Does anyone here use a digital camera? I find them highly entertaining and useful when flying or outdoors. I usually have it with me. It only weighs 8 oz and is the size of a deck of cards. Great for EDC.<br><br>I flew over Meteor Crater on the 1st of Nov. <br><br><br><br>It is believed to have been made 50,000 years ago by an iron-nickle meteorite 150' in diameter traveling 40,000 mph. The explosion was equivalent to 20 million tons of tnt and blew a hole one mile wide, killing every living thing in a huge radius.

Never used a digital camera, but it looks as if I need to get on board. What is a good unit for posting on the Internet?

I did quite a bit of research on this topic after my SLR finally died. I take pictures for my work, creating both print and web based images. I used to scan the photos I took for web usage. Now, I just upload the images I take and print out the ones I want hardcopies of. Boy, how times change.<br><br>I'm not a photographer, per se, but I do use my images as part of my income generation. So, I felt my own needs were just short of true professional quality, and I purchased a much nicer camera than the average shutterbug needs... a Nikon CoolPix 990 with 3.34 megapixels. It cost near a thousand dollars. That's a lot, I know, but the good news is that it is far more camera than most people need, and far more money than most people need to spend.<br><br>Truth be told, the level of technology for digital cameras has advanced to such a degree that the casual picture taker almost can't lose. Here are some basic tips:<br><br>1. Picture resolution nowadays is typically measured in "megapixels". One megapixel is all the resolution the average person will likely ever need for the average shot. Professionals and "pro-sumers" may feel a need for more, but should also be aware that above one megapixel, night time and dim light shots will likely actually degrade in quality! The reason is that they become so extremely hypersensitive to exposure that even the average lone random stray photon registers on the "film" crystal lattice layer. Thus, areas that should be black end up with a faint gray glow, instead of actually being black. So, the rule of thumb is, if you actually do know why you need three megapixels, then go for it, but if you don't actually have a reason for it, you'll likely do just as well -- or better -- with just one.<br><br>2. Cameras that use actual floppy disks for their storage medium have to compress the image file down so far, in order to fit several on the disk, that they lose resolution badly. If convenience means so much to you that you're willing to trade away image quality in order to use floppies, then go for it. Anyone who cares about how their images look, though, should stick with any other form of storage medium. Different people have their preferences of media, of course, but they're all more than good enough to get the job done.<br><br>3. Don't worry about getting the latest and the greatest. Digital equipment, just like a computer, obsoletes too quickly to make it worth the expense. Any good quality, name brand digital camera from any reputable company will serve well for a long time to come.<br><br>4. If you don't know what brands to buy, go with any name brand that you would buy a film camera from. My personal favorites are Canon and Nikon, but any brand name you recognize will be sufficient. They all use the same technology, so don't be afraid to shop around for a bargain.

Jet, what an outstanding overview. Your camera is much better than mine. When I went looking, size was a major concern for me, as I wanted to take it everywhere. I ended up with a Canon Powershot S100 Digital Elph. It is a 2 megapixel model and has a USB connection. These photos have been drastically reduced in resolution from what the camera will actually do. They have been cropped too. It makes them easier for dialup connections to download and no scroll bars to fool with. It uses the compact flash card for storage. They only thing I bought extra was a flash card reader for quick and easy loading onto the computer. I know some people that take 1000 photos a month with these because it does not cost anything after you get set up.<br><br>Here is a lizard that I was able to get close to last weekend in the mountains. This camera only has a 2x optical zoom but that is perfect for most photos.<br><br><br><br>My brother has a used olympus 1.3 mega pixel that takes fantastic photos. I have to second everything that Jet has said about digitals. The pure beauty and fun of these cameras is the fact that you can take one photo or many. No need to fill up a "roll" and no processing. You can have and image up on the web minutes after shooting it and it is easy to email that image to a friend. These cameras are a blast!

BoyNhisDog,<br><br>Digital photography has been a boon for me. Photography used to be a roayl PITA, expensive and time consuming. I'd take photos, have them processed, figure out what ones didn't work, take some more have them processed, then have to scan them for the Web site. My first digital camera was no great shakes, a Kodak DC-120, but it sure made life easier and paid for itself in less than a year.<br><br>The cost of film and processing can be substantial and can impact what you shoot. this was brought home to me a while back on a flight back from a presentation. The terrain we were flying over in southern Utah was extraordinary. It suddenly dawned on me that I could snap away with abandon becuse it didn't cost me a red cent to take the photos! I took almost 200 shots. That was something of an epiphany.<br><br>Two years ago I got a Nikon 990 after borrowing a Nikon 980 for the big raft test. It is incredible. It's macro capability is extraordinary. The twisted body capability really does come in quite handy at times. The ability to get instant results makes life so much easier. I can even hook it to a TV and that makes framing the shot and setting other attributes even easier.<br><br>The larger resolution images help make details easier to capture and to pull from an image, an important capability for my purposes. For snapshot use I ratchet the resolution down some and it is still perfectly satisfactory. <br><br>Film cameras have their place still, but I rarely use one anymore and sold all but one. The 990 isn't versitile as an SLR with multiple lenses (or as robust as an SLR film camera) but the good SLR digital cameras are still way too much money. Maybe someday. <br><br>The only significant disadvantage to the 990 is size. I'd like to pick up something pocket size, similar to the Digital ELPH, to use for snapshots.<br><br>However, I have two important criteria for my snapshot camera that elimiates the ELPH. One is that it has to take conventional batteries. Special purpose bateries are a PITA and expensive. I want either AA or AAA and prefer AA. My AA NiIMH rechargables I use in the Nikon really last and are easy to get and recharge. It also has to use the same compact flash digital media. I cannot see any good reason to invest in another type of media and compact flash is currently the best value and available in larger sizes and I already have a few of them up to 128 MB which will hold a good deal.

I hear you Doug on the special batteries. I actually bought an extra for my camera so I wouldn't run out of juice. They are expensive but I traded some photographic services for the extra battery and an extra compact flash card. The good news is the camera came with a charger.<br><br>It's great to be able to view your photo after you take it on the LED screen. I, like you started taking many more photos when I got my digital. This one has a macro feature too. It will focus within 4 inches. Not as good as yours probably, but adequate for most senarios. Here is the macro in practice. The camera is somewhat controlable in the exposure. I gave it an extra 1 2/3 of a stop exposure because of the black background. <br><br><br><br>If I did not reduce the res on these photos they would overflow the screen. This camera is not professional quality but it will do for most things I do. With the right printer and software it will make a resonably sharp 10x20. For that the pixels have to be interpolated and we have that at work but I just use in on my computer and hardly ever print a hard copy.<br><br>

Macro capability can be critical for my work, makes life so much easier. Four inches isn't bad, but it isn't macro from my perspective. With the 990 I can virtuallyly put the lens to the object if necessary. That was one of the things that sold me on it. Best example off the top of my head would be this image of an LED from the LED Flashlight review article, it was taken from about 1/2 inch away:<br><br><br><br>

Boynhisdog, you dont happen to live in arizona do you? that crater looks awfully familiar and so does that lizard millions of them in arizona mountains

Yes Ron, I live in Tucson. A fantastic place to be if you like the outdoors. We are surrounded by five mountain ranges and the closest are the Catalinas which shoot up to 9157'. They take you through lower sonoran to alpine life zones in a long day hike. 10 minutes will get me to the nearest trailhead from my house. They cover 200 square miles. It is 85 degrees here today. It's close to Mexico too.<br><br>Doug, you have a very nice and versital camera. I see why you would like the capability of interchangeable lens's. Your macro feature is top notch. You are right, my macro isn't up to professional standards but it does what I need it to do. Normal focus is 22" to infinity. This will get me down to 4". Not bad for a camera that is the size of a deck of cards. <br><br>I saw a Minolta with a very nice looking lens that gets 5+ megapixels on the front of a magazine today. Very nice but not something I would lug all over. There is a camera for everyone out there somewhere. I sure like the quality of yours.

lol boynhisdog, do you own an airplane? i live in the sonoran desert ( not IN in it, but marana)<br>where do you hike?<br>have you ever done the Mt. Watson trail in the tucson mountains?<br>How bout the Ritcen trail (Mt. Baldy) or any of those?