Camera Oasis

One of my favorite little digital cameras is the Kodak V603. It's nothing extraordinary -- 6 megapixels, 30 fps video, and a pretty standard 36-108 Schneider zoom lens. But it was the right size at the right price, and captured great photos. My one mistake: giving it to my daughter, who dumped the camera into her bag along with her iPod, cell phone, and Lord-knows-what-else. All that jostling around resulted in a problem: loose screws. Cruise around the web, and you find the V603 earned a reputation for losing the screws that hold the metal alloy covers on the camera. Last time I saw that camera, it was held together by yellow duct tape at the corners. Not pretty. Most digital cameras have tiny screws that might work their way out. So, get a set of precision screwdrivers (usually $1 at the Dollar Store). Tighten up any loose screws. Then, place a tiny dab of clear nail polish on any screws that felt a little looser than others. (Be sure to keep the nail polish away from buttons an...

Camera companies spend loads o' cash designing cameras. They do studies. They make clay models, churn out non-working prototypes, and show 'em to would-be owners to see what'll work. Everyone wants to have that breakthrough design. So, I'm moseying around the camera universe one afternoon, and I spot: And I've got to ask: was there a saloon in some European city where the camera designers get looped and take home the wrong USB drive?

In my film camera days, a roll of 35mm film gave you a negative of 36 x 24mm. That area was the "recording surface" for the images I shot. Digital cameras today are promoted for having 8, 10, or 12 megapixels. That's not the size of the recording surface; it's geek-speak for the number of tiny recording cells on the sensor. You can squeeze millions of these cells on a sensor. But if the sensor itself is only 7.2 x 5.3 mm -- typically the size found in a pocket digital camera -- you have less overall area in which to capture an image. Add megapixels, and you're just squeezing more tiny cells on a small sensor, which leads to image degradation in the form of "noise." So, when you're looking at different cameras, megapixels are irrelevant. It's the size of the sensor that really determines image quality. There's a semi-technical explanation of this at this web site, and a simpler (and somewhat exuberant) discussion on Ken Rockwell's webs...

Fujifilm has come out with a new instant film camera. In light of Polaroid's discontinuing instant film to concentrate on self-destructing consumer electronics, Fujifilm's Instax camera may end up as the only game in town. Read a review here. I'm wondering what designer thought up that outboard viewfinder on the same side of the camera as the control buttons. Or the idea of prints popping out the top of the camera. Then again, a viewfinder on a camera is almost a rarity, these days. So even a weird, cyclops-like one is better than nothing, right? But I'd really prefer to see Fujifilm pick up the slack, and sell instant film that fits the millions of current and recent Polaroid instant cameras that will become doorstops when Polaroid's film inventory is exhausted.

One of the least-discussed functions in point-and-shoot digital cameras is the "burst" mode. It lets you shoot a sequence of shots, usually 3 to 6 images, without removing your finger from the shutter button. Why is this useful? Get yourself a DVD of the Beatles' film, "A Hard Day's Night." You'll see a scene where a photographer shoots a rapid sequence of portraits of George Harrison. Most of the faces he makes are goofy. A few are keepers. If you have kids, you're better off shooting a quick series of photos of them, and review them later to choose the best shots. Unlike motor-driven film cameras, digital cameras use a burst mode to capture a sequence of images. Some cameras keep shooting images for as long as you hold the shutter button, but only save the last few frames. Or the first few frames. My old Kodak DX7630 offered the option of one or the other. Today, all but the least-expensive digital cameras offer a burst mode. If this sort of techni...

One of the digital camera review web sites has all but given up individual reviews of point-and-shoot digital cameras. They've decided to focus on DSLRs and their accessory lenses. The exception are "roundup" articles, in which they'll do a quickie analysis of 4-5 compact cameras. Is this well thought-out? P/S cameras may not snag those magazine-cover quality images, but the abundance of intriguing photos over at flickr.com suggests that not everyone wants -- or needs -- a DSLR. A new DSLR costs more than $500; you can buy two, or maybe three high compacts from Canon, Kodak, or Panasonic for that amount of money. I like my DSLR, but carrying it everywhere is a pain. I just don't do it. Most days, you'll find a pocket-size digital camera in my jacket. Most times, it gets the shot I want. Memo to DP-XXXXXX.com: go upmarket, and you might lose the readership that got you where you are today -- a subsidiary of Amazon.com.

This is one of my favorite photographs. It shows an 1871 lighthouse in Sodus Point, NY. I captured the photo with a $150 Kodak point-and-shoot digital camera, the Kodak C875, an 8-megapixel camera. Eight MP is considered the "entry level" resolution in most of today's cameras, but in 2006, this was the top camera in Kodak's 'entry level' line up. The secret to this photo is a function in the camera called "long time exposure." The C875 permits you to make exposures up to 8 seconds long. That's plenty of time to capture all the colors in the sky -- including a few that weren't obvious to the naked eye, that night. The camera took in plenty of light. A tripod, of course, is essential. That's all I did. And, in case you're curious, the resulting image required no post-production editing. I sent the file off to AdoramaPix, and they sent me back amazing 11 x 14-inch prints.

I don't know. I love this execution. But something about a camera that adds calories...? Isn't that the 180-degree turn away from what digital's supposed to do? You decide. Have a look at this URL. From Wired.com's Gadget Lab blog. Next: point-and-shoot brownies???

Read this Craigslist ad, and you'll discover how to review a camera. But you won't do much to sell it. Eventually, you figure out that the seller/reviewer has a Nikon D90 digital SLR . A lovely camera. He or she might have the 18-105 VR kit lens to sell, too. Or another lens purchased afterward. It's hard to tell. But there's no asking price. And I wouldn't begin to guess what's included with the camera. I would guess that he's suffering a pretty severe case of buyer's remorse. We've all been there, pal. I don't miss pricey newspaper classified ads. But they had one saving grace: brevity. If you want to sell something, be accurate, and be brief. If you want to be David Pogue -- who writes funny, detailed reviews for the New York Times -- that's fine. But Craigslist isn't the right venue.

Forget Black Friday; this is a very good time to buy a new or used digital camera. After the holidays, people look to unload their older cameras that have been replaced by newer models. Also, with the Consumer Electronics Show starting in a few days, announcements of new models from major manufacturers will make what's on store shelves now seem obsolete, and thus ready for close-out. If you're buying new: 6-, 7- or 8-megapixel cameras will meet 90% of most picture-taking needs. Really. If you need a 21-MP camera, check your driver's license: you may be the lost grandson of Ansel Adams , suffering from amnesia. In the stores, consider display models, and ask if they'll either extend the warranty or take a few dollars off for buying a floor model. The worst they can say is, "I'll ask the manager." The Kodak Z1012 IS camera shown here is a 10-MP camera that's been out a little over a year. Kodak recently brought out a newer, larger camera with a differen...