recommend a good computer and digital camera?

Surely, Rhwainwright is jesting. If we to subscribe to his notion that market share/sales is an indication of a company's or product's superiority, then we should be buying most of our sound equipment from Radio Shack or giant discounters. Viable (perhaps just different, but sometimes clearly superior) alternatives to popular PCs, solid-state devices, Cds, VHS, digital cameras are Macs, tubes, vinyl, Beta (yes, Beta) and 35mm cameras.

By the way, what works for me is a Mac and a Sony D770. The Sony's resolution is not as high as that of current models, but I like its flexibility--it operates much like a good SLR. I also use Adobe PhotoShop 5.0 (purchased inexpensively on eBay) to crop, adjust color balance, etc. I have two iMacs, purchased used for about a quarter of what they cost new; the Sony was a demo. I also use, however, film cameras because I have my own darkroom.

The only time I would definitely not recommend a Mac is if you're planning to play a lot of different games on your computer. Then a PC is probably a better choice.

Depending on how you ultimately use a digital camera will influence your model choice. Close-up abilities, focusing and exposure options, ease of operation, pixels, etc. should all be considered. And, of course, your budget.

A note re pixels: Unless you have a high resolution printer, and are planning to make a lot of enlargements (8X10) and higher, paying a lot for a camera because of pixel figures doesn't make much sense to me. It's a bit like owning a Leica or Nikon with high resolution lenses and taking your film to WalMart. Of course, some people might argue that Walmart must have high quality film processing because they do such a good business.

Good luck!

Nick (PS: sometimes I buy stuff at Radio Shack, too)

Sorry, for the typo. It 'rlwainwright', not 'rh..." Must have misread it because the resolution on my iMac's screen is so poor.

Nick (only jesting)

Maybe think about doing this:

Look for a used iMac with a lots of RAM. Check out eBay for a complete used digital camera outfit with lots of memory storage devices, extra batteries, etc. Add-ons can cost an arm and a leg if you buy them new.

My Sony 770 cost me $425 and came with 5 memory sticks, 3 batteries, USB memory stick reader, 2 battery chargers (including a rapid charger), etc. These . Most of my electronics purchases these days are used items: if they're from buyers with good feedback, I really don't consider this a liability.

Buy a used full version of Photoshop (eBay again). I have 5.0 and it cost me $28.

The 770 is a 2.1 megapixel (nowadays considered practically antique), and I've used it to take pictures of friends' audio equipment; some have been shown on eBay and Audiogon. The resolution is more than adequate for this purpose, and is fine for printing up snapshots. I am not a photographer--I'm a symphony musician. But I've had numerous images published, including a portrait shot with the Sony.

For really fine resolution, however, I feel that film cameras are still preferable. It also seems to me that the differences in price/performance between digital and film cameras is similar to that between a better CD player and, say, a Rega TT. You get better results (but certainly not the convenience) with the older technology. This is, of course, my opinion--others may strongly disagree.

One final comment: any camera with manual options (which the 770 has, by the way) will teach a person a lot about lighting, exposure control, composition, etc. I don't think anyone would argue with this.

Good luck!

Nick

Jax2, your point is well taken. I should have said something like "Using a manual camera can teach a person a lot about lighting, etc..."

I am in absolute agreement with your statement regarding people who buy cameras, computers, audio equipment, bikes, cars, etc. loaded with features that are often mistakenly equated with better results (or that he/she, simply by association, will somehow be 'better'). The potential certainly may be there, but key is how the thing is used.

In the field of music, I've witnessed the following phenomenon more than once: A professional string player will buy an expensive instrument (even a good quality bow can easily cost five or six thousand dollars) which is clearly superior to the one they played previously. For a while, perhaps a few months, that player will sound 'better', but after a while they slowly slip back into old habits--the challenge and novelty of the new instrument has waned--and they end up sounding very much the same as they did before. Their only growth is in their debt.

Like computers and cameras, musical instruments are inanimate tools. Their real value is in their use.

Sorry Cdc (didn't you have a question a while back?) but some interesting issues have arisen. Then again, isn't that what can happen in forums...

Nick