I Know This Is A Long Shot (Off Topic) Digital Camera

littlejuniata

littlejuniata

Active member
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
1,743
Does anyone know anything about this camera,http://www.crutchfield.com/S-4A2R8X5uiYk/App/Product/Item/Main.aspx?I=280A720IS
 
Little J- sorry can't help with that camera.

Not to throw you off but if your looking you might want to consider a Olympus Stylus 770SW.

It is shock proof so dropping it on a rock from 5 feet or less is ok. It is also waterproof to 33ft. Takes good underwater pictures.

Also very small and packs in vests etc. well.

I have had used mine dozens and dozens of times and has worked flawlessly. It also has a rechargable battery and charger.

Seems to be in the neighborhood pricewise of the camera your looking at. I think a board member "mute" bought this same camera. He got his about half price on a reconditioned model.

Good luck- the recent pictures you have posted have been real nice.
 
Never heard anyone ever complain about a Canon anything...Just get a big memory card...those pics will be about 5 MB a piece...

That Olympus he mentioned is nice too...I had a Pentax and it was a piece of crap...paid 200 and it died...they offered to fix it for 135...for less than half of that I decided to get one of these ...
 
With cameras, everyone focuses on megapixels, zoom, and size. Today, though, all cameras have more than 3 or 4 megapixels. Unless you want to blow up your pictures to poster size, thats all thats really needed, you won't see a difference between say a 5 MP and a 9 MP. The marketing on MP is ridiculous, and leftover from the days when a 1 MP camera was high.

The overlooked, but most important part, is the quality of the optics (the actual lens), quality of the camera itself (avoid little plastic parts), and the image software on the camera (colors, brightness, contrast, etc.). There's not much to measure here though without going into some serious engineering stuff, so you won't see it on the specs. What it means is that its usually better to determine what price you want to spend first, and then pick the LOWEST megapixel camera in that price range. For fishermen, water resistance and shock resistance (avoid plastic) also are factors.

Can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon. There's other good ones too, but those two companies make cameras that take reliably excellent pictures. I have a Canon powershot, a nice little point and shoot job with a metal case. Not exactly a professional camera, but it takes really nice pictures, and fits easily into a pocket. I spent the extra money and bought one of the waterproof cases Canon makes for all its cameras, the camera is usable in the case and you can do underwater shots (went snorkeling with it), though its much more bulky in the case.
 
Little j
I don't have the 8 mp but did buy the 7.1 mp PS A710IS
last June as a back-up for my Nikon on a trip to Alaska. I
bought it for it's 6Xoptical zoom which not many cameras
have. Best investment ever made, took great landscape shots
etc. Worth every penny spent. Camera is a little larger and heavier than most, it also goes through batterys quick so I
would recomend rechargeables.
 
this is a timely topic as i'm considering a digital camera purchase,even though i'm old fashioned and have been resistant.

what's good for photos of fish,but also small detail like flies.

and of course,what's the cheapest one you can get away with ? :)

next thing you know i'll get a TV and a cell phone....not!
 
You might want to look for one with image stabilization...(sorry too easy, shakey)

The cheapest one you can get away with is the one that has everything you need and costs the least. You have to go to some place like best buy or wherever that has a couple dozen display models and just play with them. Find one that easy for you to use and gets as close and as far away as you want it to...then buy that model wherever you want.

The really cheap one I bought, while I've only had it a week and haven't really played around wit it much, doesn't take the best close up macro shots...it takes great snapshots at normal distances and has a very nice flash, but at that price you 're gonna give up something...
 
Check Consumer Reports,got the wife a Kodak for Christmas works great. Image stabilazation is a must.
 
pcray1231 wrote,
With cameras, everyone focuses on megapixels, zoom, and size. Today, though, all cameras have more than 3 or 4 megapixels. Unless you want to blow up your pictures to poster size, thats all thats really needed, you won't see a difference between say a 5 MP and a 9 MP. The marketing on MP is ridiculous, and leftover from the days when a 1 MP camera was high.

Sorry I have to disagree with that. The more pixels you have the better. You might not see a difference with the naked eye for a common size of 4x6, but blow a section up and your see the difference.
 
Shoot, I replied to this but must not have completed it correctly. So thanks for all the great suggestions, I will check all them all. I have a low end 4 meg Casio QV R 40 witch is a little dated now, but still does a great job, tough little bugger too, I dropped it on cement one day while going fishing, battery door flew open and batteries flew out, still works great. I will check the suggestions out and yea megapixels are blown way out, right now lens is the factor I think. I am a little in favor of Canons. Thanks again
 
If you are looking for a camera to take on stream I would consider only the Pentax Optio and Olympus SW series. I have a olympus 720 SW, and while is just a run of the mill point and shoot in terms of capabilities it has been dunked, dropped, and sat on for two+ years now and continues to take good pictures.
 
LJ, I used to hown a Canon digital camera, until I went swimming with it in the Little Schuylkill one day unintentionly. I loved it and I'm now considering a canon digial SLR.
 
Thanks: I know there are some great underwater cameras out there, but I really don't want to go that route. Chaz Been there, I had a Canon 35mm Power Shot, was up at Spring Creek during a Sulphur hatch and dunked it while netting a trout, I was pizzed because at the time it was brand new, on the way home I opened the camera and placed it over the defrost vents, ran high heat alll the way home, the darned thing still works today. I was looking at SLRs and promised myself I would buy one when the price was right, but am sort of looking at the bulk, they are pretty big, I like something that I can keep in my vest and have it when needed. My brother has a high end Nikon, great camera but a little bulky. I have a Canon AE-1 with 3 or 4 lenses which is still a great camera
 
This tiny, cheap, underwater camera is a wonderful thing.
A Pentax Optio W10 or a 20 or 30 is a tiny waterproof camera. Kinda cheap, only a couple beans!! I paid 3.5 a couple years ago, but cameras come down in price.


IMGP1910.jpg



IMGP0063.jpg



​

Underwater pix are neat too!
 
Very cool pictures. Some of the pics I posted were taken at low megs, then cropped out, gives a nice effect, the one of the Little J showing all the "bugs" was cropped way out.
 
For a camera to take along fishing,the Pentax Optio W 10 can't be beat. I've used mine for 2 years and it takes great pictures. The macro feature is as good as any you will see. The size is smaller than your smallest fly box. And best of all ,it is water-proof.All the mega pixels and zoom lenses won't amount to anything after it gets dunked a few times. Been there,done that
 
i ended up buying an olympus fe-210.

weird.i'm modern now.if i figure out how tu use it,it will be handy.
 
I just recently purchased the olympus 790sw for my wife and it's a decent camera for the price. I do own a canon 20d slr and i take it with me all the time. It's quite a bit larger, but I have reduced the amount of fishing gadgets that I take with me. I use a lanyard around my neck and one box of flies now to accomodate the sling pack on my back with the camera. No vest either.
 
I just got the Olympus Stylus 790 SW a couple days ago. The only reason was because it was waterproof. Last night I was playing around with it and it really takes some nice photos of flies. I have never had any luck with fly pix before....So that was a nice bonus to find that I can now photo my flies.
 
shakey wrote:
this is a timely topic as i'm considering a digital camera purchase,even though i'm old fashioned and have been resistant.

what's good for photos of fish,but also small detail like flies.

and of course,what's the cheapest one you can get away with ? :)

next thing you know i'll get a TV and a cell phone....not!
Click to expand...

I thought I was the only person left in the Western hemisphere that doesn't have a TV or a cell phone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top