Camera For Cruising

[Mike11]

I have always used a 35mm camera for cruise pictures. I have both a small Nikon point-and-shoot camera with 3x zoom and a Canon Rebel SLR camera with a zoom lense; both take excellent pictures. Which one I use pretty much relates to how much weight I want to carry, or how big a bag. I will be leaving on a Med cruise in May and wondered if I am the only one still using film.

 

I have noted on several threats that a large number of people seem to have gone to digital cameras. Most seem to like the light weight, small size, big capacity (the ability to take all the pictures you want, but only print the good ones). Has it reached the point where the digital cameras are just so small and convenient and produce such high quality pictures that they are really the best way to go?

 

Opinions please. Thanks.

[wwinfl91]

We had always used 35mm until a few years ago when we got our first Nikon digital camera. On the following cruise we took both the 35mm and the new digital and by the end of the cruise the 35mm was officially retired.

 

The ability with the digital camera to take many more pictures than I ever could even think of taking with a 35mm and the ability to edit and "improve" those pictures after you take them are great advantages.

 

When we got our first camera we spent almost $800. On a recent cruise, when that camera's on and off button finally died, we picked up another NIkon for $199 with an extra SD card and with 3 and 1/2 times the resolution of our original digital camera. The price and quality of digital cameras just keep getting better and better.

 

My advice would be find a medium priced good brand digital camera and give it a try. Once you have used one you may never want to go back to a 35mm.

 

IMHO

 

Have a great next cruise.

[melika091900]

yes digital is the best. we also have a NIkon which we purchased from DELL ,, great picture quality.. and we bought the energiver lithium batteries 10$ for 2,, but let me say weve taken 180 pics and the batteries are still good.. we havent changed them at all... so worth it .. .

and its so easy to take your memory card to walmart and put them in the machine and print them out in seconds...

we love digital, check out the nikon, that has been the best and easiest weve had,, its the NIKON COOLPIX 4600,, i believe it was 160 or less...

 

oh yeah click on my webshots link to see our pics with the nikon

[clackey]

Hola Mike,

 

I was slow to change over to the digital craze, but I did and I'm glad. We took a Kodak Easyshare DX 7630 with us on our last cruise. With a 512M memory card I took 220+ pictures which I downloaded into my computer. Then we, Miss Ginger had to edit for me, picked out our favorites and sent 140 of them to the processor. Great quality and if you don't like a picture you can delete it.

 

I can recommend the Kodak, but you can do a Google on digital cameras and research until you find what YOU want.

[wwinfl91]

I agree with the above poster that you should check out the Internet for ideas for a digital camera. Here is a really good web site that is pretty unbiased and has reviews of lots and lots of cameras and accessories.

 

http://www.steves-digicams.com/

 

Have fun searching.

[melika091900]

the kodak cameras are easy to use but IMO ,they dont last,

we went through like 2 of them in a short amount of time.. we never over used them .. only got about 150pics out of 1 of them, took it to a camera store and was told its not worth fixing , and was advised dont buy a KODAK digital camera

they are cheaper. but thats just my opinion..

i would recommend NOKIA brand,,

 

 

just my opinon

:)

[K&RCurt]

I was a 35mm loyalist. We had a cannon and a Minolta SLR both of which took great photos. Once we went digital, however, I never looked back. The smaller size, features and the lack of recurring costs of film and development really are a huge plus. I no longer think twice about clicking off a dozen shots of the same scene with minute changes. I now almost always get the "perfect" shot, and get rid of the poor photos with the touch of a button, without having paid for the film or developing.

 

I saw a press release some time ago that Nikon is no longer making film cameras. I guess the change is inevitable so you might as well jump on the bandwagon now!

[BallFour4]

Has it reached the point where the digital cameras are just so small and convenient and produce such high quality pictures that they are really the best way to go? Thanks.

 

I have two opinions for you, and the part of your question above relates to my first response. The small Canon SD 450 is around $300.00. Add a good case, a couple of gig storage cards and you've got enough camera for 500 images at a resolution for large prints.

 

Small point-and-shoot cameras have many features, but the one thing that hounds all of them is red-eye when using the flash. All have red-eye reduction, and that does help some, but you will spend some time editing the red-eye out of more images than you expected.

 

The second problem with the smaller cameras is shutter delay. I've owned both Nikon and Canon small cameras, and all have a slight delay in image time versus shutter time. Most get used to it, but for sports and kids photos it is sometimes frustrating.

 

The second part of what you talked about leads me to strongly encourage you to look at the Canon Digital Rebel XT. For around $900.00 you get a high mega pixel camera that has all the feel of your current 35mm camera.

 

I've owned one for about a year now, and it has been incredible. My lenses from the older Canon EOS Elan IIe all fit, and now I have a use for the lenses invested in over time.

 

With both cameras choices I encourage you to invest in high-speed memory, and a second battery. The Canon cameras described above all have off-camera chargers, so you can charge one battery while you use the second. In addition, the cases from Lowe's have a small pouch that holds memory cards and a spare battery.

 

The Nikon digital series SLR models are fine choices as well; I just had several Canon lenses. I have a 30-year-old Nikon F2 that remains a staple in my camera collection today.

 

Finally, digital photography has one limitation you will need to adapt to. Latitude is the forgiveness in exposure, and in digital it is narrow. Look at the disposable film cameras that have one shutter speed. Most all the pictures come out perfect. Digital imagery requires some tweaking of exposure based on backlighting and shadows.

 

Whatever you do just enjoy the unlimited editing features of digital photography.

 

Here is a link to my cruise related memories, and some from the personal side in Favorites as well.

 

http://community.webshots.com/user/blusry

 

Enjoy,

 

Lee in Houston

[prairie_fox]

so far all the Nikons we have in the family have all been great. Not a one I wouldnt love to keep for ever, great pics and easy use. Never had any problems wih them not working like they should and some have had harder use on them then others have. The newest thing we got was the camcorder where you can take pictures with it and we hope this will cut down how many things we need to take with us on our upcoming trip in Apr

[gjules]

IMO, I would think twice before buying a Sony. We have had more trouble with ours. We got it at Best Buy in 2002 and they replaced it once and when it quit working again, they sent it in for repair. That was about 2 months ago and just this weekend it died again. We've since been told that Sony's only last about a year or so...wish I'd known that before we bought it, but we didn't research and only went with what we were told by the salesman:( I've heard good things about Olympus, so I that may be our next purchase.

[Scottish Cruiser]

My wife is the photographer and swore by her Minolta SLR till last year when we were going to Europe on an extended trip and she did not want the weight. She bought a smaller Minolta - quasi SLR (ie without interchangeable lenses). It was much lighter and less bulky. She took 2000 photos and was determined to use the film SLR when she returned, but so far it is still in the cupboard! If you are looking for light weight, less bulk and longer telephoto capability without changing (and carrying) additional lenses, digital seems to be the way to go.

[HERKIMER417]

You seem to be very comfortable with the SLR - don't drop one for the other.

 

I've had a digital for years but still use my Minolta SL-1.

 

You can't beat the abilities of a digital to take 150 shots, delete and copy to a computer and then edit or crop your shots. All without a dark room or costly equipment.

 

 

I use my digital for the general " get the feeling of the place" or quick shots. But when I intend to take a photo that has difficult lighting or a distance problem. The adjustable aparture and the ability to attach a 180mm lens can't be duplicated in the simple digital.

 

There are many digital camaras out there that can do the same as my old SLR but the prices are very high ( relative term ) and with technology increasing. There is a good chance that the camara will be bypassed technologically - making that digital model a worthless investment for the casual photo shooter.

 

If I was more than a vacation shooter I might invest but as it is I'll take the simple digital and the trusty SLR.

 

And of course - don't forget the disposable underwater camara.:rolleyes:

[ger_77]

I loved our SLR camera and wasn't going to "go digital" on our Mediterranean cruise in 2004 - DH bought a Kodak easyshare digital and brought it along, while I brought my regular camera and 7 rolls of film. Well, by the time we got home, the film had gone through scanners multiple times (not only at airports, but also on the ship every time you get back from an excursion), and my pictures were awful. The beautiful blues turned out to be deep and almost inky, and the images were shaded. The digital pics (thank God for the digital camera and DH's insistence on bringing it!) turned out beautifully - okay, I'm no longer a luddite, I'm in with the digital age people! I love being able to enhance the photos before I print them, and the convenience of forwarding them on to friends to share.

 

Smooth Sailing! :) :) :)

[SomeWoman]

At first, I was skeptical of going digital, but I like how you can know right away whether or not you caught that perfect photo. It was sometimes disappointing to get my developed film back only to find out that some of the pictures didn't turn out.

 

I love my Kodak Z7590. It takes great pictures, has many settings that can be manually tweaked, and also has a video mode. I think that people who have had bad experiences with Kodak cameras bought the smaller, point-and-shoot models.

 

And, although you didn't ask, this is how I'm dealing with my camera while snorkeling and on the beach. :^)

[Scoutcat]

I bought a Kodak Z700 shortly before we went on our Carnival Valor cruise last December. The main reason? I didn't know when I would ever be going to some of these places again and I wanted to be sure that I had gotten the pictures I wanted. I still remember a long awaited family road trip years ago-----from which my dad got almost no pictures because he didn't know that his camera wasn't working correctly. I did goof up a few shots on the cruise, and it was nice to be able to retake them immediately! Not only that, but the settings on the camera allowed me to take some very good shots in low lighting without flash. I had much better results with the digital than I have had with my last few 35MM cameras.

 

"Scout" aka Carol

 

Dayton, OH

[Texas_Diver]

I have always used a 35mm camera for cruise pictures. I have both a small Nikon point-and-shoot camera with 3x zoom and a Canon Rebel SLR camera with a zoom lense; both take excellent pictures. Which one I use pretty much relates to how much weight I want to carry, or how big a bag. I will be leaving on a Med cruise in May and wondered if I am the only one still using film.

 

I have noted on several threats that a large number of people seem to have gone to digital cameras. Most seem to like the light weight, small size, big capacity (the ability to take all the pictures you want, but only print the good ones). Has it reached the point where the digital cameras are just so small and convenient and produce such high quality pictures that they are really the best way to go?

 

Opinions please. Thanks.

 

 

YES! Digital cameras are awesome!

 

Like you, Mike, I used to only shoot in film. I just loved my big, bells-and-whistles Minolta 35 mm with all of it's fancy flash and lens accessories.

 

About a year ago, I switched to a Kodak 6.1 megapixal camera with a fixed lens (gasp) and I like it so much that I hardly ever even take my big film camera along on trips now.

 

The digital benefits are awesome. As mentioned, you only print the best pics. Also, I upload my shots to the Sams Club website (Walgreens and Walmart also have this feature) and they are ready in one hour.

 

The bonus for me is that since the pics are already in a digital format, they are ready to be sized down and sent out via email to all of my friends/family.

 

Here's my tip: Buy a good digital point-and-shoot camera and experiment. (The Kodak 7630 runs about $250 now.) Take the digital and your big camera with you for the first few trips. Shoot with both and see which you like better.

 

Another tip: Save your photos on the highest resolution possible. You can always size them down later. Saving them as large, high-res files is helpful if you want to make enlargements from the dig pics.

 

D.

[Jeanie821]

I'm probably the only one who does this, but I used disposable cameras on my cruise. The pictures turned out great. However, I'm considering getting a digital camera - I can e-mail the pictures to my co-workers from the ship and torture them. :D

[miami]

I have two opinions for you, and the part of your question above relates to my first response. The small Canon SD 450 is around $300.00. Add a good case, a couple of gig storage cards and you've got enough camera for 500 images at a resolution for large prints.

 

I have the Canon SD400 5 megapixel (I think the only difference between the 2 is the SD450 has a larger viewfinder). I love it. Takes great pictures. Very small, fits in your pocket, take it anywhere. My niece has the Canon 7 megapixel which she really loves too.

[Bobba22]

On our last cruise I couldn't find our 35mm camera that I had packed, so we bought a few disposable cameras onboard the Legend. To be honest, they took great picture! By the way, when we packed to leave the ship, I found the 35mm in the bottom of the carry-on bag! LOL!!!!!!

[mousey]

I always bring my 35mm and a couple of disposible waterproof cameras. I don't like to take my good camera to the beach. Also, we have taken some really great underwater pictures with the disposible waterproof cameras. Have a great one of our DS feeding the Sting Rays in Sting Ray Alley in the Grand Caymans last year!

[2ladies]

I have a Pentax Optio S5i. So small it fits in an altoid box. Takes great pix!!

 

Asked a guy to take a picture of us today and went to show him how to use it. He said he has one already and is a professional photographer. He loves it for out-and-about. Good enough for him, good enough for a camera idiot like me.

 

The great advantage of these very small cameras is that you don't mind carrying it around, so you have it with you all the time.

[Capsu78]

I have nothing to add that hasn't been discussed. So much money in 35MM Nikon that I held out until Santa brought me a Nikon digital. One trip and I think my 35MM gear will take up permanent storage next to my "Frampton Comes Alive" album.

However, one factoid I am repeating that gives all of us with 10,000 photos some perspective. (Grab a glass of wine and spin a world globe for a moment...)

Did you now that higher than 70% of the earths population has never seen an image of themselves?

[<M&M>]

THe best answer I have come up with is have both a digital point and shoot and a good SLR. Film point and shoot cameras are no better than a decent $150+ digital camera. So the limitless shooting and deleteing and knowing what the shot looks like right away defeats the film point and shoot hands down.

BUT as far as SLR cameras I say stick with film UNLESS you have a lot of money to spend on a digital SLR. The CCDs in DSLRS (the "film" part) tend to be smaller than a 35mm frame. this can turn your fabulous 20mm lens into a the equivilant of a 30-40mm depending on the size of the CCD. And since the wide angle lens are so expensive that can be a big hit money wise. For the $900 rebel (focal magnifier of 1.6) I would have to buy a $400 20mm instead of a $200 35mm prime lens. Higher end DSLRs do have full size CCDs but will cost thousands. (canon 5D is the cheapest with a 1.0 focal magnifier that I found and it runs over $3000) The mostly dead APS format had the same problem.

So to me it comes down to if you are a point and shoot guy, or are more methodic and like to over or underexpose, like to get apature blur and/or play with depth of field. Either type of photographer is fine, just buy the equipment appropriate for your style. or heck get the $3000 SLR and have it all, well The $3k is without any lenses sigh...

Good luck and have fun!!

[BayMan123]

I'm on my second digitial camera. The first one was the Sony cipershot, with a Carl Riees telephoto lens. For a still shot this camera was OK, for action shots it was the pits. The shutter speed was much too slow. My kids are into sports and I could not "catch" an action shot. This past Christmas I bought a Cannon XT Rebel , with all the bells and whistles, including a 70-300 telephoto lens. I can record 500 hi res shots and take 4 frames per second. I couldn't be happier with this camera. It's not small especially with the telephoto lens on.

 

I did buy this over the internet, shop around for best prices.

 

I look forward to taking some real good shots, when we sail with the Navigator on April 15.