Thread: Digital Cameras

Of course it's not flat batteries.
The Ricoh quit, with the lens extended, in 2007.
The others were unresponsive to changing batteries, too.

Ian, thanks for the list of cameras. I'll be going into the city next week and I'll take that grocery list with me.

Buying used computers for $50 each pretty much guarantees that there are skeletons in the closet. I added things (DVD burner, scanner, etc) for the benefit of friends and family. I don't need them. I hooked everything up. I installed all the software, I fiddled around and discovered that they all did work. Then I shut them off.

Using my most recent digital camera purchase, the Kodak C190 as an example:
You get one look, one look only, and the camera reformats the memory card. The images are gone. Does not smell like operator error to me in part because it doesn't matter who is holding the camera at the time..

Believe me, if I could post a picture, I would have already done so.
Hate to say it but if I don't have pictures, it's really hard to post.
"Animal Portraits" (wood carvings) of moose, elk, caribou, white-tail & mule deer, mountain sheep & goat and bison, 30-45cm tall. I have not done the grizzly or black bears, lynx, cougar or bobcat, wolf or coyote, but I will. Everybody lives within 30 minutes of my house.
I am pleased that just yesterday, I was asked to recut them all as wood block prints!

If the Kodak programming instructions fail, I'll hire somebody to to the pictures.

I shall begin this thread again.
Digital cameras are fantastic things, they work wonderfully well. I know that because every digital camera (4) that I've bought has been as convenient as I could have ever possibly imagined. Yes! As new, they operated exactly as described. Very nice. However, I doubt that you give a goanna's butt to see a picture of a dog chasing trout in a creek taken 10 years ago. Neither do I.

I have just one single puzzle:

In my experience, they quit/die/become nonfunctional so quickly that the images have cost me $7 each in terms of the capital costs of the cameras.

On my planet, in order for something to quit = nonfunctional, the implication is that it must have been operating normally (= 1) in order for it to go to (0) = dead. I need a digital camera which functions normally and I need it now. I had a very productive winter of wood carving. I want to photograph the finished ones (10 maybe another in a week.) Time for show-and-tell.

If you re-read my original post, I asked what the price of reliability is.
Do you recommend that I spend $100 or do you recommend that I spend $2,000.00? What is the cost of continued reliability beyond $7/image?

ian contributed a testimonial of reliability. Then he contributed a list of the cameras. I'll add the other suggestions to that list and go shopping next week.

Well, my ICOM World clock shows me that it's 3AM in Sydney. I'll go back to pruning grapevines while you study your eyelids.

Originally Posted by Robson Valley

I I.
I have just one single puzzle:
In my experience, they quit/die/become nonfunctional so quickly
If you re-read my original post, I asked what the price of reliability is.
.

Maybe an extended warranty might be worthwhile considering your history of digital camera ownership
I've never had problems with my succesion of Nikon DC's. (I swapped from Nikon film gear because of their reliability and the lens quality)
FWIW..If you buy a point and shoot, get one with the best quality lens you can afford.
.remember, whatever you take a pic of, it still has to travel through that bit of glass up front.

Originally Posted by Robson Valley

If you re-read my original post, I asked what the price of reliability is.
Do you recommend that I spend $100 or do you recommend that I spend $2,000.00? What is the cost of continued reliability beyond $7/image?

Hi RV, perhaps a visit to one of the digital camera forums might be good for some research on expected reliability.

for what it's worth (and it's not much), I have still a Canon digital that is going strong after 6 years and thousands of photos. It cost me a few hundred back then so that's averaging out at about 5c to 10c per photo. My Pentax D-SLR cost me nothing but travel time (frequent flyer points) and it's been excellent, no trouble at all and I am very happy with it, and has taken about a thousand now, so 0c per photo average ) My daughters each have had Canon digitals costing about the $100 mark and have had no trouble with them at all, both with many many snaps so again a low price per photo. Your mileage will most certainly vary.

Originally Posted by pjr

Hi RV, perhaps a visit to one of the digital camera forums might be good for some research on expected reliability.

I frequent several photography and camera forums (mainly Canon) and find those forums are full of too many instant or self proclaimed experts- ie I bought a digital camera today and now I know it all. Unlike this forum, which is one of the most objective I have ever been on and one is judged by what one does with rather than what one owns, most photo forum posts are just limited information opinions.

for what it's worth (and it's not much), I have still a Canon digital that is going strong after 6 years and thousands of photos. It cost me a few hundred back then so that's averaging out at about 5c to 10c per photo. My Pentax D-SLR cost me nothing but travel time (frequent flyer points) and it's been excellent, no trouble at all and I am very happy with it, and has taken about a thousand now, so 0c per photo average ) My daughters each have had Canon digitals costing about the $100 mark and have had no trouble with them at all, both with many many snaps so again a low price per photo. Your mileage will most certainly vary.

I agree the brand names (Canon, Pentax, Nikon etc) will generally have better longevity.
My wife's 5Mp Ixus lasted about 4 years before the CCD died which was a bit disappointing but I still bought her another one. This will be her third Ixus, the oldest is a 3 Mp and still works fine. We use Pentax DSLR cameras at work by staff and students and they get driven quite hard so I can certain vouch for their robustness, I just find them a bit small for my hands.

BTW unless someone else is paying for your flights or $ spent on loyalty schemes don't be fooled into thinking those points cost you nothing whether you are in them or not. Every single $ spent in systems where these schemes operate is loaded up to cover the overall cost of these programs - including their admin. If the these programs were scrapped the savings might have enable you to buy two cameras
The worst schemes have to be those operated by the banks, why can't they scrap these crappy schemes and just pay higher interest, the $cash they give back is pathetic.

Originally Posted by BobL

I frequent several photography and camera forums...

BTW unless someone else is paying for your flights

ah, I don't really frequent any photography or camera forums so am not up on their regular activities but have found some good reviews whenever I have needed to look. I understand links to other forums are not allowed here...

Yes, free to me other than the time and hassle of work travel. )

Originally Posted by Robson Valley

I shall begin this thread again.
Digital cameras are fantastic things, they work wonderfully well. I know that because every digital camera (4) that I've bought has been as convenient as I could have ever possibly imagined. Yes! As new, they operated exactly as described. Very nice. However, I doubt that you give a goanna's butt to see a picture of a dog chasing trout in a creek taken 10 years ago. Neither do I.

I have just one single puzzle:

In my experience, they quit/die/become nonfunctional so quickly that the images have cost me $7 each in terms of the capital costs of the cameras.

On my planet, in order for something to quit = nonfunctional, the implication is that it must have been operating normally (= 1) in order for it to go to (0) = dead. I need a digital camera which functions normally and I need it now. I had a very productive winter of wood carving. I want to photograph the finished ones (10 maybe another in a week.) Time for show-and-tell.

If you re-read my original post, I asked what the price of reliability is.
Do you recommend that I spend $100 or do you recommend that I spend $2,000.00? What is the cost of continued reliability beyond $7/image?

ian contributed a testimonial of reliability. Then he contributed a list of the cameras. I'll add the other suggestions to that list and go shopping next week.

RV, here's some hard data

Casio EX-P700, cost ~$500, cost to date per image ~$0.10
Casio EX-Z1080, cost ~$210, cost to date per image ~$0.03
Sony DSC-TX5, cost ~$450, cost to date per image ~$0.53 (I've had it less than 4 months)
Sony DSC-H50, cost ~$950, cost to date per image ~$0.15

average cost per image from these 4 cameras (for over 18,700 images) is about 11 CENTS

Originally Posted by Robson Valley

Of course it's not flat batteries.
The Ricoh quit, with the lens extended, in 2007.
The others were unresponsive to changing batteries, too.

Using my most recent digital camera purchase, the Kodak C190 as an example:
You get one look, one look only, and the camera reformats the memory card. The images are gone. Does not smell like operator error to me in part because it doesn't matter who is holding the camera at the time

If the Kodak programming instructions fail, I'll hire somebody to to the pictures.

RV
your Kodak experience sounds to me as though
1) you're only using the camera's internal memory
or
2) you're using the camera in store demonstration mode

The Kodak Tech support people explained how to reprogram the int/ext memory selection. Not in the camera instructions but they have obviously faced the problem before as their detailed assistance came very quickly. The black magic part is that I have to wait 24 hrs to see how volatile the image storage is.

Hey! It's Kodak. Ever since their "Retina Reflex." TG, I never owned one.

Ian: Thank you very much for the numbers. That's what I was expecting to read.

OK, according to Kodak Tech Support, I waited 24 hrs and the images are still on the chip.
I made a folder in "My Pictures" for those 10 pictures.

Took the chip out of the camera, put it in the chip-reader.
Computer says: "Nope. I'll make a different folder for your pictures , a folder with a title that you'll never, ever remember."
Whatever. I'm tired.
So I decided to try to rename the serial numbers of the images, something that might make more sense than (*&(&*9879875.
Computer says " Nope. You do that and the file will be inaccessible."
Pull your thumbs out of your mouths. These are my first 10 pictures. I'll bet you all were Olympic-speed mouse clickers in digital photography before it was even invented. Good for you.

Yes, my computer is filled with folders of pictures left for me by well-meaning friends and family. I NEVER saw how they did it.

a) my 2 hrs per day with digital photography have expired
b)I have 10 pictures in my camera that I would really like to make use of.
c) I have deleted 10 or 15 photo software packages that various people have told me were the "only thing that works right".
d) I am not prepared to install Kodak's software for fear that it will poison every folder of OPP, forever more, that I have now. That would be so typically Kodak. (Hey! Big Yellow Mother! You watching?)

In Windows 7 (and probably Vista, but I've never used that), the default picture import is as follows:

Insert compact flash/SD/MicroSD card into reader.
Windows will recognise the card and put up the "Removable Disk - Picture Options" box (first screen cap).

Taking the very first option - "Import Pictures and Videos (using Windows)" will cause the "Import Pictures and Videos" dialogue box to pop up (bottom right of second screencap). and it will ask you to Tag (a silly term for Name) these pictures.

Hitting the underlined blue Import settings text in this dialogue box will bring up the second, larger box of options (left hand side of second screencap).

This second dialogue box will give you options for where to import (default is My Pictures), how to name the folder created to hold them (default name is Date Imported plus any tag you specified in the first box).

The default action is to create a new folder for each session of importing, but Windows won't let you selectively import just the last half dozen or whatever pics - it'll want to import every pic on the card, so you have to review and delete the content of the folder manually if there are pics that have already been imported before.

From memory, Windows XP is much the same, but it gives you fewer naming schemas but more flexibility in which pics to import.

Thanks for useful, practical beginner's instructions. I will use them later today.
The camera takes pictures again. Wonders never cease. Better yet, although the cropping/composition cut some parts off some of them, on the computer screen, all 10 appeared to be in focus as well. I was a little disconcerted to discover that the camera memory chip is now empty again, No back ups.
Maybe "copy" instead of "transfer?"
Kodak explained to me how to make certain that the pictures are recorded in the camera where I want them to be.
The camera memory card is not volatile over 24 hrs.
I expect to finish off the Ookpik project today so I'll have something else to photograph and practice transferring them into the computer.

Is this an oxymoron or just a moron?
There is a Kodak EasyShare CD which came with the camera.
So Kodak asks me:
"Is the software properly installed in your computer?"
Say what? Can't say I completely trust those guys yet.

Originally Posted by Robson Valley

I was a little disconcerted to discover that the camera memory chip is now empty again, No back ups.
Maybe "copy" instead of "transfer?"
Kodak explained to me how to make certain that the pictures are recorded in the camera where I want them to be.
The camera memory card is not volatile over 24 hrs.

"transfer" in this context means what it means in normal use -- transfer from one to another

normally, I'll "copy" images from a card to a PC
If I want to clear the card to fit in more photos I will use the camera menu functions and "format" the card. -- I suggest you studiously avoid doing this, the card you have is probably good to store >1,000 images

Note that consumer solid state memory cards (memory chips) are not volatile -- they either work or they don't. If the later your only option is the bin.

as to storage locations -- some cameras can create multiple folders (storage locations) on a card
let's not go there for now

Memory retention on any of the compact flash/SD/MicroSD/Memory Stick media should exceed 10 years.

It requires no power to retain memory and only degrades via weird quantum mechanical happenings as the memory is based on Fowler-Nordheim tunneling (trivia...the original paper was written in 1928, so it took about 70 years to 'invent' flash media).

I'm still using one that went through the wash (all information intact), and they have even worked after hitting the sea bed.

Any removal of data requires a deliberate step by the device to erase the content of a memory cell - meaning an actual erase command - the memory doesn't change state by itself over the near-term.