Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Camera shop says Fuji worst...

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
April 11, 2004 1:19:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

My local camera shop say they see more Fuji cameras in for repair or
returnd broken than any other make??

What are general experiences?

MG
UK
**REMOVE** 'myhat' from my return email address before sending!!

More about : camera shop fuji worst

Anonymous
April 11, 2004 3:03:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:19:09 GMT, myhat100550.3170@compuserve.com (MG)
wrote:

>My local camera shop say they see more Fuji cameras in for repair or
>returnd broken than any other make??
>
>What are general experiences?
>
>MG
>UK
>**REMOVE** 'myhat' from my return email address before sending!!

Canon seems to have a terrible reputation for needing repairs. When
my daughter's expensive Canon quit working, the repair center said
"Yeah, that is a common problem".

Pj
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 4:55:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"Common problem" could mean anything. I am not defending "Canon" nor do I
own own but these "off-the-cuff" statements are often meant to relax the
customer. If your sugeon told you he did the gallbladder operation you
needed 100 times per week it would make you feel better that it is
commonplace.

Also "common problem" may mean this is the most common problem with the
canon he has handled. This means of the two repairs he has handled they were
the same. The quality of the product will be determined by how long they
take and how much they charge you and how much fuss they make against you.

Every brand has their minor glitches. If they made them perfect you would
still be buying 640x480 hi-resolution cameras for $2K

I have seen and heard good things about Canon cameras. (my old Hi-8
Camcorder excepted) I own two fujis , a Kyocera 5Mp which I dumped, and a
Pentax Optio 550 which "blows the doors" off the other three I have.

"PJx" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:91ri70pn4f96gh5ksse1keioh0rivmko0t@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:19:09 GMT, myhat100550.3170@compuserve.com (MG)
> wrote:
>
> >My local camera shop say they see more Fuji cameras in for repair or
> >returnd broken than any other make??
> >
> >What are general experiences?
> >
> >MG
> >UK
> >**REMOVE** 'myhat' from my return email address before sending!!
>
> Canon seems to have a terrible reputation for needing repairs. When
> my daughter's expensive Canon quit working, the repair center said
> "Yeah, that is a common problem".
>
> Pj
>
Related resources
Anonymous
April 11, 2004 5:00:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

ooooops... delete the references to "Canon"

My bad!...LOL

"Gymmy Bob" <NoThanx@spammie.com> wrote in message
news:zYOdncyEk9GK5eTdRVn-jA@golden.net...
> "Common problem" could mean anything. I am not defending "Canon" nor do I
> own own but these "off-the-cuff" statements are often meant to relax the
> customer. If your sugeon told you he did the gallbladder operation you
> needed 100 times per week it would make you feel better that it is
> commonplace.
>
> Also "common problem" may mean this is the most common problem with the
> canon he has handled. This means of the two repairs he has handled they
were
> the same. The quality of the product will be determined by how long they
> take and how much they charge you and how much fuss they make against you.
>
> Every brand has their minor glitches. If they made them perfect you would
> still be buying 640x480 hi-resolution cameras for $2K
>
> I have seen and heard good things about Canon cameras. (my old Hi-8
> Camcorder excepted) I own two fujis , a Kyocera 5Mp which I dumped, and a
> Pentax Optio 550 which "blows the doors" off the other three I have.
>
> "PJx" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:91ri70pn4f96gh5ksse1keioh0rivmko0t@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:19:09 GMT, myhat100550.3170@compuserve.com (MG)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >My local camera shop say they see more Fuji cameras in for repair or
> > >returnd broken than any other make??
> > >
> > >What are general experiences?
> > >
> > >MG
> > >UK
> > >**REMOVE** 'myhat' from my return email address before sending!!
> >
> > Canon seems to have a terrible reputation for needing repairs. When
> > my daughter's expensive Canon quit working, the repair center said
> > "Yeah, that is a common problem".
> >
> > Pj
> >
>
>
Anonymous
April 12, 2004 1:06:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

PJx typed:

> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:19:09 GMT, myhat100550.3170@compuserve.com (MG)
> wrote:
>
>> My local camera shop say they see more Fuji cameras in for repair or
>> returnd broken than any other make??
>>
>> What are general experiences?
>>
>> MG
>> UK
>> **REMOVE** 'myhat' from my return email address before sending!!
>
> Canon seems to have a terrible reputation for needing repairs. When
> my daughter's expensive Canon quit working, the repair center said
> "Yeah, that is a common problem".
>
> Pj

FIRST: Don't scare me with such statements! I just bought a Canon (it's S1
IS and it's working for over a week now :-))...

SECOND: I agree with Gymmy Bob...if it's a common problem, i'll be kinda
more relaxed, since i'll know, what a guy is doing and that he'll repair it.
If he'd say: "That's strange...it's the first this kinda problem i've seen"
,THEN, i'd be worried, since no-one knows, what he'll do with my camera,
since he don't HAVE A CLUE what to do or what to repair or replace. There's
a chance of me getting my camera back in even worst condition than it was
before i took it to him...

At the last: Each and every company has it's own "common problems". So, this
by default is not a big deal. Well, it is, sure, but there's not much we can
do about it. It's just the matter of luck - maybe you'll get a good one and
you'll praise it, while maybe you'll have it at service 6 months in a year
and say: in whole my life, never again this brand!
Anonymous
April 12, 2004 2:34:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:19:09 GMT, myhat100550.3170@compuserve.com (MG)
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

>My local camera shop say they see more Fuji cameras in for repair or
>returnd broken than any other make??
>
>What are general experiences?

To ANSWER YOUR QUESTION... <G>

Not mine, but general....

http://www.pcworld.com/resource/zoom.asp

Says the reliability was about the same as all the others (excepet
Kodak). Service rated worst among the cameras.

I suggest you do what I did to get the above. Scan the web for
surveys. Off the top o9f my head, I used:

"digital camera" reliability ratings

as a serach, and came up with the above among others.

This is the advice I received when buying. Ignore individuals opinions
about their experiences. Even somebody who has several camera's will
have limited experience. Even a serviceman sees limited numbers (we
all hope! <G>) Stat's speak. Stat's can lie (does the above survey
take into account the number of Kodak's sold? Probably, if it simply
asked hundred's of readers to supply their experience), but
individuals' are usually mistaken.
****************************************************
I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
.........no I'm not.
Anonymous
April 12, 2004 2:36:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:19:09 GMT, myhat100550.3170@compuserve.com (MG)
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I guess to add to what I said. "Review the review's", Make sure you
check a lot of survueys, before you believe any one of them.

I honestly do think that it all pans out much of a muchness in the
end.

>My local camera shop say they see more Fuji cameras in for repair or
>returnd broken than any other make??
>
>What are general experiences?
>
>MG
>UK
>**REMOVE** 'myhat' from my return email address before sending!!

****************************************************
I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
.........no I'm not.
April 14, 2004 1:14:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:KGgec.767$37.99195@news.siol.net...
> FIRST: Don't scare me with such statements! I just bought a Canon (it's S1
> IS and it's working for over a week now :-))...

I'm thinking about buying a Canon S1 IS. What's your experience been so far?

--
Steve
Anonymous
April 14, 2004 9:43:35 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Steve typed:

> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:KGgec.767$37.99195@news.siol.net...
>> FIRST: Don't scare me with such statements! I just bought a Canon
>> (it's S1 IS and it's working for over a week now :-))...
>
> I'm thinking about buying a Canon S1 IS. What's your experience been
> so far?

I'll start with bad things: it has no AF Assist lamp. But, it's missing in
Olympus 750 or 740, too, so here's not much we can do. Result is that it has
a bit of difficulty in low light focusing. But i managed this by using small
laser pointer, which suits just perfectly. With it you can shoot and focus
in total darkness. I thing Minolta Dimage has it, but i've read some reviews
and all i can say is stay well away from it. It has dissastrous (= totally
useless) night shooting. Just get laser or small LED torch and you're OK.
Other annoying thing is that picture freezes while focusing, so basically,
you have a difficulty in following the object in that time.

Enough of bad things...good ones:

Battery consumption is low - according to Canon's tests, you can shoot about
580 shost mixed with and without flash (i think every 8th was with flash,
some viewing included, too. (that's with 2300 mAh NiMH battery).

this Image stabilizer is just --- superb thing! I mean, did you ever shoot
with so big zoom? I didn't and if i'd buy olympus or any other one which i
had in mind before purchase), i wouldn't be able to shoot with so big zoom
from hand. This thing totally freezes picture. Even at combined optical /
digital zoom , which is totally 32x, you can shoot even in dimmed light
without any problem. You can see demo movie at this link:

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s1-re... (this
site has whole review of it)

It clearly shows the difference. Then, zooming is very fast - it zooms from
wide to full telephoto in less than one second (but it does have slow speed,
too).

Movies - superb quality, although short. If you calculate that in 640x480 at
30 fps filesize is about 1,4M per second, you get 2 min 30 sec for 256 M
card. On 1G you can have about 9 minutes of moive in full quality. Note
however that for this you need fast CF card, not normal (=cheapest) one.

In general, i'm more than happy with it. A lot of manual controls if you
wish, sharp image, etc. As said ,if it only would have that bloddy AF assist
lamp...

My opinion is: just get it. You won't regret it.
April 15, 2004 2:50:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:r_cfc.933$37.125278@news.siol.net...
> Steve typed:
>
> > "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> > news:KGgec.767$37.99195@news.siol.net...
> >> FIRST: Don't scare me with such statements! I just bought a Canon
> >> (it's S1 IS and it's working for over a week now :-))...
> >
> > I'm thinking about buying a Canon S1 IS. What's your experience been
> > so far?
>
> I'll start with bad things: it has no AF Assist lamp. But, it's missing in
> Olympus 750 or 740, too, so here's not much we can do. Result is that it
has
> a bit of difficulty in low light focusing. But i managed this by using
small
> laser pointer, which suits just perfectly. With it you can shoot and focus
> in total darkness. I thing Minolta Dimage has it, but i've read some
reviews
> and all i can say is stay well away from it. It has dissastrous (= totally
> useless) night shooting. Just get laser or small LED torch and you're OK.
> Other annoying thing is that picture freezes while focusing, so basically,
> you have a difficulty in following the object in that time.
>
> Enough of bad things...good ones:
>
> Battery consumption is low - according to Canon's tests, you can shoot
about
> 580 shost mixed with and without flash (i think every 8th was with flash,
> some viewing included, too. (that's with 2300 mAh NiMH battery).
>
> this Image stabilizer is just --- superb thing! I mean, did you ever shoot
> with so big zoom? I didn't and if i'd buy olympus or any other one which i
> had in mind before purchase), i wouldn't be able to shoot with so big zoom
> from hand. This thing totally freezes picture. Even at combined optical /
> digital zoom , which is totally 32x, you can shoot even in dimmed light
> without any problem. You can see demo movie at this link:
>
> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s1-re... (this
> site has whole review of it)
>
> It clearly shows the difference. Then, zooming is very fast - it zooms
from
> wide to full telephoto in less than one second (but it does have slow
speed,
> too).
>
> Movies - superb quality, although short. If you calculate that in 640x480
at
> 30 fps filesize is about 1,4M per second, you get 2 min 30 sec for 256 M
> card. On 1G you can have about 9 minutes of moive in full quality. Note
> however that for this you need fast CF card, not normal (=cheapest) one.
>
> In general, i'm more than happy with it. A lot of manual controls if you
> wish, sharp image, etc. As said ,if it only would have that bloddy AF
assist
> lamp...
>
> My opinion is: just get it. You won't regret it.
>
>

I'm almost convinced that the Canon is what I need, but I quite like the
look of the Fuji FinePix S7000. More pixels, hotshoe, continuous shooting
modes. (I'm looking to do equestrian sports pictures.) Maybe the trade off
with the Canon is less pixels but a longer telephoto. But then the Fuji is
more expensive. I dunno. Decisions, decisions...
--
Steve
Anonymous
April 15, 2004 2:50:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

One would think that anti-shake could be done on the computer after the
fact.

Some are done in the camera digitally...are they not? This one looks like it
is ,as the vertical edges of blurred objects are still blurred somewhat as
if somebody used a blur filter on the frames and displayed the same image
many times.



"Steve" <planetnull@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tmifc.3672$Z07.784@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:r_cfc.933$37.125278@news.siol.net...
> > Steve typed:
> >
> > > "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> > > news:KGgec.767$37.99195@news.siol.net...
> > >> FIRST: Don't scare me with such statements! I just bought a Canon
> > >> (it's S1 IS and it's working for over a week now :-))...
> > >
> > > I'm thinking about buying a Canon S1 IS. What's your experience been
> > > so far?
> >
> > I'll start with bad things: it has no AF Assist lamp. But, it's missing
in
> > Olympus 750 or 740, too, so here's not much we can do. Result is that it
> has
> > a bit of difficulty in low light focusing. But i managed this by using
> small
> > laser pointer, which suits just perfectly. With it you can shoot and
focus
> > in total darkness. I thing Minolta Dimage has it, but i've read some
> reviews
> > and all i can say is stay well away from it. It has dissastrous (=
totally
> > useless) night shooting. Just get laser or small LED torch and you're
OK.
> > Other annoying thing is that picture freezes while focusing, so
basically,
> > you have a difficulty in following the object in that time.
> >
> > Enough of bad things...good ones:
> >
> > Battery consumption is low - according to Canon's tests, you can shoot
> about
> > 580 shost mixed with and without flash (i think every 8th was with
flash,
> > some viewing included, too. (that's with 2300 mAh NiMH battery).
> >
> > this Image stabilizer is just --- superb thing! I mean, did you ever
shoot
> > with so big zoom? I didn't and if i'd buy olympus or any other one which
i
> > had in mind before purchase), i wouldn't be able to shoot with so big
zoom
> > from hand. This thing totally freezes picture. Even at combined optical
/
> > digital zoom , which is totally 32x, you can shoot even in dimmed light
> > without any problem. You can see demo movie at this link:
> >
> > http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s1-re...
(this
> > site has whole review of it)
> >
> > It clearly shows the difference. Then, zooming is very fast - it zooms
> from
> > wide to full telephoto in less than one second (but it does have slow
> speed,
> > too).
> >
> > Movies - superb quality, although short. If you calculate that in
640x480
> at
> > 30 fps filesize is about 1,4M per second, you get 2 min 30 sec for 256 M
> > card. On 1G you can have about 9 minutes of moive in full quality. Note
> > however that for this you need fast CF card, not normal (=cheapest) one.
> >
> > In general, i'm more than happy with it. A lot of manual controls if you
> > wish, sharp image, etc. As said ,if it only would have that bloddy AF
> assist
> > lamp...
> >
> > My opinion is: just get it. You won't regret it.
> >
> >
>
> I'm almost convinced that the Canon is what I need, but I quite like the
> look of the Fuji FinePix S7000. More pixels, hotshoe, continuous shooting
> modes. (I'm looking to do equestrian sports pictures.) Maybe the trade off
> with the Canon is less pixels but a longer telephoto. But then the Fuji is
> more expensive. I dunno. Decisions, decisions...
> --
> Steve
>
>
Anonymous
April 16, 2004 2:14:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

I haven't noticed that at all, and I see what comes by in the shop. I
see lots of Kodaks (Chinons, really), but not an abnormal number of
Fujis. Fuji breaks just like everything else. Anecdotal information
should be taken with a grain of salt. Everyone who ever had a lemon
thinks that company is damned to hell. The truth is, Fuji also makes
your minilabs and make some of the best lenses in the world. I'm sure
they also have a few lemons, however.

My 2c,
Jaimie @ www.camerarepair.com

Old Nick <nsnfwhite@dodo.net.au> wrote in message news:<c0ij70l66qr819vu3jgfrkvjaktneiah2b@4ax.com>...
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:19:09 GMT, myhat100550.3170@compuserve.com (MG)
> vaguely proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
> I guess to add to what I said. "Review the review's", Make sure you
> check a lot of survueys, before you believe any one of them.
>
> I honestly do think that it all pans out much of a muchness in the
> end.
>
> >My local camera shop say they see more Fuji cameras in for repair or
> >returnd broken than any other make??
> >
> >What are general experiences?
> >
> >MG
> >UK
> >**REMOVE** 'myhat' from my return email address before sending!!
>
> ****************************************************
> I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
> us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
> ........no I'm not.
April 16, 2004 5:53:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"Jaimie" <jsirovic@technilab.com> wrote in message
news:54a5c0a2.0404152114.2414d7a2@posting.google.com...
> I haven't noticed that at all, and I see what comes by in the shop. I
> see lots of Kodaks (Chinons, really), but not an abnormal number of
> Fujis. Fuji breaks just like everything else. Anecdotal information
> should be taken with a grain of salt. Everyone who ever had a lemon
> thinks that company is damned to hell. The truth is, Fuji also makes
> your minilabs and make some of the best lenses in the world. I'm sure
> they also have a few lemons, however.
>

Yes indeed, they also make cases and lenses for Hasselblad!

Eddie
Anonymous
April 17, 2004 1:19:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Gymmy Bob typed:

> One would think that anti-shake could be done on the computer after
> the fact.

I strongly doubt that. When a picture is taken then this is it. It's done
digitally, sure. But remember, that a camera has 3.3 M pixels, while only
3.2 are used. And you can correct a picture before it's taken into the chip.
Once you have a blurred bitmap, you're finished. Maybe you can correct a
bit, but result won't be nearly as good as with IS.

>
> Some are done in the camera digitally...are they not? This one looks
> like it is ,as the vertical edges of blurred objects are still
> blurred somewhat as if somebody used a blur filter on the frames
> and displayed the same image many times.
>
>
>
> "Steve" <planetnull@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tmifc.3672$Z07.784@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>> news:r_cfc.933$37.125278@news.siol.net...
>>> Steve typed:
>>>
>>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>>> news:KGgec.767$37.99195@news.siol.net...
>>>>> FIRST: Don't scare me with such statements! I just bought a Canon
>>>>> (it's S1 IS and it's working for over a week now :-))...
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking about buying a Canon S1 IS. What's your experience
>>>> been so far?
>>>
>>> I'll start with bad things: it has no AF Assist lamp. But, it's
>>> missing in Olympus 750 or 740, too, so here's not much we can do.
>>> Result is that it has a bit of difficulty in low light focusing.
>>> But i managed this by using small laser pointer, which suits just
>>> perfectly. With it you can shoot and focus in total darkness. I
>>> thing Minolta Dimage has it, but i've read some reviews and all i
>>> can say is stay well away from it. It has dissastrous (= totally
>>> useless) night shooting. Just get laser or small LED torch and
>>> you're OK. Other annoying thing is that picture freezes while
>>> focusing, so basically, you have a difficulty in following the
>>> object in that time.
>>>
>>> Enough of bad things...good ones:
>>>
>>> Battery consumption is low - according to Canon's tests, you can
>>> shoot about 580 shost mixed with and without flash (i think every
>>> 8th was with flash, some viewing included, too. (that's with 2300
>>> mAh NiMH battery).
>>>
>>> this Image stabilizer is just --- superb thing! I mean, did you
>>> ever shoot with so big zoom? I didn't and if i'd buy olympus or any
>>> other one which i had in mind before purchase), i wouldn't be able
>>> to shoot with so big zoom from hand. This thing totally freezes
>>> picture. Even at combined optical / digital zoom , which is totally
>>> 32x, you can shoot even in dimmed light without any problem. You
>>> can see demo movie at this link:
>>>
>>> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s1-re...
>>> (this site has whole review of it)
>>>
>>> It clearly shows the difference. Then, zooming is very fast - it
>>> zooms from wide to full telephoto in less than one second (but it
>>> does have slow speed, too).
>>>
>>> Movies - superb quality, although short. If you calculate that in
>>> 640x480 at 30 fps filesize is about 1,4M per second, you get 2 min
>>> 30 sec for 256 M card. On 1G you can have about 9 minutes of moive
>>> in full quality. Note however that for this you need fast CF card,
>>> not normal (=cheapest) one.
>>>
>>> In general, i'm more than happy with it. A lot of manual controls
>>> if you wish, sharp image, etc. As said ,if it only would have that
>>> bloddy AF assist lamp...
>>>
>>> My opinion is: just get it. You won't regret it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm almost convinced that the Canon is what I need, but I quite like
>> the look of the Fuji FinePix S7000. More pixels, hotshoe, continuous
>> shooting modes. (I'm looking to do equestrian sports pictures.)
>> Maybe the trade off with the Canon is less pixels but a longer
>> telephoto. But then the Fuji is more expensive. I dunno. Decisions,
>> decisions... --
>> Steve
Anonymous
April 17, 2004 1:45:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Steve typed:

> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> news:r_cfc.933$37.125278@news.siol.net...
>> Steve typed:
>>
>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>> news:KGgec.767$37.99195@news.siol.net...
>>>> FIRST: Don't scare me with such statements! I just bought a Canon
>>>> (it's S1 IS and it's working for over a week now :-))...
>>>
>>> I'm thinking about buying a Canon S1 IS. What's your experience been
>>> so far?
>>
>> I'll start with bad things: it has no AF Assist lamp. But, it's
>> missing in Olympus 750 or 740, too, so here's not much we can do.
>> Result is that it has a bit of difficulty in low light focusing. But
>> i managed this by using small laser pointer, which suits just
>> perfectly. With it you can shoot and focus in total darkness. I
>> thing Minolta Dimage has it, but i've read some reviews and all i
>> can say is stay well away from it. It has dissastrous (= totally
>> useless) night shooting. Just get laser or small LED torch and
>> you're OK. Other annoying thing is that picture freezes while
>> focusing, so basically, you have a difficulty in following the
>> object in that time.
>>
>> Enough of bad things...good ones:
>>
>> Battery consumption is low - according to Canon's tests, you can
>> shoot about 580 shost mixed with and without flash (i think every
>> 8th was with flash, some viewing included, too. (that's with 2300
>> mAh NiMH battery).
>>
>> this Image stabilizer is just --- superb thing! I mean, did you ever
>> shoot with so big zoom? I didn't and if i'd buy olympus or any other
>> one which i had in mind before purchase), i wouldn't be able to
>> shoot with so big zoom from hand. This thing totally freezes
>> picture. Even at combined optical / digital zoom , which is totally
>> 32x, you can shoot even in dimmed light without any problem. You can
>> see demo movie at this link:
>>
>> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s1-re...
>> (this site has whole review of it)
>>
>> It clearly shows the difference. Then, zooming is very fast - it
>> zooms from wide to full telephoto in less than one second (but it
>> does have slow speed, too).
>>
>> Movies - superb quality, although short. If you calculate that in
>> 640x480 at 30 fps filesize is about 1,4M per second, you get 2 min
>> 30 sec for 256 M card. On 1G you can have about 9 minutes of moive
>> in full quality. Note however that for this you need fast CF card,
>> not normal (=cheapest) one.
>>
>> In general, i'm more than happy with it. A lot of manual controls if
>> you wish, sharp image, etc. As said ,if it only would have that
>> bloddy AF assist lamp...
>>
>> My opinion is: just get it. You won't regret it.
>>
>>
>
> I'm almost convinced that the Canon is what I need, but I quite like
> the look of the Fuji FinePix S7000. More pixels, hotshoe, continuous
> shooting modes. (I'm looking to do equestrian sports pictures.) Maybe
> the trade off with the Canon is less pixels but a longer telephoto.
> But then the Fuji is more expensive. I dunno. Decisions, decisions...

Be carrefull with more pixels. I've read (just an expample) for Olympus 740
and 750 - one has 3M and other 4M pixels. Since both chips have the same
size, and 4M one has more pixels ,then they are more squeezed on the same
surface size. And this results in more noise. All these cameras with big
zoom have very small chip because if it would be big, then lens would have
to be much larger. So, they sacrifice bigger noise to get smaller sizes.
dcresource's review warns you about too much noise on Fuji.

I'd reccomend that you try to look on reviews and get some sample pictures
and see. On the other hand, if you don't intend to make large posters, don't
bother with more pixels.

Canon do have continous shooting. not so fast (I think it's about one pic
every 0.7 sec.), but it does have long-term shooting (adjustable intervals),
then "auto bracketing", which takes 3 shots with different expusure or
focus. It doesn't have hot shoe, though... But canon have adjustable LCD
screen and from i see from pics. Fuji is way bigger. And battery life is
about 340 shots, while Canon has 550-570 shots.

Hard to tell...really...but if i'd buy again, i'd go for Canon. That IS is
really something...
Anonymous
April 17, 2004 3:48:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:19:26 +0200, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

>Gymmy Bob typed:
>
>> One would think that anti-shake could be done on the computer after
>> the fact.
>
>I strongly doubt that. When a picture is taken then this is it. It's done
>digitally, sure. But remember, that a camera has 3.3 M pixels, while only
>3.2 are used.

I would be very interested to see how many pixels _are_ used when
antishake is operational. I believe AS can stop quite severe movement.
That would take a lot of pixels, if it works at all as I imagine (not
understand, imagine) it to work.

But then I did some searching, and found:

http://konicaminolta.jp/english/products/consumer/digit...

"What makes it so effective is its unique CCD-shift mechanism. The CCD
sensor rests on a movable mount, which shifts according to the amount
of camera shake detected by the camera's motion detectors. Shifting
occurs along the x, y-axes to cancel out the effects of camera shake.
Unlike optical or electronic-based stabilization systems, Anti-Shake
does not degrade image quality, so you can make the most of 8.0
megapixel resolution."

So I was right, in that most would use some sort of variation on
autofocus to stop shake, electronically. But this one actually dodges
the sensor about!
>And you can correct a picture before it's taken into the chip.
>Once you have a blurred bitmap, you're finished. Maybe you can correct a
>bit, but result won't be nearly as good as with IS.
>
>>
>> Some are done in the camera digitally...are they not? This one looks
>> like it is ,as the vertical edges of blurred objects are still
>> blurred somewhat as if somebody used a blur filter on the frames
>> and displayed the same image many times.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Steve" <planetnull@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:tmifc.3672$Z07.784@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>
>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>> news:r_cfc.933$37.125278@news.siol.net...
>>>> Steve typed:
>>>>
>>>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>>>> news:KGgec.767$37.99195@news.siol.net...
>>>>>> FIRST: Don't scare me with such statements! I just bought a Canon
>>>>>> (it's S1 IS and it's working for over a week now :-))...
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm thinking about buying a Canon S1 IS. What's your experience
>>>>> been so far?
>>>>
>>>> I'll start with bad things: it has no AF Assist lamp. But, it's
>>>> missing in Olympus 750 or 740, too, so here's not much we can do.
>>>> Result is that it has a bit of difficulty in low light focusing.
>>>> But i managed this by using small laser pointer, which suits just
>>>> perfectly. With it you can shoot and focus in total darkness. I
>>>> thing Minolta Dimage has it, but i've read some reviews and all i
>>>> can say is stay well away from it. It has dissastrous (= totally
>>>> useless) night shooting. Just get laser or small LED torch and
>>>> you're OK. Other annoying thing is that picture freezes while
>>>> focusing, so basically, you have a difficulty in following the
>>>> object in that time.
>>>>
>>>> Enough of bad things...good ones:
>>>>
>>>> Battery consumption is low - according to Canon's tests, you can
>>>> shoot about 580 shost mixed with and without flash (i think every
>>>> 8th was with flash, some viewing included, too. (that's with 2300
>>>> mAh NiMH battery).
>>>>
>>>> this Image stabilizer is just --- superb thing! I mean, did you
>>>> ever shoot with so big zoom? I didn't and if i'd buy olympus or any
>>>> other one which i had in mind before purchase), i wouldn't be able
>>>> to shoot with so big zoom from hand. This thing totally freezes
>>>> picture. Even at combined optical / digital zoom , which is totally
>>>> 32x, you can shoot even in dimmed light without any problem. You
>>>> can see demo movie at this link:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s1-re...
>>>> (this site has whole review of it)
>>>>
>>>> It clearly shows the difference. Then, zooming is very fast - it
>>>> zooms from wide to full telephoto in less than one second (but it
>>>> does have slow speed, too).
>>>>
>>>> Movies - superb quality, although short. If you calculate that in
>>>> 640x480 at 30 fps filesize is about 1,4M per second, you get 2 min
>>>> 30 sec for 256 M card. On 1G you can have about 9 minutes of moive
>>>> in full quality. Note however that for this you need fast CF card,
>>>> not normal (=cheapest) one.
>>>>
>>>> In general, i'm more than happy with it. A lot of manual controls
>>>> if you wish, sharp image, etc. As said ,if it only would have that
>>>> bloddy AF assist lamp...
>>>>
>>>> My opinion is: just get it. You won't regret it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm almost convinced that the Canon is what I need, but I quite like
>>> the look of the Fuji FinePix S7000. More pixels, hotshoe, continuous
>>> shooting modes. (I'm looking to do equestrian sports pictures.)
>>> Maybe the trade off with the Canon is less pixels but a longer
>>> telephoto. But then the Fuji is more expensive. I dunno. Decisions,
>>> decisions... --
>>> Steve
>
>

****************************************************
I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
.........no I'm not.
Anonymous
April 17, 2004 3:48:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

I know it works wonderfully in binoculars but I wonder what all those little
wires being shook about all the time will say about their short life?

Wireless Bluetooth inside the camera?....LOL

"Old Nick" <nsnfwhite@dodo.net.au> wrote in message
news:D kr080h0396nvm9nap8rhi750e1lp95dhl@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:19:26 +0200, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> vaguely proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
> >Gymmy Bob typed:
> >
> >> One would think that anti-shake could be done on the computer after
> >> the fact.
> >
> >I strongly doubt that. When a picture is taken then this is it. It's done
> >digitally, sure. But remember, that a camera has 3.3 M pixels, while only
> >3.2 are used.
>
> I would be very interested to see how many pixels _are_ used when
> antishake is operational. I believe AS can stop quite severe movement.
> That would take a lot of pixels, if it works at all as I imagine (not
> understand, imagine) it to work.
>
> But then I did some searching, and found:
>
>
http://konicaminolta.jp/english/products/consumer/digit...
>
> "What makes it so effective is its unique CCD-shift mechanism. The CCD
> sensor rests on a movable mount, which shifts according to the amount
> of camera shake detected by the camera's motion detectors. Shifting
> occurs along the x, y-axes to cancel out the effects of camera shake.
> Unlike optical or electronic-based stabilization systems, Anti-Shake
> does not degrade image quality, so you can make the most of 8.0
> megapixel resolution."
>
> So I was right, in that most would use some sort of variation on
> autofocus to stop shake, electronically. But this one actually dodges
> the sensor about!
> >And you can correct a picture before it's taken into the chip.
> >Once you have a blurred bitmap, you're finished. Maybe you can correct a
> >bit, but result won't be nearly as good as with IS.
> >
> >>
> >> Some are done in the camera digitally...are they not? This one looks
> >> like it is ,as the vertical edges of blurred objects are still
> >> blurred somewhat as if somebody used a blur filter on the frames
> >> and displayed the same image many times.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Steve" <planetnull@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:tmifc.3672$Z07.784@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>>
> >>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> >>> news:r_cfc.933$37.125278@news.siol.net...
> >>>> Steve typed:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:KGgec.767$37.99195@news.siol.net...
> >>>>>> FIRST: Don't scare me with such statements! I just bought a Canon
> >>>>>> (it's S1 IS and it's working for over a week now :-))...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm thinking about buying a Canon S1 IS. What's your experience
> >>>>> been so far?
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll start with bad things: it has no AF Assist lamp. But, it's
> >>>> missing in Olympus 750 or 740, too, so here's not much we can do.
> >>>> Result is that it has a bit of difficulty in low light focusing.
> >>>> But i managed this by using small laser pointer, which suits just
> >>>> perfectly. With it you can shoot and focus in total darkness. I
> >>>> thing Minolta Dimage has it, but i've read some reviews and all i
> >>>> can say is stay well away from it. It has dissastrous (= totally
> >>>> useless) night shooting. Just get laser or small LED torch and
> >>>> you're OK. Other annoying thing is that picture freezes while
> >>>> focusing, so basically, you have a difficulty in following the
> >>>> object in that time.
> >>>>
> >>>> Enough of bad things...good ones:
> >>>>
> >>>> Battery consumption is low - according to Canon's tests, you can
> >>>> shoot about 580 shost mixed with and without flash (i think every
> >>>> 8th was with flash, some viewing included, too. (that's with 2300
> >>>> mAh NiMH battery).
> >>>>
> >>>> this Image stabilizer is just --- superb thing! I mean, did you
> >>>> ever shoot with so big zoom? I didn't and if i'd buy olympus or any
> >>>> other one which i had in mind before purchase), i wouldn't be able
> >>>> to shoot with so big zoom from hand. This thing totally freezes
> >>>> picture. Even at combined optical / digital zoom , which is totally
> >>>> 32x, you can shoot even in dimmed light without any problem. You
> >>>> can see demo movie at this link:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s1-re...
> >>>> (this site has whole review of it)
> >>>>
> >>>> It clearly shows the difference. Then, zooming is very fast - it
> >>>> zooms from wide to full telephoto in less than one second (but it
> >>>> does have slow speed, too).
> >>>>
> >>>> Movies - superb quality, although short. If you calculate that in
> >>>> 640x480 at 30 fps filesize is about 1,4M per second, you get 2 min
> >>>> 30 sec for 256 M card. On 1G you can have about 9 minutes of moive
> >>>> in full quality. Note however that for this you need fast CF card,
> >>>> not normal (=cheapest) one.
> >>>>
> >>>> In general, i'm more than happy with it. A lot of manual controls
> >>>> if you wish, sharp image, etc. As said ,if it only would have that
> >>>> bloddy AF assist lamp...
> >>>>
> >>>> My opinion is: just get it. You won't regret it.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I'm almost convinced that the Canon is what I need, but I quite like
> >>> the look of the Fuji FinePix S7000. More pixels, hotshoe, continuous
> >>> shooting modes. (I'm looking to do equestrian sports pictures.)
> >>> Maybe the trade off with the Canon is less pixels but a longer
> >>> telephoto. But then the Fuji is more expensive. I dunno. Decisions,
> >>> decisions... --
> >>> Steve
> >
> >
>
> ****************************************************
> I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
> us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
> ........no I'm not.
Anonymous
April 17, 2004 8:45:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:35:59 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <NoThanx@spammie.com>
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

hehe! I wondered about that as well. All that movement in such a
delicate situation.

But hey! Digital cameras? Lifespan. Come onnn! <G>

>I know it works wonderfully in binoculars but I wonder what all those little
>wires being shook about all the time will say about their short life?
>
>Wireless Bluetooth inside the camera?....LOL


****************************************************
I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
.........no I'm not.
April 17, 2004 2:32:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:9JWfc.1076$37.145320@news.siol.net...
> Steve typed:
>
>
> Be carrefull with more pixels. I've read (just an expample) for Olympus
740
> and 750 - one has 3M and other 4M pixels. Since both chips have the same
> size, and 4M one has more pixels ,then they are more squeezed on the same
> surface size. And this results in more noise. All these cameras with big
> zoom have very small chip because if it would be big, then lens would have
> to be much larger. So, they sacrifice bigger noise to get smaller sizes.
> dcresource's review warns you about too much noise on Fuji.
>
> I'd reccomend that you try to look on reviews and get some sample pictures
> and see. On the other hand, if you don't intend to make large posters,
don't
> bother with more pixels.
>
> Canon do have continous shooting. not so fast (I think it's about one pic
> every 0.7 sec.), but it does have long-term shooting (adjustable
intervals),
> then "auto bracketing", which takes 3 shots with different expusure or
> focus. It doesn't have hot shoe, though... But canon have adjustable LCD
> screen and from i see from pics. Fuji is way bigger. And battery life is
> about 340 shots, while Canon has 550-570 shots.
>
> Hard to tell...really...but if i'd buy again, i'd go for Canon. That IS is
> really something...
>

Ehhh? thought that if you had MORE pixels (eg 4MP)in the same physical
region as LESS pixels (eg, 3MP), then the resolution would be higher.

Eddie
Anonymous
April 17, 2004 2:32:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:32:26 -0700, "Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au>
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Unless I misunderstand your statement, resolution _is_ higher. Noise
is higher too. Resolution and noise are not the same thing.

You have to drive the smaller pixels harder to get them to be the same
"ISO" number as larger ones. This produces "hot" pixels and failures
etc. Noise. It's the same effect as if you increase the ISO number on
your camera.

No such thing as a free lunch.....:-<

Try

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/

and for this particular topic
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/pixel-count.sh...

This is not condescension. I go there regularly, to learn, confirm or
check. It's _all_ there!

>Ehhh? thought that if you had MORE pixels (eg 4MP)in the same physical
>region as LESS pixels (eg, 3MP), then the resolution would be higher.
>
>Eddie
>

****************************************************
I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
.........no I'm not.
April 17, 2004 2:36:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"Old Nick" <nsnfwhite@dodo.net.au> wrote in message
news:541080l3vjk0tla7dilmun1c8nq0p9euv0@4ax.com...
> On 15 Apr 2004 22:14:20 -0700, jsirovic@technilab.com (Jaimie) vaguely
>
> BTW. Pity about Chinon. I have a Chinon 35mm camera. It's a reall
> affordable "photographer's camera" with DOF preview, and a heap of
> other good stuff, for an affordable price.
>
> >I haven't noticed that at all, and I see what comes by in the shop. I
> >see lots of Kodaks (Chinons, really), but not an abnormal number of
> >Fujis. Fuji breaks just like everything else. Anecdotal information
> >should be taken with a grain of salt. Everyone who ever had a lemon
> >thinks that company is damned to hell. The truth is, Fuji also makes
> >your minilabs and make some of the best lenses in the world. I'm sure
> >they also have a few lemons, however.
> >

Hey Nick, I had on old 35mm Chinon bought in the early '70's, took Great
pics. Then a week ago, I was in the Maritime Museum in Fremantle, Western
Australia, where they have the America's Cup winning yacht, Australia II,
and amongst it's specialised equipment, was a Chinon almost identical to
mine!

Also, Jon Saunders, of triple-non-stop around the world sailing, was a 16mm
Arriflex movie camera....oh how drooled over those!
Eddie
Anonymous
April 17, 2004 2:36:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:36:26 -0700, "Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au>
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Maybe it was a "Perth" thing to buy Chinon cameras....<G>

>Hey Nick, I had on old 35mm Chinon bought in the early '70's, took Great
>pics. Then a week ago, I was in the Maritime Museum in Fremantle, Western
>Australia, where they have the America's Cup winning yacht, Australia II,
>and amongst it's specialised equipment, was a Chinon almost identical to
>mine!
>
>Also, Jon Saunders, of triple-non-stop around the world sailing, was a 16mm
>Arriflex movie camera....oh how drooled over those!
>Eddie
>

****************************************************
I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
.........no I'm not.
Anonymous
April 17, 2004 3:32:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Yep, sou're right. More squeezing, less quality... But who really needs 4M
or more? i don't intend to print even A4, let along bigger...


Old Nick typed:

> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:32:26 -0700, "Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au>
> vaguely proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
> Unless I misunderstand your statement, resolution _is_ higher. Noise
> is higher too. Resolution and noise are not the same thing.
>
> You have to drive the smaller pixels harder to get them to be the same
> "ISO" number as larger ones. This produces "hot" pixels and failures
> etc. Noise. It's the same effect as if you increase the ISO number on
> your camera.
>
> No such thing as a free lunch.....:-<
>
> Try
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/
>
> and for this particular topic
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/pixel-count.sh...
>
> This is not condescension. I go there regularly, to learn, confirm or
> check. It's _all_ there!
>
>> Ehhh? thought that if you had MORE pixels (eg 4MP)in the same
>> physical region as LESS pixels (eg, 3MP), then the resolution would
>> be higher.
>>
>> Eddie
>>
>
> ****************************************************
> I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
> us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
> ........no I'm not.
Anonymous
April 17, 2004 3:38:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

I forgot to tell: IS function does prevent from quick movements, but not
from severe ones. You must still hold your camera as still as you can. It's
just without IS you just CAN'T hold it totally still. It's best if you see
sample movie link i gave (below again):
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s1-re...

as you see, slow movements are ignored and only quick ones are compensated.
I didn't see any image degradation (yet).


Old Nick typed:

> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:19:26 +0200, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> vaguely proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
>> Gymmy Bob typed:
>>
>>> One would think that anti-shake could be done on the computer after
>>> the fact.
>>
>> I strongly doubt that. When a picture is taken then this is it. It's
>> done digitally, sure. But remember, that a camera has 3.3 M pixels,
>> while only
>> 3.2 are used.
>
> I would be very interested to see how many pixels _are_ used when
> antishake is operational. I believe AS can stop quite severe movement.
> That would take a lot of pixels, if it works at all as I imagine (not
> understand, imagine) it to work.
>
> But then I did some searching, and found:
>
>
http://konicaminolta.jp/english/products/consumer/digit...
ge-a2/02.html
>
> "What makes it so effective is its unique CCD-shift mechanism. The CCD
> sensor rests on a movable mount, which shifts according to the amount
> of camera shake detected by the camera's motion detectors. Shifting
> occurs along the x, y-axes to cancel out the effects of camera shake.
> Unlike optical or electronic-based stabilization systems, Anti-Shake
> does not degrade image quality, so you can make the most of 8.0
> megapixel resolution."
>
> So I was right, in that most would use some sort of variation on
> autofocus to stop shake, electronically. But this one actually dodges
> the sensor about!
>> And you can correct a picture before it's taken into the chip.
>> Once you have a blurred bitmap, you're finished. Maybe you can
>> correct a bit, but result won't be nearly as good as with IS.
>>
>>>
>>> Some are done in the camera digitally...are they not? This one looks
>>> like it is ,as the vertical edges of blurred objects are still
>>> blurred somewhat as if somebody used a blur filter on the frames
>>> and displayed the same image many times.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Steve" <planetnull@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:tmifc.3672$Z07.784@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>>> news:r_cfc.933$37.125278@news.siol.net...
>>>>> Steve typed:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:KGgec.767$37.99195@news.siol.net...
>>>>>>> FIRST: Don't scare me with such statements! I just bought a
>>>>>>> Canon (it's S1 IS and it's working for over a week now :-))...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm thinking about buying a Canon S1 IS. What's your experience
>>>>>> been so far?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll start with bad things: it has no AF Assist lamp. But, it's
>>>>> missing in Olympus 750 or 740, too, so here's not much we can do.
>>>>> Result is that it has a bit of difficulty in low light focusing.
>>>>> But i managed this by using small laser pointer, which suits just
>>>>> perfectly. With it you can shoot and focus in total darkness. I
>>>>> thing Minolta Dimage has it, but i've read some reviews and all i
>>>>> can say is stay well away from it. It has dissastrous (= totally
>>>>> useless) night shooting. Just get laser or small LED torch and
>>>>> you're OK. Other annoying thing is that picture freezes while
>>>>> focusing, so basically, you have a difficulty in following the
>>>>> object in that time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Enough of bad things...good ones:
>>>>>
>>>>> Battery consumption is low - according to Canon's tests, you can
>>>>> shoot about 580 shost mixed with and without flash (i think every
>>>>> 8th was with flash, some viewing included, too. (that's with 2300
>>>>> mAh NiMH battery).
>>>>>
>>>>> this Image stabilizer is just --- superb thing! I mean, did you
>>>>> ever shoot with so big zoom? I didn't and if i'd buy olympus or
>>>>> any other one which i had in mind before purchase), i wouldn't be
>>>>> able to shoot with so big zoom from hand. This thing totally
>>>>> freezes picture. Even at combined optical / digital zoom , which
>>>>> is totally 32x, you can shoot even in dimmed light without any
>>>>> problem. You can see demo movie at this link:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s1-re...
>>>>> (this site has whole review of it)
>>>>>
>>>>> It clearly shows the difference. Then, zooming is very fast - it
>>>>> zooms from wide to full telephoto in less than one second (but it
>>>>> does have slow speed, too).
>>>>>
>>>>> Movies - superb quality, although short. If you calculate that in
>>>>> 640x480 at 30 fps filesize is about 1,4M per second, you get 2 min
>>>>> 30 sec for 256 M card. On 1G you can have about 9 minutes of moive
>>>>> in full quality. Note however that for this you need fast CF
>>>>> card, not normal (=cheapest) one.
>>>>>
>>>>> In general, i'm more than happy with it. A lot of manual controls
>>>>> if you wish, sharp image, etc. As said ,if it only would have that
>>>>> bloddy AF assist lamp...
>>>>>
>>>>> My opinion is: just get it. You won't regret it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm almost convinced that the Canon is what I need, but I quite
>>>> like the look of the Fuji FinePix S7000. More pixels, hotshoe,
>>>> continuous shooting modes. (I'm looking to do equestrian sports
>>>> pictures.) Maybe the trade off with the Canon is less pixels but a
>>>> longer telephoto. But then the Fuji is more expensive. I dunno.
>>>> Decisions, decisions... --
>>>> Steve
>>
>>
>
> ****************************************************
> I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
> us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
> ........no I'm not.
Anonymous
April 18, 2004 9:09:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:34:02 +0200, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Ok. Sorry. Now what about the second part of my question....<G>

>WHAT??? It's small 1,26 M file. Where did you see 126M??? Did you drink
>today?



****************************************************
I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
.........no I'm not.
April 18, 2004 3:21:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

"Old Nick" <nsnfwhite@dodo.net.au> wrote in message
news:h9e180975r3q0im8cvu1e998dmlo0v7j0b@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 10:36:26 -0700, "Eddie" <Woofdog@kennel.com.au>
> vaguely proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
> Maybe it was a "Perth" thing to buy Chinon cameras....<G>
>
Um no, I bought mine in Dixons in Camberly, Surrey!

Eddie
Anonymous
April 18, 2004 5:21:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Old Nick typed:

> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:34:02 +0200, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> vaguely proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
> Ok. Sorry. Now what about the second part of my question....<G>
>
>> WHAT??? It's small 1,26 M file. Where did you see 126M??? Did you
>> drink today?
>
>
>
> ****************************************************
> I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
> us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
> ........no I'm not.

opss--i missed that one...
I made a few shots with camera on the table, so image was exactly the same.
One shot with IS on, one with OS off. I saw no difference. But, if you want,
i guess i can put some shots on the web so you could see by yourself.
I guess that this Image stabilizer works on memory principle - i mean like
it remembers certain image for a few parts of a second, so that shaking is
disabled. Also nowhere says anything about that IS should be off if not
used, like they always say for digital zoom, that degrades picture quality.
Anonymous
April 18, 2004 5:56:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Soooo,
i made some test shots (Don't look at them they are just random foolish
ones, look quality of them!)
They are available on below links - name tells all---

http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Im1-IS-off.jpg
http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Im1-IS-on.jpg
http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Im2-IS-off.jpg
http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Im2-IS-on.jpg
http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Im3-IS-off.jpg
http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Im3-IS-on.jpg

Now see for yourself, if there's any change - maybe my eye is not so much of
an expert and you'll see.

Note that Im1 is with full zoom (10x), Im2 no zoom, (1x) and Im3 somewhere
in the middle. All without flash, all with camera put on solid surface, not
from the hand, all with 2 sec timer, so pushing the button didn't shake the
camera.
Anonymous
April 18, 2004 6:25:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:56:38 +0200, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

OK. I will check them out. But I was more intersted in what happens
when you _do_ shake the camera, and that is what IS...is...<G>


errrrm...when I tried to see those picures, I was told they voilated
the terms of something or other....sorry.

>Soooo,
>i made some test shots (Don't look at them they are just random foolish
>ones, look quality of them!)
>They are available on below links - name tells all---
>
>http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Im1-IS-off.jpg
>http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Im1-IS-on.jpg
>http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Im2-IS-off.jpg
>http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Im2-IS-on.jpg
>http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Im3-IS-off.jpg
>http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Im3-IS-on.jpg
>
>Now see for yourself, if there's any change - maybe my eye is not so much of
>an expert and you'll see.
>
>Note that Im1 is with full zoom (10x), Im2 no zoom, (1x) and Im3 somewhere
>in the middle. All without flash, all with camera put on solid surface, not
>from the hand, all with 2 sec timer, so pushing the button didn't shake the
>camera.
>

****************************************************
I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
.........no I'm not.
Anonymous
April 18, 2004 10:36:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Old Nick typed:

> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:56:38 +0200, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> vaguely proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
> OK. I will check them out. But I was more intersted in what happens
> when you _do_ shake the camera, and that is what IS...is...<G>
>
>
> errrrm...when I tried to see those picures, I was told they voilated
> the terms of something or other....sorry.
>
>> Soooo,
>> i made some test shots (Don't look at them they are just random
>> foolish ones, look quality of them!)
>> They are available on below links - name tells all---
>>
>> http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Im1-IS-off.jpg
>> http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Im1-IS-on.jpg
>> http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Im2-IS-off.jpg
>> http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Im2-IS-on.jpg
>> http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Im3-IS-off.jpg
>> http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Im3-IS-on.jpg
>>
>> Now see for yourself, if there's any change - maybe my eye is not so
>> much of an expert and you'll see.
>>
>> Note that Im1 is with full zoom (10x), Im2 no zoom, (1x) and Im3
>> somewhere in the middle. All without flash, all with camera put on
>> solid surface, not from the hand, all with 2 sec timer, so pushing
>> the button didn't shake the camera.
>>
>
> ****************************************************
> I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
> us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
> ........no I'm not.

Damn...it seems they doesn't allow pics there. I wonder, why then they offer
free web space... i'll try elsewhere...

IS...it's Image Stabilizer. It prevents quick movements of a camera. When
you do shake the camera, you see that picture on LCD follows you with little
delay but without any vibration. So, if you have long exposure, like 1
second or more, then shot is still blurred. This is meant more for moderate
times, like 1/10th, /th or so, which would in normal circumstances result in
blurred image.

i'll upload and give a link
Anonymous
April 18, 2004 10:44:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

If you don't shake it makes no difference then...obviously.

I bet if you do shake it makes no difference either. I bet it only looks
better in real time or movies.

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:0gygc.1151$37.168038@news.siol.net...
> here:
> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075543
> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075611
> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075630
> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075670
> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075682
> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075692
>
> i hope it will work this time.
>
>
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 2:08:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:44:45 +0200, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Gottem!

>here:

>i hope it will work this time.
>

****************************************************
I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
.........no I'm not.
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 4:43:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:14:23 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <NoThanx@spammie.com>
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email


>If you don't shake it makes no difference then...obviously.
>

Agreed.

>I bet if you do shake it makes no difference either. I bet it only looks
>better in real time or movies.

I have seen some stills that purported to demo the improvement. That
seems to be OK. People are saying it works.

What I am looking for is what happens to the image size/quality is the
"move the sensor" method is not used.


>
>"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>news:0gygc.1151$37.168038@news.siol.net...
>> here:
>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075543
>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075611
>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075630
>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075670
>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075682
>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075692
>>
>> i hope it will work this time.
>>
>>
>

****************************************************
I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
.........no I'm not.
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 4:43:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Yes agreed. If you move the sensor or do it with a prism or mirror.
optically then I can see if works.

If it is done gigitally it makes no sense. What that implies is that the
sensor can photograph faster to eliminate shake than it can to not eliminate
shake???? It sounds like it interpolates some blurry pixels and does some
magic math with them. The resolution should suffer then. I guess I am saying
it should be blurred in a more human pleasing way to eliminate the nasty
looking blur but not really any sharper or just a hoax??


"Old Nick" <nsnfwhite@dodo.net.au> wrote in message
news:as6680ldj59pd89p1e3blci1ks7to92kgb@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:14:23 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <NoThanx@spammie.com>
> vaguely proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
>
> >If you don't shake it makes no difference then...obviously.
> >
>
> Agreed.
>
> >I bet if you do shake it makes no difference either. I bet it only looks
> >better in real time or movies.
>
> I have seen some stills that purported to demo the improvement. That
> seems to be OK. People are saying it works.
>
> What I am looking for is what happens to the image size/quality is the
> "move the sensor" method is not used.
>
>
> >
> >"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> >news:0gygc.1151$37.168038@news.siol.net...
> >> here:
> >> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075543
> >> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075611
> >> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075630
> >> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075670
> >> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075682
> >> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075692
> >>
> >> i hope it will work this time.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> ****************************************************
> I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
> us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
> ........no I'm not.
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 1:42:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:13:14 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <NoThanx@spammie.com>
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

I assumed it would act like auto focus, roughly and digitally move the
picture around on the sensor. This would keep it sharp, andf genuinely
so, but lose pixels (resolution) depending on the shake and the limits
of the AS system.

But AFAICS, it has also been done by the same method as binoculars,
using the lens. Again AFAICS, the advantage of the Dimage's method is
that lenses themselves then do not have to be anti-shake.

??????? Further than that I cannot say....

>Yes agreed. If you move the sensor or do it with a prism or mirror.
>optically then I can see if works.
>
>If it is done gigitally it makes no sense. What that implies is that the
>sensor can photograph faster to eliminate shake than it can to not eliminate
>shake???? It sounds like it interpolates some blurry pixels and does some
>magic math with them. The resolution should suffer then. I guess I am saying
>it should be blurred in a more human pleasing way to eliminate the nasty
>looking blur but not really any sharper or just a hoax??

****************************************************
I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
.........no I'm not.
Anonymous
April 19, 2004 8:08:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Gymmy Bob typed:

> Yes agreed. If you move the sensor or do it with a prism or mirror.
> optically then I can see if works.
>
> If it is done gigitally it makes no sense. What that implies is that
> the sensor can photograph faster to eliminate shake than it can to
> not eliminate shake???? It sounds like it interpolates some blurry
> pixels and does some magic math with them. The resolution should
> suffer then. I guess I am saying it should be blurred in a more human
> pleasing way to eliminate the nasty looking blur but not really any
> sharper or just a hoax??



I'd say that sensor takes more shots than it shows and then uses some time
lag, too. So, when one pic is taken, it's remembered and when second one is
taken, if it's different than first (like moved up/down/left/right a bit),
it's ignored and first one is shown instead. So, maybe basically (that is if
you shoot a movie), you get 30 fps, but some of them are euqal - e.g. the
same. since if i mone a camera quickly a lot, then picture follows with a
bit of delay. It's just small vibrations are ignored. What i don't
understand is if you have movable sensor, and you shake the camera, then
sensor is kinda still, but then begins to move (like a car, when you hit a
hole, body is still for a moment, but then it shocks down anyway ), so it
would be just delayed shock instead of none...
But that's just an assumption...

>
>
> "Old Nick" <nsnfwhite@dodo.net.au> wrote in message
> news:as6680ldj59pd89p1e3blci1ks7to92kgb@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:14:23 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <NoThanx@spammie.com>
>> vaguely proposed a theory
>> ......and in reply I say!:
>> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>>
>>
>>> If you don't shake it makes no difference then...obviously.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> I bet if you do shake it makes no difference either. I bet it only
>>> looks better in real time or movies.
>>
>> I have seen some stills that purported to demo the improvement. That
>> seems to be OK. People are saying it works.
>>
>> What I am looking for is what happens to the image size/quality is
>> the "move the sensor" method is not used.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>> news:0gygc.1151$37.168038@news.siol.net...
>>>> here:
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075543
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075611
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075630
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075670
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075682
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075692
>>>>
>>>> i hope it will work this time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ****************************************************
>> I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
>> us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
>> ........no I'm not.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 1:52:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Sounds lile you are implying that the camera can take much faster pictures
than they are letting on a camera shake isn't really an issue. This means
the shake is all fake and they have a marketting plan...LOL

Something smells with digital IS in my book.

"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
news:E3Rgc.1191$37.176122@news.siol.net...
> Gymmy Bob typed:
>
> > Yes agreed. If you move the sensor or do it with a prism or mirror.
> > optically then I can see if works.
> >
> > If it is done gigitally it makes no sense. What that implies is that
> > the sensor can photograph faster to eliminate shake than it can to
> > not eliminate shake???? It sounds like it interpolates some blurry
> > pixels and does some magic math with them. The resolution should
> > suffer then. I guess I am saying it should be blurred in a more human
> > pleasing way to eliminate the nasty looking blur but not really any
> > sharper or just a hoax??
>
>
>
> I'd say that sensor takes more shots than it shows and then uses some time
> lag, too. So, when one pic is taken, it's remembered and when second one
is
> taken, if it's different than first (like moved up/down/left/right a bit),
> it's ignored and first one is shown instead. So, maybe basically (that is
if
> you shoot a movie), you get 30 fps, but some of them are euqal - e.g. the
> same. since if i mone a camera quickly a lot, then picture follows with a
> bit of delay. It's just small vibrations are ignored. What i don't
> understand is if you have movable sensor, and you shake the camera, then
> sensor is kinda still, but then begins to move (like a car, when you hit a
> hole, body is still for a moment, but then it shocks down anyway ), so it
> would be just delayed shock instead of none...
> But that's just an assumption...
>
> >
> >
> > "Old Nick" <nsnfwhite@dodo.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:as6680ldj59pd89p1e3blci1ks7to92kgb@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:14:23 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <NoThanx@spammie.com>
> >> vaguely proposed a theory
> >> ......and in reply I say!:
> >> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
> >>
> >>
> >>> If you don't shake it makes no difference then...obviously.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >>
> >>> I bet if you do shake it makes no difference either. I bet it only
> >>> looks better in real time or movies.
> >>
> >> I have seen some stills that purported to demo the improvement. That
> >> seems to be OK. People are saying it works.
> >>
> >> What I am looking for is what happens to the image size/quality is
> >> the "move the sensor" method is not used.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
> >>> news:0gygc.1151$37.168038@news.siol.net...
> >>>> here:
> >>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075543
> >>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075611
> >>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075630
> >>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075670
> >>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075682
> >>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075692
> >>>>
> >>>> i hope it will work this time.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> ****************************************************
> >> I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
> >> us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
> >> ........no I'm not.
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 3:20:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 16:08:46 +0200, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

It's all surmise, as I could not find any real "meat" on how it works.
But while your idea would work for moving pictures, that have multiple
images virtually the same, and which can be manipulated to stop shake
(blur does not matter in a movie and can actually help), these sensors
are straining to take the shots they take _now_, without worrying
about multiple shots and time delays.



>> Yes agreed. If you move the sensor or do it with a prism or mirror.
>> optically then I can see if works.
>>
>> If it is done gigitally it makes no sense. What that implies is that
>> the sensor can photograph faster to eliminate shake than it can to
>> not eliminate shake???? It sounds like it interpolates some blurry
>> pixels and does some magic math with them. The resolution should
>> suffer then. I guess I am saying it should be blurred in a more human
>> pleasing way to eliminate the nasty looking blur but not really any
>> sharper or just a hoax??
>
>
>
>I'd say that sensor takes more shots than it shows and then uses some time
>lag, too. So, when one pic is taken, it's remembered and when second one is
>taken, if it's different than first (like moved up/down/left/right a bit),
>it's ignored and first one is shown instead. So, maybe basically (that is if
>you shoot a movie), you get 30 fps, but some of them are euqal - e.g. the
>same. since if i mone a camera quickly a lot, then picture follows with a
>bit of delay. It's just small vibrations are ignored. What i don't
>understand is if you have movable sensor, and you shake the camera, then
>sensor is kinda still, but then begins to move (like a car, when you hit a
>hole, body is still for a moment, but then it shocks down anyway ), so it
>would be just delayed shock instead of none...
>But that's just an assumption...
>
>>
>>
>> "Old Nick" <nsnfwhite@dodo.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:as6680ldj59pd89p1e3blci1ks7to92kgb@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 18:14:23 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <NoThanx@spammie.com>
>>> vaguely proposed a theory
>>> ......and in reply I say!:
>>> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you don't shake it makes no difference then...obviously.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>> I bet if you do shake it makes no difference either. I bet it only
>>>> looks better in real time or movies.
>>>
>>> I have seen some stills that purported to demo the improvement. That
>>> seems to be OK. People are saying it works.
>>>
>>> What I am looking for is what happens to the image size/quality is
>>> the "move the sensor" method is not used.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>>> news:0gygc.1151$37.168038@news.siol.net...
>>>>> here:
>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075543
>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075611
>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075630
>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075670
>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075682
>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/28075692
>>>>>
>>>>> i hope it will work this time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ****************************************************
>>> I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
>>> us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
>>> ........no I'm not.
>
>

****************************************************
I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
.........no I'm not.
Anonymous
April 20, 2004 8:21:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:52:54 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <NoThanx@spammie.com>
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

>Sounds lile you are implying that the camera can take much faster pictures
>than they are letting on a camera shake isn't really an issue. This means
>the shake is all fake and they have a marketting plan...LOL

Agreed.

>
>Something smells with digital IS in my book.

I still think that what smells is simply that you will lose pixels,
unless you do it optically. It will only _take_ a portion of the
sensor, using the rest to dodge around and prevent movement.
****************************************************
I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
.........no I'm not.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 2:22:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

But think about it again. If the camera can "fix" on certain pixels to
eliminate shake on a still picture then the shake isn't being recorded in
the first place. This is the equivalent of setting your camera on 1/30 sec
with a long lens and it really secretly uses 1/2000 sec internally and
doesn't tell you, but claims it is IS.


"Old Nick" <nsnfwhite@dodo.net.au> wrote in message
news:479980h634ltn4r57c4pe464v699oan1en@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:52:54 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <NoThanx@spammie.com>
> vaguely proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
> >Sounds lile you are implying that the camera can take much faster
pictures
> >than they are letting on a camera shake isn't really an issue. This means
> >the shake is all fake and they have a marketting plan...LOL
>
> Agreed.
>
> >
> >Something smells with digital IS in my book.
>
> I still think that what smells is simply that you will lose pixels,
> unless you do it optically. It will only _take_ a portion of the
> sensor, using the rest to dodge around and prevent movement.
> ****************************************************
> I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
> us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
> ........no I'm not.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 8:25:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:22:24 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <NoThanx@spammie.com>
vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

>But think about it again.

I have.

>If the camera can "fix" on certain pixels to
>eliminate shake on a still picture then the shake isn't being recorded in
>the first place. This is the equivalent of setting your camera on 1/30 sec
>with a long lens and it really secretly uses 1/2000 sec internally and
>doesn't tell you, but claims it is IS.

I think I disagree with the secretly bit. But as I said, I have no
idea how it works, and have not been able to find out.

Point me somewhere and I am willing to have alook.
****************************************************
I went on a guided tour not long ago.The guide got
us lost. He was a non-compass mentor.........sorry
.........no I'm not.
Anonymous
April 21, 2004 7:55:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Old Nick typed:

> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:22:24 -0400, "Gymmy Bob" <NoThanx@spammie.com>
> vaguely proposed a theory
> ......and in reply I say!:
> remove ns from my header address to reply via email
>
>> But think about it again.
>
> I have.
>
>> If the camera can "fix" on certain pixels to
>> eliminate shake on a still picture then the shake isn't being
>> recorded in the first place. This is the equivalent of setting your
>> camera on 1/30 sec with a long lens and it really secretly uses
>> 1/2000 sec internally and doesn't tell you, but claims it is IS.
>
> I think I disagree with the secretly bit. But as I said, I have no
> idea how it works, and have not been able to find out.
>
yeah, like they'll reveale the secret...
!