Crap or Not? #7 [Mainstream] Digital Cameras
Posted by Cap in Stop Buying Crap! on March 25, 2007 |
Demitri Martin:
I like digital cameras… because they enable you to reminisce immediately.
Just like *click* — look at us, we were so young.
Standing right there. Wow, where does the minute go?
Digital cameras almost made it on the Stop Buying Crap #20 edition, but after a careful deliberation of twenty-eight seconds while using the outhouse, I have decided that this is best put to a vote. After all, without my trusty DSC-P7 (circa 2002), I would have lacked a proper means to record pictures of people I admire as I stalk them hang out with them. Plus, this blog would have gone without spectacular pictures of burnt popcorn, toilet papers, and cereal boxes.
Regardless, digital cameras are a bit iffy. The mega-pixel capability steadily increases to ridiculous rates (does the average consumer really need 7 megapixel?), prices for “mid range” models continues to loom around $250, and units with prices beyond $300 are of the norm.
Poll Result:
Related Post:
9 Responses to “Crap or Not? #7 [Mainstream] Digital Cameras”
Leave a Comment
« More $15 Shoes, Please
March 26th, 2007 at 5:07 am
I’m going to have to vote not-crap.
If you’re going to be buying a camera for personal use, digital is defintely the way to go. Never having to pay for film or have it developed significantly reduces the cost per use over a 35mm and like you said, the average point-and-shoot user doesnt (and probably never will) need anything over, say, 3 megapixels.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Not-crap!
The digital camera is one the best inventions of the digital age. I’m so glad I don’t have to deal with loading the extra-sensitive to sunlight film into a camera - ever again! Plus, I get to check the picture out before right after I take it and if it sucks, I just take another one.
This is a no brainer not-crap, Cap!
Barry
March 26th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Digital cameras are definitely NOT crap. They are incredible. The best thing is that even the cheapest of them today offer sufficient megapixels for the average photographer. Anything more than 5 megapixels is overkill for the average point & shooter like myself.
One of the nicest things is the ability to take as many shots as you need to get it right. If it’s a scenery shot, I can take 10 at different angles or exposures, and then just use the best one. Even better, I can photoshop it to bring out the best.
March 26th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
I vote not crap. Digital cameras are a better deal than film cameras. You don’t have to keep buying film and you don’t have to pay for messed up pictures. Of course if you buy way more camera than you need it could fall into the crap category. There are many products that could be crap that way though.
March 26th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I vote deal — if you buy yesterday’s digital camera. Basically in the point-and-shoot arena, none of today’s cameras are any better than the cameras that were available years ago at half the megapixels. The lense hasn’t improved, the sensor size/qualify hasn’t improved — all that’s happened is you get a blown up version of the same pic. Great, now you have to resize it down by 1/3rd or 1/4th to remove all the visual artifacts. What a waste of disk space/flash space.
March 26th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Voted for not crap. I wish I could vote for crap. There are so many crappy cameras that have lenses the size of pin holes and flashes that can illuminate about as much as cheap lighter.
I’ve never seen a picture I like out of a cell phone, and rarely do you get good pictures out of a cheap camera. Sure if you like a noisy mess of slushy image then a 69 dollar camera off ebay is the way to go. I consider this, if you take one picture a day for 4 years and went with a 35mm point and shoot you would spend about 240 bucks on 3.99 24 exposure film. You would spend about the same on developing, plus about 30 bucks on the camera. So if you spend 510 or less you will be breaking even. If you take more pictures than this (I can take 400 in a day) then you’ll be way further ahead.
Sure I spent about 1500 when I got my camera and a kit with it, but I got it in 2003 and people still comment on how clear my pictures are. It’s probably taken over 10000 images in the 4 years I’ve had it. I’ve been contemplating going with the Olympus E510 when it comes out with a couple of lenses, but mine still does so well I find it hard to justify.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:32 am
My nuclear family aren’t camera people, we normally run and get a disposable before a big event. I almost want one because then you’d never have to worry about buying film, keeping negatives handy, putting the photos in a book. However I’m sure one of us would drop or lose it.
For me it’s not worth it, yet, but it might be later. On the fence but leaning toward not crap.
March 28th, 2007 at 9:39 am
No, I don’t think digital cameras are crap as long as you don’t get too ahead of yourself. I think people should buy a nice decent digital at a mid range price. Take care of it the best you can so that it will last a long time. Get a memory card for lots of pictures. Digital cameras save you lots of money in the long run on getting pictures developed. Just upload the pics to your computer for free. Plus, memories should be preserved no matter how much it costs.
March 4th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Absolutely NOT crap! Digital cameras are great and they are getting cheaper all the time. Ebay is always selling really reasonable cameras all the time. The only thing is back your pictures up! You need some insurance all of your memories are intact!
Jerry
http://www.leads4insurance.com