Digital Domain

About a year ago, I bought my first digital camera. A friend was going to Japan, and said he could get a deal out there. Since many quality digital cameras in the marketplace are Japanese, I thought, sure why not? He highly recommended getting a Minolta, one of the tiny thin ones that people claim can fit in an Altoids box (not sure how Altoids gets the product placement so often, but there you have it).

I had a few months to think it over, so I started to investigate digital cameras. I had no idea what to look for, but found two great sites for camera reviews: http://dcresource.com and http://dpreview.com. Oh, there was also Steve's Digicams.

I spent hours, over many days, trying to decide what I wanted. In fact, I wanted to move up to an X50 which would have been brand new then, though it's now just about a year old, and the X60 is now out. In the end, I decided to go with the Xg, which was basically what my friend recommended.

He told me that with a tiny camera, I could carry it everywhere, thus increasing the likelihood I'd actually use it. I didn't much believe it then, but I do now. Since then, I've bought two more tiny cameras. Well, one nearly as tiny, and one a lot bulkier. I've almost never used the bulky one. It's just a little too large to conveniently carry.

I know that the bigger camera is superior as a camera. It has a lot more functionality and is better built. I simply don't use it. Instead, I use my SD200. I feel inadequate with it, since the SD500 was just released, but it does what I need it to do.

Digital cameras have really made a huge difference in the way people take photos. Back in the day, you'd shell out between $3 and $5 for film, then only get 24 or 36 photos, and then shell out maybe $5 to $8 to get it developed and printed, and then, you'd have photographs that you'd have to store, and it'd be hard to give to your friends. All in all, it was a painful ordeal. Let's not forget that a camera was hardly portable, even the tiny Kodak's that you could get.

Now, people quickly download it to their computers, and upload it to a favorite photo site, and people can easily share their pix. It's quite a convenience, and people know it.

I have a friend who uses a camera phone. As cameras go, camera phones suck. They are barely 1 megapixels, where an average digital cam is 3 megapixels, and a high end is 8 or more megapixels (you don't really need that much, unless you want huge photos, and they do eat up lots of memory). Still, it's just good enough to take snapshots, and he always has his phone with him.

Even so, a friend of ours used a digital cam at the Aquarium, producing much nicer results. I let Dave borrow the Minolta I wasn't using, so he could take quality photos that he'd been craving.

I got the new Canon because I wanted some features that the Xg didn't have. In particular, I wanted a larger screen (bonus), and a TV video out (don't even use it). However, it has one vastly annoying feature that the Minolta did not have. It doesn't remember my flash settings. Generally, I don't want flash. Yet, each time I turn the camera off, then on, it goes back into autoflash mode, as if I were a complete idiot.

It's damned frustrating (woohoo, profanity!), really. I know why Canon did it. They figure a person might turn off the flash, and then later on, turn the camera on, want to take a picture, and woops, they forgot the flash! Except, it's the opposite with me. I want the flash off, and only when I remember should I turn it on. The Minolta camera I used did exactly that.

I just saw a new Minolta called the X1, which looks really nice. It's fairly new, and because it's 8 MP, I suspect it will cost $400 or so. The number of megapixels isn't so critical with me. Even 4 MP is plenty enough. But usually, when you get a high-end camera, you're looking at other features.

It has a 2.5 in display. True, it only displays about 118,000 pixels on the display compared with maybe 200,000 if I got a Canon or a Sony, but that's good enough, I think. It has video out, anti-shake, and a bunch of smaller features I'd like. So I'm tempted to buy yet another digital camera, possibly this X1. I'll have to wait and see on the prices though. What I'd rather see is the equivalent of the X1 but down in the 5 MP region. However, camera companies don't like to do this. More megapixels often get bundled with more features.

I know there are those who still believe in quality of film or at the very least, decent lenses for a good SLR, but the convenience of taking 300 or more pictures (the equivalent of 15 rolls of 24 exposure film), having my camera everywhere I go, being able to download it on a computer, not worrying about the Xray machine at the airport, not having to pay for development costs is worth it to me. I'd rather have convenience and take good photographs, then inconvenience and take great ones.