I'm looking at buying a new camera before a trip overseas later this year & really like the features of APS cameras (small size, mid-roll film change, 3 photo sizes etc). Does anyone have any experience with these (in particular the canon elph/ixus models)? The smaller negative size isn't an issue with me as I tend not to ever blow up photos.
Thanks in advance for all replies!

Hi Lucy & everyone:
This is like a twilight zone moment. I was just going to post a message asking the identical questions Lucy posed!! But I decided to do a search first & there was Lucy's message. So I look forward to any replies! I was looking at one of the Canon ones (Elph 2, maybe) that is APS, compact, and has a zoom lens on it. I have heard that the Canon are better quality than the Kodak- any comments from anyone on that?
Teri

[This message has been edited by Teri (edited February 07, 2001).]

Lucy & Teri,

There was a thread about this back in October. Click on the link below. I think it will answer your questions. If you have unanswered questions, please let us know as there are several of us who would be glad to give you some info.
http://www.trafbb.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/000276.html

Mike

Hi there,

my husband bought me a new Pentax Espio 140M for my birthday in November, and I have been experimenting and getting pretty good results. The only caution I had from the processors was that because I had taken panoramic sized shots, if I didn't tell them to print them out that way, they would print them in normal size, so that might be a little tip to remember when you hand your film in. They also cost more to process I understand.

Angela

Thank-you all for your replies!
What a coincidence Teri - I will probably also go for the Elph 2!! Its so tiny & stylish & also gets good reviews on the www.epinions.com web site. Thanks also to Mike, Infotrack & Angela for your replies. I've now read the old thread on the topic. I was surprised to hear Angela that you had to specifically ask your processor for panoramic prints - I assumed it was automatically done so thanks for the tip!

I have a Canon Elph camera, and I don't like it. I don't think it takes very good pictures. Actually, when we went to Italy, I took a Walgreen's disposable panoramic camera and it worked great. Then I got this Elph, and I was disappointed in the results in the panoramics when compared with the disposable one. The Elph panoramics are grainy (I used 200 speed film and they shouldn't be grainy) and the contrast is not as good. Granted, the Elph is small, the film is removable, and there is a telescopic lens, but I still don't like it. I'm a Canon fan; I have an EOS Elan II and a Sure Shot Max. Perhaps I just got a bad camera with the Elph, but I'm taking the Sure Shot to Paris in March. It works great!

Hi Everyone,
I went looking at cameras today, and was shocked to find Elph 2's are $425 in Australia!! So this has just all become a bit irrelevant to me now...
I'll either stick with my old Canon Prima or get a new 35 mm with a zoom, I think.
One of the shops had posted up photos taken with the Elph to show the different print sizes, and they looked OK to me other than the panoramic one, which did look a bit grainy.
Teri

Hi Mike,
I gather you know your cameras. So I was hoping you could help (or anyone else our there) with a few other questions.
I think I've decided to go with a 35 mm point & shoot instead of an APS, and was thinking about maybe one of the Canon sure shot ones with a zoom. But I've been reading some stuff that says having a zoom lens affects photo quality generally, but maybe if you have aspheric lenses it doesn't?!?- picture quality is important to me (one of the reasons I decided against the APS), and I'm a bit uncertain whether I should get a zoom or not. I've got a very old Canon Prima (no zoom) which has given me excellent quality photos for a novice like myself over the years, and I would naturally be disappointed if the quality dropped with a new camera.
Also, I was hoping someone could explain what the zoom lens designations actually mean- eg. what is the practical difference between a 38-120 mm versus a 38-60 mm?
Thanks very much,
Teri

Hi Teri,
A zoom lens give you the ability to change your view from wide angle to close up (In the extreme cases) without changing lens.
The lens that you have mention (38 mm - 120 mm) will have a moderate wide angle to a moderate close up).
Human eyes have a view point equivalent of a 50 mm, so a 38 mm can view slightly more than a view of a human eye without moving the eye balls.
Having say that, most of todays's moderately priced point and shot camera have good quality lens, some even with aspheric lens (Samsung).
If quality of the pictures is really of your concern, stay away from those point & shot camera and get an good SLR with a good zoom lens, they are still pricy but you got what you paid for, and a lot of them are just as easy to use as any point & shot camera.
Personally I use a Canon Rebel SLR with a Tamron 28 - 200 mm zoon lens and you can see the pictures at www.lpang.com


Louie

Teri,

Boy I hope this answers more questions than it raises. There are a lot of tradeoffs in photography (cost vs quality of lens vs weight of camera/lens vs any number of other issues). It is virtually impossible to give an answer that will be the same for everyone. My needs (and budget) may not be the same as yours or the same as Louie�s. In posing camera questions, you also run into a number of Holy Wars. A lot of people take their photography almost as a religion. If you don�t use Nikon or Leica or Canon or {insert your favorite here}, your pictures will be trash. Others get worked up over APS vs 35mm vs medium format. I�ll do my best to give you my thoughts, but a lot of it may be in generalities. If some of what I say is elementary to you, I apologize. If some of it doesn�t make sense, I�ll be glad to clarify. I�ll probably go over point & shoot cameras, single lens reflex cameras, and some generalities on zooms.

A lot of your choice comes down to what you want to pay. The least expensive quality non-zoom point and shoot (P&S) is generally considered to be the Olympus Stylus Epic (which I believe is called the Mju-II in the rest of the world). In the States, that will run you under $100. (If I mention money, everything will be in US dollars.) It has a very good 35mm lens. The lens is fast (f2.8) basically meaning that it can take a picture in less light (which could come in handy in a church or museum where flash is forbidden). P&S zooms come in all flavors. Louie did a good job explaining what the numbers mean. 38 (being 38mm) is getting into slightly wide angle territory (which is good). The higher number (60 or 120) is the telephoto end of the range. Like Louie said, 50mm is generally considered equivalent to how most people see the world (if that makes any sense). Divide the higher number by 50 and you will get an idea of the magnification provided. The 120mm will make the image about 2.4 times larger than normal (and I supposed roughly 3 times larger than the 38mm). While you might think that a P&S with an extreme range is better, it may not be, especially for pictures taken at the far end (telephoto) end of the range. While a P&S zoom lens may be f3.5 or f4 at the wide angle end, it winds up being an f12.3 or f13.5 at the extreme (telephoto) end. Bigger numbers mean less light will reach the film. Those last two f-stops I mentioned aren�t �normal� f-stops, so I can�t easily figure the difference, but it is somewhere between 1/8 and 1/16 of the light that would be let in by a lens open at f4. It takes a certain amount of light reaching the film to expose it. This depends on the f-stop and the shutter speed (and the film speed too). If less light is coming down the lens, then the shutter has to stay open longer to let enough light in to expose the film. Slower shutter speeds mean you need to take more care to hold the camera steady or your �camera shake� will make the picture less sharp. The bottom line here is that if you have a P&S zoom and use that zoom at the extreme telephoto end, you may well get a picture that isn�t as sharp as you would like. Most (all?) of the P&S cameras give you no indication of the shutter speed & f-stop used, so you have no way of knowing when to be extra careful. (At best, they might warn you if the shutter speed is at 1/30 of a second or below.) Most people with a P&S zoom will use ASA 400 speed film to lessen the likelihood of such problems. (Higher speed film will mean a faster shutter speed, all other things being equal.) Most people that get a P&S zoom are better served with a moderate telephoto (90, 105, 135) at the top end, in my opinion.

Louie mentioned the single lens reflex (SLR) cameras. With SLRs, you definitely get more flexibility, mainly because the lenses are interchangeable. His zoom pretty much covers all the bases (28 to 200mm), but he could get a wider angle lens (24mm or even wider) if he desired, a telephoto lens beyond 200mm, or a 50mm lens. Most of what I mentioned about zooms on P&S cameras doesn�t apply to zooms on SLRs. His zoom probably ranges from f3.8 (at 28mm) to f5.6 (at 200mm), so you don�t see the extreme light falloff problems when zoomed. I�ve never used a Canon Rebel, so I don�t know what he sees in the viewfinder as far as f-stop and shutter speed indications, but it surely is more information than you will see in a P&S. The potential drawbacks to SLRs are weight and cost. They are definitely much bigger and heavier than P&S cameras. (You can put the Stylus Epic in your pocket or purse. Try that with an SLR.) I took a quick peek at an on-line camera reseller. You would probably pay at least $500 for a kit (camera and lens) like his. (The high end Canon runs almost $1900 mail-order just for the body, so the Rebel is really a bargain in fact.) I took an Olympus SLR on our trip last summer (with too many lenses). My twelve year old used his Olympus Stylus Epic (non-zoom). In general, my pictures were better than his, but a lot of that is from having almost 30 years more experience. So much quality in pictures comes from experience. An excellent photographer will probably take better pictures with a good P&S than most other people would take with a multi-thousand dollar SLR. For what it is worth, 99% of my pictures were taken with a 35-105 zoom and with a 50mm lens. (The 50mm lens was used in churches and museums. Most 50mm lenses are f1.4, f1.8, or f2, so they can take pictures in � to � of the light needed by an f2.8 lens shooting at the same shutter speed.) I took a 24mm wide angle but rarely used it. I never used the 70-210 zoom I took.

Zooms can certainly be handy. The quality of zooms these days is MUCH improved over the quality of most zooms from 20 or 30 years ago (when they got a pretty bad rap). In most cases, however, the quality of a fixed focus lens is better than that of a zoom. (In general, you get what you pay for when it comes to lenses although there are certainly bargains to be found in terms of cost versus quality.) For most people, a 4x6 print made using either type of lens will look the same. A zoom gives you the luxury of getting a little bigger picture of something when you can�t walk closer or of zooming in to better frame the picture the way you want. With an SLR, since you are looking through the lens, you see EXACTLY (more or less) what you�ll get whereas with a P&S you don�t. To get a zoom or not is one of those personal decisions one has to make without really knowing all the facts. (If you could take both type cameras and have someone shoot one while you shot the other and take the exact same pictures at the same time, you might be able to make a decision. More likely though you would find that you didn�t always prefer the pictures from the same camera. Since you can�t do this, you�re left with making a decision AND DON�T LOOK BACK.)

You probably mentioned it in some other thread, but where are you going and when is your trip? Best of luck in your camera choices. If any of us can answer any other questions, just ask. Please let us know what you pick.

Mike

Louie,

I've enjoyed looking at your marvelous pictures. I've got a couple of questions though. Are you scanning the finished pictures, scanning the negatives and using PhotoShop (or whatever) to come up with the pictures, or getting them from a photo-CD? I've been scanning my 4x6 pictures. I've only gotten about 30 done so far, but the more I do the quicker I'm getting. If you're scanning pictures, what are you using for settings on the scanner? I've generally been using 200dpi (occassionally 300dpi). I always have to fool with the colors somewhat to get the scanned picture close to the actual picture and then sharpen it. I've been saving everything as TIFFs so far but will go back and resave everything as JPEG for uploading to the net. I know that scanned negatives are supposed to be the "best" way to go, but I don't have the time (or the money) to purchase a film scanner and use it. (I've heard people spend a LONG time getting their pictures just so so when scanning from negatives.) Since I'm in the process now, I'm curious as to what you've been doing (and would of course welcome any hints/gotchas you might have).

Thanks much.

Mike

Hi Mike,
I'm just using a simple scanner on my regular 4*6 prints, usually set at 300 dpi, my friends told me anything over 300 dpi won't show up in computer monitor anyway.
I knew a negative scanner will have much better result, it's a bit too expensive for me.
I stored my pictures in JPEG with minimum or no compression with Microsoft PhotoEditor.
I think the only editing I did was to reverse the image (after scanning) and bring it down to size that fit my monitor.
Yes, it is a long and time consuming process, FrontPage can create the website, but it can't help create the contents.

Hope these help.
Louie

Hi Mike & Louie,
Thanks very much for your replies! That all actually makes sense. But I need to digest it a bit more to see if I come up with more questions.
I won't go for an SLR, partly due to the cost, and partly due to wanting something smaller/lighter in weight.
I mentioned Canon just because my current one has been great. It has a major flaw, though- you cannot turn off the flash. Also I want a zoom to play with. (And Mike explained zoom lenses much better than the camera store guy).
One question on the speed of film: I do realize that different film is better in different lighting etc., but if you need to pick something to use is various conditions, what would you generally go for? I have used I think it was called "Kodak Gold" that is supposed to be multipurpose.
I'm going to London, a tour of Europe (Trafalgar's Grand European), ending with some extra days in Paris & London, for the month of May.
Thanks again,
Teri

Mike, Louie et al:

Starting another thread on scanners.

Louie,

Thanks for the info.


Teri,

I'm still of the opinion that ASA 400 speed film covers the bases best (as far as shooting both indoors without flash and outdoors). You might want to check out this link. http://www.photographyreview.com/reviews/print_film/ Kodak Gold 400 didn't come out too great on the user ratings. For my 400 I used Kodak Supra 400 (which is relatively new and may be hard to find) and 2 or 3 rolls of Fuji 400 (don't recall which Fuji it was). There are a couple (at least) of "secrets" about print films. First of all, they have a lot of exposure latitude (unlike slide film). You can overexpose or underexpose by several f-stops and still get acceptable prints. Adjustments can be made at the time of actual printing to compensate for overexposed or underexposed negatives (within reason). Some photographers even deliberately overexpose slightly to pick up additional detail in the shadow areas. The second "secret" is that the lab doing the printing is the biggest determinant of how good your pictures will look (assuming a properly exposed, focused, etc. negative). There are many kinds of papers used for prints (made by Kodak, Fuji, and to a lesser extent Agfa primarily). Pictures from certain films look better on particular papers. Also, when a print is made, filtering adjustments are made depending upon the kind of film used. (These are called channels. The filtering is so that your orange negative can be printed with the proper colors). If you use a film the lab hasn't dealt with previously, they'll take a guess as to the right filter pack to use (which may or may not be the actual best). There are so many variables (film used, over or under exposed, filter pack for printing, type of paper used, high or low contrast subject, etc.) that there are no hard and fast rules (that I know of) that will let you positively pick the right film and the right lab to use. I'm giving you generalities again. If you've got a place that does a good job with the film you use, stick with them. If you'll be using a new kind of film, try it out at home first and see if you like the results. Your printer may be able to tell you what they recommend for ASA 400 speed film (if you opt to go that route).

Mike