Posted by Stacy (AZ) on January 23, 2000 at 24:44:19:
I hear you Laurie. But, I must say, 5 of 8 zip media going bad in one year? Jeez, what, do you have a hole in the ozone above your house? I’d really check into that if I was you. That’s an extremely high failure rate. The whole reason zips are popular is because of their stability. I agree, use the (almost indestructable) CDs if you’ve got that going on!
Talk at you later.
Stacy
digital cameras - Posted by d.henderson
Posted by d.henderson on January 21, 2000 at 14:05:41:
Well, I’ve put it off as long as possible but I have to have a digital camera. I can’t afford the most expensive, I have a 3 year old computer, what would be the least expensive with the best pictures for real estate.
Anyone?
Thank you,
Dee-Texas
I bought a Sony digital camera from eBay. It uses floppy disks and it’s great. cost $350 nt - Posted by Debra(SC)
Posted by Debra(SC) on January 25, 2000 at 08:01:04:
nt
For Those that take alot of pictures - Posted by Glenn Crocker (AL)
Posted by Glenn Crocker (AL) on January 23, 2000 at 01:44:08:
There is a Panasonic that uses the LS-120MB SuperDisk format…takes up to 1500 Pictures! Sorry Dee,Won’t help you much, runs about $800. But these disks are alot cheaper than most of the other formats. Here’s a review of it. http://dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/sd4090-review/index.html
Not a digital camera but… - Posted by Dave T
Posted by Dave T on January 22, 2000 at 15:23:07:
the last time I had my 35mm film developed, the film processor put all the pictures on CD-Rom for about the same price as producing prints.
The CD had “Kodak CD-Rom” software on it to transfer the pictures to my PC, to perform image enhancement, and to e-mail copies to friends and family.
I think the CD-Rom prints cost me about $11 at my local drug store film processing service while paper prints would have been about $9 for 25 exposures on APS film.
Re: digital cameras - Posted by J.P. Vaughan
Posted by J.P. Vaughan on January 22, 2000 at 11:01:24:
zdnet.com (and PC Magazine) usually test and review this
kind of stuff. That’s where I go before I purchase this
kind of equipment.
THANKS, wonderful info (nt) - Posted by d.henderson
Posted by d.henderson on January 22, 2000 at 07:33:57:
Re: Kaiser’s camera. - Posted by chris
Posted by chris on January 22, 2000 at 02:20:32:
Joe Kaiser talks about the new camera he uses which also has voice capability/notepad for each frame he takes.
Check it out at:
http://www.nothingdown.com/Pages/coolpix.html
-Chris
Re: However… - Posted by Stacy (AZ)
Posted by Stacy (AZ) on January 22, 2000 at 24:37:30:
If you like to take personal pictures in addition to those for your real estate business, I would highly recommend buying a high quality digital camera. Make sure to go for 2 megapixels, not 1.
I bought mine (Ricoh RDC-5000) about six months ago, and I use it for real estate as well as family and other personal pictures. This is one of the 2.3 megapixel cameras available.
I’ve been a photography buff since I was in high school, and used to have a photo lab in my house. Now, I don’t bother with all that old fashioned film developing nonsense. The 2.3 meg digital cameras produce pictures very close to the picture quality of 35mm film, and all I have to do is download them to my computer, adjust the pictures for things like clarity, balance, or red-eye elimination if needed, and print them on my inexpensive Epson Stylus Color 850 printer using high quality photo paper. I can also archive the pics on my hard drive, or postage stamp sized smart card media.
I never use my old cameras anymore. The picture quality is that good. On vacations, a couple 16meg or 32meg smart cards is all I have to pack. Also, you can see, right away, if the picture came-out or not. Rather than being dissapointed to find-out days later, after the film gets developed, you can adjust and retake the picture.
Quick story…
My wife just gave birth to my son 8 weeks ago. She had to have a c-section, and when Ryan was born and being attended to by the assisting nurse, my wife still hadn’t had a chance to see him, since there were sterile drapes surrounding her. I had been taking pictures of Ryan, and when she asked to see him, the OB wasn’t done with her yet. So, I took my camera over to her and showed her the pictures on the display screen on the back of the camera. It meant a lot to her at the time.
Anyway, make sure the camera has a USB download capability. It’s extremely fast to get your pictures from the camera to your computer. Also, if the only thing you will use the camera for is pictures of houses for your real estat biz… the others are right: just get a cheaper 1 megapixel version.
Stacy
Re: digital cameras - Posted by chris
Posted by chris on January 21, 2000 at 22:10:20:
One option is to take your pictures to a place like Walgreens that will put them onto a CD for use on your CD-ROM drive.
-Chris
Re: digital cameras - Posted by Jim IL
Posted by Jim IL on January 21, 2000 at 19:43:20:
Dee,
I have a cheap older model Casio digital camera.
Someone got if for me as a gift a couple of years ago.
Then, it cost roughly $300, and now goes for less than $200.
It is small, and works fine. The software to download the images and save in differnt formats was easy to learn.
So, depending on what you are going to use it for, you can look at the cheaper cameras out there and accomplish just about anything you need to. Besides, they become obsolete in a matter of weeks anyway.
And, if your are budget conscious, then I would suggest just buying a cheap polaroid camera and a flat bed scanner.
You can take the pics you need and then scan them onto your hard drive in any format you want.
I only use my digital pics for my website and flyers advertising the homes for sale, and for posting pics of buyers and sellers under my “Satisfied customers” page.
You can pick up a polaroid camera and film for around $50 and a scanner on sale for $50.
The money you save can be spent on marketing to find more deals.
Just a thought,
Jim IL
Re: digital cameras - Posted by Brian IL.
Posted by Brian IL. on January 21, 2000 at 18:07:28:
The cheapest way to go is to take pictures with a regualr camera and scan them. There are a ton of good scanners out there that are available for under $100.00. Some Sunday fliers and WEB sites often have them on special for about $50.00.
Re: digital cameras - Posted by WilliamGA
Posted by WilliamGA on January 21, 2000 at 17:53:30:
d,
I bought a friend’s Olympus D-340L a couple of months ago. It was only 6 months old and he sold it to me for 200 bucks. It takes super pictures (holds 122 on the 8 mg card that came with it)and it is SUPER easy to use. This is good 'cuz I am severely computer and electronically challenged.
Seriously, the software is a breeze to learn, d/l to the 'puter is really quick and easy and it is just an all around great camera. Even at full price, around 500 bucks I think, I would buy this one again.
Hope this helps,
WilliamGA
a different perspective… - Posted by TRandle
Posted by TRandle on January 21, 2000 at 15:53:02:
We bought a digital camera to take pictures of our properties for our flyers and website. It was a pain to work with (downloading, sizing, etc.) and we were not using it as much as anticipated. We bought it on Ebay and 3 months later sold it on Ebay. Now, we take good quality pictures with our regular camera and have them transferred into JPG format for $3 each. It’s much easier to handle and the picture resolution is much greater - well worth it to us. My opinion is that unless you will be needing tons of pictures in digital format, it’s just not worth it. Good investing and see ya in Atlanta…
Re: digital cameras - Posted by don, sdca
Posted by don, sdca on January 21, 2000 at 15:15:04:
Dee,
Digital cameras are probably worst than computers in that they are “obsolete” in months with all the technological changes. I would surf the net like at Cnet.com or others for reviews, prices, good, bad, ugly etc. Prices range from ~$200 to ~$900, with lots of choices in the $400-$600 range.
Then, establish BUDGET and then shop for best features, size, etc. in that range. Look for ease of DOWNLOAD, and try to get or exceed 1.0 megapixels. I also like a compact size for ease of use, storage etc.
We just bought an Olympus 450 zoom and have heard good things about the Kodak and Epson lines.
Hope this helps!
Don, sdca
Re: However… - Posted by Laure
Posted by Laure on January 22, 2000 at 10:12:09:
Be careful with your images. I would hate for you to have a hard drive failure and lose those baby shots.
Laure:-)
www.Color Fast Photo.com
keep looking… - Posted by Laure
Posted by Laure on January 22, 2000 at 10:17:58:
For a good Lab. I own a one hour lab in illinois. We scan an entire roll of film, at time of developing for 5.99 per roll IN ONE HOUR ! 35MM FILM IS FOREVER. Yes, I have a digital camera, and yes I use it on real estate. But guys, for family, use film. I’ve been into digital since 1993 in my retail shop. Once that digital image is corrupted, you’ve lost your family’s memories that can’t be replaced. Oh, and if you’ve printed them? Ink jet prints aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on ! A traditional photograph will last well over 100 years. An ink jet? well, have a drop of sweat drop on it once 
Laure
Re: Good point…their backed-up on zips (smile) nt - Posted by Stacy (AZ)
Posted by Stacy (AZ) on January 22, 2000 at 10:49:33:
.
Re: Interesting - Posted by Stacy (AZ)
Posted by Stacy (AZ) on January 22, 2000 at 11:07:16:
It’s great that your lab is up-to-date and can scan to digital. The wave of the future upon us.
With the advent of smart media chips, zip media and cheap CD-ROM burners, archiving pictures is a snap (no pun). I’ve never had problems with the durability of my lazer jet prints. Maybe if they are printed on regular paper instead of high quality photo paper it makes a difference. Mine seem water-resistant. Maybe if chemical solvent is dropped on the surface it would run…not sure. If so, I’d print another one.
Hey, Laure, are you going to make it to Atlanta? If so, maybe you could work some sort of deal with developing all of Millie’s pics. (smile)
Stacy