about the same as the guy:girl ratio here on slashdot. My wife still wastes all kinds of time with film so I am in the process of getting her a PictBridge compatible printer and camera.

With this, and digital cameras like Canon's new S1 IS with digital image stabilization and DV-quality movie capture, I'm not sure why anyone would need a camcorder anymore. Err... rather, cameras and camcorders are going to be on-in-the-same very soon...

And while on the subject of digital camcorders, lets not forget that digital cameras are more than adequate for most people, these days. Just today, Canon announced their Powershot S1 IS which comes equipped with "DV quality" movie recording and digital image stabilization. Add an 8GB Flash Card and you've got 8 hours of DV recording capability.

Who could ask for anything more? While, certainly... the flash can be expensive but if you can afford to lug the laptop along, a cheap 512MB card will provide most with more than adequate storage capability.

It is great to be a geek, these days. This stuff boggles my mind...

• Rio Karma (20G) for day to day use, Rio Cali (256mb version) for the gym (Wow just did a currency conversion, and even with the exchange it's about $100CND cheaper to buy this in the states (assuming the $169USD pricetag seen on froogle.google.com)
• AOpen DRW4410 DVD Writer (at under $100 US it'd be cheaper than the above items :)
• Linux compatible Serial ATA card for my fileserver (the Silicon Graphics chipsets don't seem to do linux RAID, but according to some of the forum posts it is possible to get it working). This is just an interim solution until I upgrade the whole box and put in a motherboard with a SATA chip, so just looking for something that works :)
• A couple of big ass SATA hard drives to go with it.
• Aliens Quadrilogy DVD
• A USB keychain storage device... 64 or 128 megs of storage to keep important files safe. According to a recent Linux Journal article, they are the floppies for the new millenium.
• Canon Digital Rebel or...
• Pentax Digital *ist
• Add on bits for my Canon A70 Digital Camera
• Another nice shirt like I got from mom for my birthday
• $1,000,000
• A house that exactly meets what I want (and only costs $1)
• A subscription to Popular Photography Magazine
• A huge and over priced flat panel TV, ungodly expensive reciever, and speakers of such high quality that even the most freakish audiophiles will cry for mercy (this will go in the house I mentioned above).
• CDRs
• CDRWs
• DVDRs (to go with the DVD writer mentioned above)

Steve's Digicams

Epinions

Digital Camera Resource Page

Digital Photography Review

CNet User Reviews

Google Search

Steve's Digicams

Epinions

Digital Camera Resource Page

Digital Photography Review

CNet User Reviews

Google Search

Canon PowerShot A40 and the Waterproof Case WP-DC 200S.

It's a cheap combo that takes decent pics. And the additional case makes it pretty darn durable. It uses regular AA's so you can always find juice for it in the field.

I think your biggest problem will be whether or not digital pictures are legitimate in court when you're talking accident claims. They can be altered far too easily.

Canon PowerShot A40 and the Waterproof Case WP-DC 200S.

It's a cheap combo that takes decent pics. And the additional case makes it pretty darn durable. It uses regular AA's so you can always find juice for it in the field.

I think your biggest problem will be whether or not digital pictures are legitimate in court when you're talking accident claims. They can be altered far too easily.

When I finally upgraded to a decent digital camera (Canon G3 FWIW), I looked into finally getting a decent color printer. After wading through the "photo quality" jargon and looking at the real cost per page, I decided to skip it all together.

Even assuming a lifetime of 5 years for the printer (which is laughable these days) once you buy photo paper, cartridges and the like, even if you print 3 4x6 prints per page, you are looking at around $1 per page minimum. And those prints will fade in a matter of weeks so you've got to pony up for the archival quality (read: expensive) inks which aren't readily available in bulk to do your own refills with.

So what to do? When I need a couple of shots printed onto 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10, I pop those photos on a compact flash card and head down to my local WalMart. for $.26 a print I get very good quality on good quality Fuji paper. If it's something I really care about and want Kodak paper, I use ofoto.com. They are a bit more expensive ($.47 per 4x6 print) and you've got to pay for shipping and wait a couple of days for them to arrive, but the quality is top notch.

I carry the following:

Palm IIIc: Front left pants pocket

Dell X200 Laptop: Ultra-portable laptop (12")-- I carry this in a RoadWired messenger bag which I take almost everywhere.

Canon S110 digital camera (digital elph): It's in a small pouch attached to the shoulder strap of my laptop bag

Nokia 3360 cellphone: I don't carry this as often, since I don't like cellphones, but if I'm carrying it, it's in the interior jacket pocket.

Panasonic CD player: I have a little cd carrying bag that I sometimes lug around with me if it's a long walk to where I'm going.


Yeah, I like my toys to be small.

Well, my big problem with newer gadgets is that people seem to care more about extra features rather than making them smaller. I have no interest in a PDA that can play MP3s or has 64MB of memory. On the other hand, if you can shrink one down to just the size of the screen (plus a small border) and make them half an inch thick, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. Also, make more small phones without movable parts. I don't want to waste my time pulling out an antenna or flipping open my phone. And stop putting features in my phone! I don't need an MP3 player in my phone.

I want small specialized products.

yes, i've done this as well. 1600x1200 is way more than enough for a page of text. I haven't tried running the image through OCR software, but given that canon has twain "scanner" drivers for their cameras i'll bet it would be easy.

For glossy paper and to avoid annoying the others around you it is best to not use the flash. if you're in a low light situation, get a small tripod and a book stand.

For a very good affordable 2mp camera today i recommend the canon powershot A40; search on my simon for good prices. Any 2mp camera will probably work for your needs; but why buy a crappy one?

Not long ago I would have totally agreed with you, but then I got a Canon s110 and I totally changed the way I viewed cameras. Due to the fact that it was so small and that there is zero cost to take pictures, I started taking it everywhere with me. It is as common as keys, wallet, and cellphone. So why not consolidate the cellphone and camera? Actually, I'm seriously interested in buying a product that merges my wallet and my cellphone.

I have a Canon Powershot 330. It's far from a professional camera (2 mp), and I'm far from a professional photographer. My question is that in every photo I take with this camera, every element is perfectly in focus - even in macro mode, I can never get a nice looking shot with only the subject in focus. Is this an issue that is related to digital cameras specifically, or more to my model? How much more do I have to pay for a digital camera that will allow me to control the depth of field?

I have a canon s40 which is a pretty decent digital camera.

my only really big complaint about it is depth of field. except in extreme scenarios, EVERYTHING is going to be in focus with that camera. depth of field is one of the most important tools of photography to emphasize what you want to emphasize in the picture.

because the CCD is so much smaller than 35mm film, the lens is shorter. to accomodate the shorter lens and smaller sensor, the aperature is smaller than 35mm equivilent.

the 3 big ingredients to controlling depth of field are aperature, lens length and distance.

with todays smaller than 35mm digital cameras, the aperature is significantly smaller than 35mm equivilent (greater DOF)
the lens length is significantly shorter than 35mm equivilent (greater DOF)
so all you have is distance...

if you focus on something 2 feet away, maybe something across the street will be somewhat out of focus.

with a 35mm camera (digital or film), you can focus on something 2 feet away and then you, the photographer, can choose whether you want the thing across the street to be almost perfectly in focus or so out of focus that you can't even distinguish whether it's a tree or if it's a building.

this kicks a lot of ass.

Although I could not find any information pertaining to the Fuji Finepix 6900 on their website I have been doing research in this area ever since Slashdot ran an article talking about Foveon's new CCD chip that is suppost to revolutionize the industry. Although Sigma's SD9 hasn't hit the market yet, other manufacturers have been lowering the prices on their cameras, binging 5 and 6+ Megapixel cameras closer to reach.

For example, Nikon's Coolpix 5000 is a 5Megapixel camera that retails for $1K US, but can be found on the Internet for closer to $700. It has the ability to add and remove lenses, but it is nothing like the bayonet mounts that you may be used to with a standard 35MM SLR. Canon recently came out with the EOS D60 digital camera with a 6.3Megapixel CCD chip , that retails for approximately twice as much as the Nikon. It is suppost to handle almost exactly like a 35MM SLR, including the ability to switch lenses, which is what a professional photographer would want to work with.

But if you are like me, then you will be waiting with baited breath for the Sigma SD9 and its revolutionary CCD chip. Even though the chip itself is only a 3Megapixel chip, the quality of the photographs taken are said to be comparible with 9+Megapixel cameras. Or you could stick with the tried and true 21+Megapixel analog film and emulsion camera.

I am by no means a professional photographer, and I tend to grade my pictures by the oooh and ahhh scale but I know exactly what you are looking for.

A digital camera that truly rivals a normal one. The problem is, once you want that you're going to end up with something high-end, maybe even in the $500+ range. Believe me, it is worth it.

The camera(s) I highly recommend are part of the Canon PowerShot G series. The newest member is expensive however has absolutely every feature you mentioned. It uses nice compact flash cards instead of crappy memory sticks or slow CDRs too and even takes 4 megapixel shots. If the G2 is out of your pice range you may be able to pick up a G1 somewhere, as the difference is small (I have a G1). The macro focus on it is truly magnifigant too. If you take a look at my DeviantART page you can see some examples of what I have taken with my trusty old G1.

Can't say to much more without sounding like a totally shameless plug, just I recommend going to a store and checking it out.

nah... D30 is way to old, what you really want is a D60 or maybe a 1D... or am I missing something? :-)

Many have already mentioned the fact that "rubbish pictures" can be easily avoided by increasing storage whether it be by buying more SmartMedia / CompactFlash / etc cards or perhaps just going with a digicam that supports MicroDrive (say for example the Canon PowerShot G1 or G2). With the prices of even the MicroDrive becoming more and more affordable, storage and "rubbish pictures" won't necessarily be the problem. If you're one of the lucky ones to have a MicroDrive with your digicam, you probably never even have to "change film."

The main problem now tends to go towards battery life to make sure you have that chance to capture that last piece of rubbish. Some digicam makers claim that their battery life can last up to 3 to 5 hours or perhaps 200 to 500 photos, but those numbers tend to go down tremendously once you start using the digicam's LCD (especially to help frame a shot and to, of course, see the product afterwards)! Even having a spare battery can be better in theory than in practice. I remember when I had my first camcorder. There would "always" be that one time when I forgot to recharge the spare that something really important was about to happen!

".... hmm, this one has a red dot. I forget, does that mean it's recharged or empty?"

You could always regain storage space on the fly by deleting pics, but to regain battery power, you must recharge!

Many have already mentioned the fact that "rubbish pictures" can be easily avoided by increasing storage whether it be by buying more SmartMedia / CompactFlash / etc cards or perhaps just going with a digicam that supports MicroDrive (say for example the Canon PowerShot G1 or G2). With the prices of even the MicroDrive becoming more and more affordable, storage and "rubbish pictures" won't necessarily be the problem. If you're one of the lucky ones to have a MicroDrive with your digicam, you probably never even have to "change film."

The main problem now tends to go towards battery life to make sure you have that chance to capture that last piece of rubbish. Some digicam makers claim that their battery life can last up to 3 to 5 hours or perhaps 200 to 500 photos, but those numbers tend to go down tremendously once you start using the digicam's LCD (especially to help frame a shot and to, of course, see the product afterwards)! Even having a spare battery can be better in theory than in practice. I remember when I had my first camcorder. There would "always" be that one time when I forgot to recharge the spare that something really important was about to happen!

".... hmm, this one has a red dot. I forget, does that mean it's recharged or empty?"

You could always regain storage space on the fly by deleting pics, but to regain battery power, you must recharge!

I can sympathize with what you are trying to do, as I've tried both uses with my Nikon Coolpix 950. The short answer is both are possible, but it isn't likely to be easy to get what you want out of the setup. Once drivers are available, you should be able to use your digital camera as a webcam fairly effectively, though you may have issues with autofocus, flash, and other camera-only adjustments. For astrophotography, it isn't likely you'll be able to get worthwhile images with the Elph, but I've included a few links on how to get started.

Digial Camera Webcams

Digital cameras defintely produce a much more compelling image than a typical webcam. I have a 3Com HomeConnect (a pretty good quality webcam) and it looks just awful compared to my Nikon N950 (not just resolution, but also trueness of color, CCD noise, and sensitivity). The main limitations are that you can't usually take mini-movies or fast sequences, some key functions are often only controllable on camera (for instance auto-focus and flash), and you'll need a power cord for the camera if you don't want to drain the batteries very quickly.

The easiest way to control the camera from a linux box is with Scott Fritzinger's GPL'd gphoto program. gphoto allows basic control of a variety of cameras through serial or USB connection (and supports both interactive and commmand line modes - add a bit of perl and cron and you can do all sorts of fun things). Its still under development, however, and unfortunately doesn't currently support the Digital Elph (PowerShot S100) to my knowledge. I'm not sure how involved it would be to write a USB Elph driver for it, but you can check out the site if you feel up to it.

Digital Cameras and CCD Astrophotography

With astrophotography, you are getting into a rather specialized and involved use of CCD devices and generally speaking, it takes a good bit of expertise and dollars to get good results. You don't mention what you are looking to capture or what existing equipment you have, so I'll point out some of the basics and you can research further from these. FWIW, I'm not by any means an expert here, but I've been looking to jump in, so I'm seeing the same issues.

While there are limited exceptions, CCD astrophotography generally requires the use of specialized equipment. Your Canon Digital Elph doesn't have the required sensitivity (its equivalent to ISO 100 film), ability to take long exposures, long and fast enough lenses, or adapters for telescope mounting. While its possible to use a barn door tracker or equitorial tracking camera mount with the Elph, the results aren't likely to be worth the effort.

If you really get interested in astrophotography, you'll probably want to pony up for a specialized system like those built by Celestron and SBIG. These are highly sensitive, small array CCD cameras with specialized cooling and software for high gain operation. Add a high quality telescope, equitorial tracking mount, and related accessories, and you are talking about no small dollar commitment. Also, you'll need a lot of time and patience to find and capture accurately really good photos. I'd like to try CCD astrophotography out, but will be playing with 35mm (add a T mount and a Meade ETX and you can get started for under $1000) until I decide I'm really committed and move to a less light polluted neighborhood.

Sky & Telescope has a pretty good guide on where to start. Some good introductions to astrophotgraphy are:

• Sky and Telescope Imaging Resources
• Amateur Astrophotography links
• CCD Astrophotgraphy (annoying sounds)
• Santa Barbara Imaging Group (SBIG), a leading astro CCD maker
• Pin's Astronomy Page

Have fun, RJS

Oh yeah - the little ones are really nice.

Canon has a site dedicated to PowerShot cams.

I was looking into those - really small, but on the pricey side. But if you look at their specs, they're not all that bad, really. The "Digital ELPH" is not as good as the S20, and is in fact, closer to the S10 in specs.

PHr0D wrote:
Thats cool but...I think I'd prefer a higher resolution

The just-released Canon S100 does 1,600 x 1,200 and is the size of a deck of playing cards. Additionally, it takes high-quality pictures (although green gets somewhat under-exposed [which can be fixed in photoshop]).

You can sort-of video capture with it too with a continuous mode that does two frames-per-second. It also has a USB interface and direct video out.

But best of all, it exists.

Short answer: the Canon PowerShot rocks!

Background:

Early 1999 my wife & I were planning a vacation & I wanted a digital camera. After some research, (and two-hours of owning a very bad Agfa) I decided on the Canon PowerShot A5 Zoom. My criteria (and rationale) were:

• Small size
  This was going to be in my pocket or in a small cam bag for this trip.
• Aspheric glass lens
  Even within the size constraints, I wanted good picture quality. I also wanted actual focusing, not "focus-free", which is weasel-speak for fixed focus. Hint: avoid cheaper Agfa.
• LCD display
  For previewing pix, composing close-ups, end-of-arm shots, etc.
• Optical viewfinder
  Research indicated that even the best LCD was hard to see in bright sunlight. Also, always having to hold the camera away from your face amplifies jitter.
• Compact Flash
  Compact flash (CF) v. SmartMedia v. floppys. Floppys are slow, SmartMedia has low capacity. CF is about the same price as SmartMedia & comes in very high capacities.

The A5Z was then "last years model", about to be replaced by the A50. The A50 is essentially identical, but with a higher resolution. So, the A5Z was cheap ($350). I added a battery charger ($90), two more rechargable (NiMH) batteries ($30 x 2) and a second 8MB CF ($40). Remember, these are early '99 prices. Total cost: $570.

There were several cameras with similar capabilities (Olympus, Nikon and Minolta) but none were as small OR as cheap.

The results since then have been excellent. I have been very happy. Several of my friend have tried it, and bought their own A50's. They really like theirs as well.

The current versions of this camera are, the A50, S10 & S20. The S series has added USB, even higher resolution and Type-II CF (which can take a hard drive). If I was buying a new camera today, I think the S20 would be my baby.

One recommendation though: do buy a charger and extra batteries.

Short answer: the Canon PowerShot rocks!

Background:

Early 1999 my wife & I were planning a vacation & I wanted a digital camera. After some research, (and two-hours of owning a very bad Agfa) I decided on the Canon PowerShot A5 Zoom. My criteria (and rationale) were:

• Small size
  This was going to be in my pocket or in a small cam bag for this trip.
• Aspheric glass lens
  Even within the size constraints, I wanted good picture quality. I also wanted actual focusing, not "focus-free", which is weasel-speak for fixed focus. Hint: avoid cheaper Agfa.
• LCD display
  For previewing pix, composing close-ups, end-of-arm shots, etc.
• Optical viewfinder
  Research indicated that even the best LCD was hard to see in bright sunlight. Also, always having to hold the camera away from your face amplifies jitter.
• Compact Flash
  Compact flash (CF) v. SmartMedia v. floppys. Floppys are slow, SmartMedia has low capacity. CF is about the same price as SmartMedia & comes in very high capacities.

The A5Z was then "last years model", about to be replaced by the A50. The A50 is essentially identical, but with a higher resolution. So, the A5Z was cheap ($350). I added a battery charger ($90), two more rechargable (NiMH) batteries ($30 x 2) and a second 8MB CF ($40). Remember, these are early '99 prices. Total cost: $570.

There were several cameras with similar capabilities (Olympus, Nikon and Minolta) but none were as small OR as cheap.

The results since then have been excellent. I have been very happy. Several of my friend have tried it, and bought their own A50's. They really like theirs as well.

The current versions of this camera are, the A50, S10 & S20. The S series has added USB, even higher resolution and Type-II CF (which can take a hard drive). If I was buying a new camera today, I think the S20 would be my baby.

One recommendation though: do buy a charger and extra batteries.

Short answer: the Canon PowerShot rocks!

Background:

Early 1999 my wife & I were planning a vacation & I wanted a digital camera. After some research, (and two-hours of owning a very bad Agfa) I decided on the Canon PowerShot A5 Zoom. My criteria (and rationale) were:

• Small size
  This was going to be in my pocket or in a small cam bag for this trip.
• Aspheric glass lens
  Even within the size constraints, I wanted good picture quality. I also wanted actual focusing, not "focus-free", which is weasel-speak for fixed focus. Hint: avoid cheaper Agfa.
• LCD display
  For previewing pix, composing close-ups, end-of-arm shots, etc.
• Optical viewfinder
  Research indicated that even the best LCD was hard to see in bright sunlight. Also, always having to hold the camera away from your face amplifies jitter.
• Compact Flash
  Compact flash (CF) v. SmartMedia v. floppys. Floppys are slow, SmartMedia has low capacity. CF is about the same price as SmartMedia & comes in very high capacities.

The A5Z was then "last years model", about to be replaced by the A50. The A50 is essentially identical, but with a higher resolution. So, the A5Z was cheap ($350). I added a battery charger ($90), two more rechargable (NiMH) batteries ($30 x 2) and a second 8MB CF ($40). Remember, these are early '99 prices. Total cost: $570.

There were several cameras with similar capabilities (Olympus, Nikon and Minolta) but none were as small OR as cheap.

The results since then have been excellent. I have been very happy. Several of my friend have tried it, and bought their own A50's. They really like theirs as well.

The current versions of this camera are, the A50, S10 & S20. The S series has added USB, even higher resolution and Type-II CF (which can take a hard drive). If I was buying a new camera today, I think the S20 would be my baby.

One recommendation though: do buy a charger and extra batteries.

Short answer: the Canon PowerShot rocks!

Background:

Early 1999 my wife & I were planning a vacation & I wanted a digital camera. After some research, (and two-hours of owning a very bad Agfa) I decided on the Canon PowerShot A5 Zoom. My criteria (and rationale) were:

• Small size
  This was going to be in my pocket or in a small cam bag for this trip.
• Aspheric glass lens
  Even within the size constraints, I wanted good picture quality. I also wanted actual focusing, not "focus-free", which is weasel-speak for fixed focus. Hint: avoid cheaper Agfa.
• LCD display
  For previewing pix, composing close-ups, end-of-arm shots, etc.
• Optical viewfinder
  Research indicated that even the best LCD was hard to see in bright sunlight. Also, always having to hold the camera away from your face amplifies jitter.
• Compact Flash
  Compact flash (CF) v. SmartMedia v. floppys. Floppys are slow, SmartMedia has low capacity. CF is about the same price as SmartMedia & comes in very high capacities.

The A5Z was then "last years model", about to be replaced by the A50. The A50 is essentially identical, but with a higher resolution. So, the A5Z was cheap ($350). I added a battery charger ($90), two more rechargable (NiMH) batteries ($30 x 2) and a second 8MB CF ($40). Remember, these are early '99 prices. Total cost: $570.

There were several cameras with similar capabilities (Olympus, Nikon and Minolta) but none were as small OR as cheap.

The results since then have been excellent. I have been very happy. Several of my friend have tried it, and bought their own A50's. They really like theirs as well.

The current versions of this camera are, the A50, S10 & S20. The S series has added USB, even higher resolution and Type-II CF (which can take a hard drive). If I was buying a new camera today, I think the S20 would be my baby.

One recommendation though: do buy a charger and extra batteries.