Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Newbie question

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
May 7, 2004 12:17:37 AM

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

Okay guys I am embrassed about this, I know a little about computers but
nothing about digital cams

Can anyone recomend the best cam for about £200??? I also need it to take SD
cards (I believe these are the best)

Thanks for your time and hard luck on your (assumed) mistakes please take
pity and advise me not to do the same.

I have seen plenty of tempting D/C's on ebay but I know not of some of these
brands

More about : newbie question

May 7, 2004 12:17:38 AM

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

I would certainly be looking at a Canon A70 & maybe if you got lucky with
prices then an A80 ...i dont know what your prices are like over there.



"Dave" <DRMCMahonpost@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nbwmc.551$wI4.51477@wards.force9.net...
> Okay guys I am embrassed about this, I know a little about computers but
> nothing about digital cams
>
> Can anyone recomend the best cam for about £200??? I also need it to take
SD
> cards (I believe these are the best)
>
> Thanks for your time and hard luck on your (assumed) mistakes please take
> pity and advise me not to do the same.
>
> I have seen plenty of tempting D/C's on ebay but I know not of some of
these
> brands
>
>
May 7, 2004 12:17:39 AM

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

sorry i just read the SD bit....maybe a Kodak ?


"john" <mark39@removeziplip.com> wrote in message
news:p swmc.24361$TT.2080@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> I would certainly be looking at a Canon A70 & maybe if you got lucky with
> prices then an A80 ...i dont know what your prices are like over there.
>
>
>
> "Dave" <DRMCMahonpost@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:nbwmc.551$wI4.51477@wards.force9.net...
> > Okay guys I am embrassed about this, I know a little about computers but
> > nothing about digital cams
> >
> > Can anyone recomend the best cam for about £200??? I also need it to
take
> SD
> > cards (I believe these are the best)
> >
> > Thanks for your time and hard luck on your (assumed) mistakes please
take
> > pity and advise me not to do the same.
> >
> > I have seen plenty of tempting D/C's on ebay but I know not of some of
> these
> > brands
> >
> >
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
May 7, 2004 3:20:29 AM

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

On Thu, 6 May 2004 20:17:37 +0100, "Dave" wrote:

>Can anyone recomend the best cam for about £200??? I also need it to take SD
>cards (I believe these are the best)

Why are they better? CF is - by design - faster and cards are
available from many sources.

From what I can tell from the prices over at http://www.amazon.co.uk/
the Canon Powershot A70 (last years model) or A75 should fit the
budget just fine - I assume you have the equivalent of PriceWatch in
the UK as well?

>Thanks for your time and hard luck on your (assumed) mistakes please take
>pity and advise me not to do the same.
>
>I have seen plenty of tempting D/C's on ebay but I know not of some of these
>brands

Many of those quote the interpolated megapixel number - i.e. getting
6 MP from a 3MP sensor - which lessens quality. Another point; if it
says CMOS and not CCD and it isn't Canon or Nikon (or another
world-known brand) - it's safe to say it's no good.
Anonymous
May 7, 2004 4:54:34 AM

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

On Thu, 06 May 2004 23:20:29 +0200, Rolf Egil Sølvik
<rolfegil@c2i.net> vaguely proposed a theory
.......and in reply I say!:
uncap my header address to reply via email


>>I have seen plenty of tempting D/C's on ebay but I know not of some of these
>>brands
>
>Many of those quote the interpolated megapixel number - i.e. getting
>6 MP from a 3MP sensor - which lessens quality.

Wot? You mean like the Fujis? <GG>
*******************************************************
Sometimes in a workplace you find snot on the wall of
the toilet cubicles. You feel "What sort of twisted
child would do this?"....the internet seems full of
them. It's very sad
May 7, 2004 10:11:14 AM

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

"Dave" <DRMCMahonpost@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nbwmc.551$wI4.51477@wards.force9.net...
> Okay guys I am embrassed about this, I know a little about computers but
> nothing about digital cams
>
> Can anyone recomend the best cam for about £200??? I also need it to take
SD
> cards (I believe these are the best)
>
> Thanks for your time and hard luck on your (assumed) mistakes please take
> pity and advise me not to do the same.
>
> I have seen plenty of tempting D/C's on ebay but I know not of some of
these
> brands
>
>
Compact Flash cards are the cheapest.
Best camera in your range would, in my humble opionion, be the Canon A75,
or, the A80 if you can afford.

Eddie
Anonymous
May 7, 2004 3:16:24 PM

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

On Fri, 07 May 2004 00:54:34 GMT, Old Nick wrote:

>On Thu, 06 May 2004 23:20:29 +0200, Rolf Egil Sølvik
><rolfegil@c2i.net> vaguely proposed a theory
>......and in reply I say!:
>
>>>I have seen plenty of tempting D/C's on ebay but I know not of some of these
>>>brands
>>
>>Many of those quote the interpolated megapixel number - i.e. getting
>>6 MP from a 3MP sensor - which lessens quality.
>
>Wot? You mean like the Fujis? <GG>

The Fujis with that SuperCCD (III/IV HR/...) can make a picture file
with more pixels than sensor, that's true... But Fujis sensors are
arranged in a honeycomb orientation and have something going for it,
but as dpreview puts it, a 12MP interpolated/6MP SuperCCD is more
like 5MPs of the regular CCD type when it come to picture quality.

I was thinking of these digicams marketed as "As seen on TV" and
their "high quality" CMOS sensor, but not visiting ebay much myself I
really don't know what they're like - but if their CMOS is anything
like the CMOS in my webcam it's really nothing to make a note of! The
reviews I have seen on such high-MP, cheap digicams are few, but that
could be because of their lacking quality and features...
Anonymous
May 7, 2004 5:03:08 PM

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

On Thu, 06 May 2004 23:20:29 +0200, Rolf Egil Sølvik
<rolfegil@c2i.net> was understood to have stated the following:

>Why are they better? CF is - by design - faster and cards are
>available from many sources.

But given how often people post about "I've lost my CF card's
contents", I'm thinking in some cases slower might be a little better.
;-)

Plus, with SD, if you have a Palm OS PDA with a SD slot, you can pop
the card out of the camera and view it on a better screen. That was
part of the factor in my decision to purchase my SD based camera.
Anonymous
May 8, 2004 2:00:35 AM

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

On Fri, 07 May 2004 13:03:08 -0400, "David W. Poole, Jr." wrote:

>On Thu, 06 May 2004 23:20:29 +0200, Rolf Egil Sølvik
> was understood to have stated the following:
>
>>Why are they better? CF is - by design - faster and cards are
>>available from many sources.
>
>But given how often people post about "I've lost my CF card's
>contents", I'm thinking in some cases slower might be a little better.

Such cases are easily corrected most of the time, given a fresh
format before you shot the "lost pictures" or a accidental format of
the card - there are at least 10 programs available for little or no
cost that will rescue them.
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 6:04:47 AM

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

On Fri, 07 May 2004 22:00:35 +0200, Rolf Egil Sølvik
<rolfegil@c2i.net> was understood to have stated the following:

>>But given how often people post about "I've lost my CF card's
>>contents", I'm thinking in some cases slower might be a little better.
>
>Such cases are easily corrected most of the time, given a fresh
>format before you shot the "lost pictures" or a accidental format of
>the card - there are at least 10 programs available for little or no
>cost that will rescue them.

If I understand correctly, your statement "given a fresh
format before you shot the "lost pictures"' is saying that CF users
should format the card before each use? If so, Ouch.

The following part bothers me too, in that there are programs to
recover information after the card has accidently been formatted. That
scares me, as of the six SD and one MMC cards currently in my
possession, I've never needed to run a format utility on them.

But I guess it's possible to accidently format a card with data on it
when you're preparing (unnecessarily, IMO) a card to shoot with. Then
having one of those ten programs available would definitely be
beneficial. However, it bothers me that "such cases are easily
corrected MOST of the time."

Oddly enough, I have yet to see such an issue with any of my SD cards,
even though they regularly hop between three devices (camera, PDA, and
jump drive) and are used for a multitude of purposes, including
photography. In this case, I think I'll stick with "better safe than
fast." :-)
May 10, 2004 1:53:19 PM

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

"Dave" <DRMCMahonpost@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nbwmc.551$wI4.51477@wards.force9.net...
> Okay guys I am embrassed about this, I know a little about computers but
> nothing about digital cams
>
> Can anyone recomend the best cam for about £200??? I also need it to take
SD
> cards (I believe these are the best)
>
> Thanks for your time and hard luck on your (assumed) mistakes please take
> pity and advise me not to do the same.
>
> I have seen plenty of tempting D/C's on ebay but I know not of some of
these
> brands
>
The Nikon D100 and the new D70 just to mention a few use the CF cards. This
must say something for their reliability. I have many from 4Megs to 1Gig(6
years of using them) and have shot thousands of photos and never had trouble
once. The reason you read so much about troubles is due to their many years
of use.

Dan
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 11:57:45 PM

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

On Mon, 10 May 2004 02:04:47 -0400, "David W. Poole, Jr."
<SpammersAreLosers.20.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 07 May 2004 22:00:35 +0200, Rolf Egil Sølvik
> was understood to have stated the following:
>
>>>But given how often people post about "I've lost my CF card's
>>>contents", I'm thinking in some cases slower might be a little better.
>>
>>Such cases are easily corrected most of the time, given a fresh
>>format before you shot the "lost pictures" or a accidental format of
>>the card - there are at least 10 programs available for little or no
>>cost that will rescue them.
>
>If I understand correctly, your statement "given a fresh
>format before you shot the "lost pictures"' is saying that CF users
>should format the card before each use? If so, Ouch.
>
>The following part bothers me too, in that there are programs to
>recover information after the card has accidently been formatted. That
>scares me, as of the six SD and one MMC cards currently in my
>possession, I've never needed to run a format utility on them.
>
>But I guess it's possible to accidently format a card with data on it
>when you're preparing (unnecessarily, IMO) a card to shoot with. Then
>having one of those ten programs available would definitely be
>beneficial. However, it bothers me that "such cases are easily
>corrected MOST of the time."
>
>Oddly enough, I have yet to see such an issue with any of my SD cards,
>even though they regularly hop between three devices (camera, PDA, and
>jump drive) and are used for a multitude of purposes, including
>photography. In this case, I think I'll stick with "better safe than
>fast." :-)

As far as the "fresh format" goes, I only meant to indicate that if
you take 20 pics and then delete i.e. number 3, 5, 11 and 15
possibly the 21st and certainly the 22nd and probably a few more will
not be saved as contiguous files (i.e. the picture is stored in at
least 2 separate parts), making it less probable to recover it
correctly - but not impossible!

And FAT/FAT32, which all CFs are formatted using, have a table of the
contents of the card. An accidental format will "blank" that table
and leave the file data intact, but not accessible - but fortunately
recoverable!

So I can only caution against deleting any pics but the last you took
before taking a new one, and recommend starting with a fresh
formatted card each time.
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 4:48:05 PM

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

On Mon, 10 May 2004 19:57:45 +0200, Rolf Egil Sølvik
<rolfegil@c2i.net> was understood to have stated the following:

>As far as the "fresh format" goes, I only meant to indicate that if
>you take 20 pics and then delete i.e. number 3, 5, 11 and 15
>possibly the 21st and certainly the 22nd and probably a few more will
>not be saved as contiguous files (i.e. the picture is stored in at
>least 2 separate parts), making it less probable to recover it
>correctly - but not impossible!
>
>And FAT/FAT32, which all CFs are formatted using, have a table of the
>contents of the card. An accidental format will "blank" that table
>and leave the file data intact, but not accessible - but fortunately
>recoverable!
>
>So I can only caution against deleting any pics but the last you took
>before taking a new one, and recommend starting with a fresh
>formatted card each time.

I'm very familiar with the FAT systems, having recovered data for
employees and/or clients of various employers I've had over the last
15 years or so. Sometimes this had to be done with sector editors, but
I digress.

I think, however, that I've had a misunderstanding of this whole CF/SD
issue. As I've read through this group, and I am a newcomer, I've
noted a few posts about data lost on CF cards, but not on SD cards,
thus I came to the conclusion that it was an issue of CF quality
versus SD quality. Now reading your post, I wonder if each of the
prior threads I've read have been in relation to deletion of images
while in the camera. Though I've taken nearly 7200 images with my SD
based camera that I've had for roughly a month and a half, and never
had any problems in spite of a tremendous amount of cards being
shuffled and used between three different operating environments (PCs,
camera, and PDAs; I carry MP3s, books, web sites/trees, and other data
on the cards along with the photos I snap) I have yet to have any loss
with my SD cards.

Still, though, that any of the roughly ten recovery tools would need
to be a regular part of the tool set for CF users is a cause for
extreme alarm, IMO. That a CF card's file system would "break" because
of a simple file deletion leads me to believe that the manufacturers
of whatever camera(s) are involved have a faulty implementation of the
FAT storage system.

Regardless, the best way to avoid data loss, IMO, is to avoid
technologies that have a high incident ratio. For a short period of
time, I tried several Colorado Memory Systems tape drives, and after
learning of their unreliability, ditched them. The same holds true for
the Syquest 270mb cartridge based system that I briefly utilized.
Reading this group, and the treads related to data loss issues with
respect to CF, make me appreciate that I have avoided that technology;
I don't have time for data loss.
Anonymous
May 12, 2004 12:57:52 AM

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

On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:48:05 -0400, "David W. Poole, Jr." wrote:

>On Mon, 10 May 2004 19:57:45 +0200, Rolf Egil Sølvik
> was understood to have stated the following:
>
>>As far as the "fresh format" goes, I only meant to indicate that if
>>you take 20 pics and then delete i.e. number 3, 5, 11 and 15
>>possibly the 21st and certainly the 22nd and probably a few more will
>>not be saved as contiguous files (i.e. the picture is stored in at
>>least 2 separate parts), making it less probable to recover it
>>correctly - but not impossible!
>>
>>And FAT/FAT32, which all CFs are formatted using, have a table of the
>>contents of the card. An accidental format will "blank" that table
>>and leave the file data intact, but not accessible - but fortunately
>>recoverable!
>>
>>So I can only caution against deleting any pics but the last you took
>>before taking a new one, and recommend starting with a fresh
>>formatted card each time.
>
>I'm very familiar with the FAT systems, having recovered data for
>employees and/or clients of various employers I've had over the last
>15 years or so. Sometimes this had to be done with sector editors, but
>I digress.
>
>I think, however, that I've had a misunderstanding of this whole CF/SD
>issue. As I've read through this group, and I am a newcomer, I've
>noted a few posts about data lost on CF cards, but not on SD cards,
>thus I came to the conclusion that it was an issue of CF quality
>versus SD quality. Now reading your post, I wonder if each of the
>prior threads I've read have been in relation to deletion of images
>while in the camera. Though I've taken nearly 7200 images with my SD
>based camera that I've had for roughly a month and a half, and never
>had any problems in spite of a tremendous amount of cards being
>shuffled and used between three different operating environments (PCs,
>camera, and PDAs; I carry MP3s, books, web sites/trees, and other data
>on the cards along with the photos I snap) I have yet to have any loss
>with my SD cards.
>
>Still, though, that any of the roughly ten recovery tools would need
>to be a regular part of the tool set for CF users is a cause for
>extreme alarm, IMO. That a CF card's file system would "break" because
>of a simple file deletion leads me to believe that the manufacturers
>of whatever camera(s) are involved have a faulty implementation of the
>FAT storage system.
>
>Regardless, the best way to avoid data loss, IMO, is to avoid
>technologies that have a high incident ratio. For a short period of
>time, I tried several Colorado Memory Systems tape drives, and after
>learning of their unreliability, ditched them. The same holds true for
>the Syquest 270mb cartridge based system that I briefly utilized.
>Reading this group, and the treads related to data loss issues with
>respect to CF, make me appreciate that I have avoided that technology;
>I don't have time for data loss.

I bought the Iomega Zip-drive (the first one, the one with the
dreadful Click-of-Death syndrome) so the dangers of CF compared to SD
seems rather small to me when I compare the risks.

My self-experienced problems with CF is very small, having only
needed to rescue a single card so far, and that was for a co-worker
that were let down by the shop where he bought it as they said it
(the card seemed blank) probably couldn't be rescued - which took me
only 1 - 1 1/2 minutes in total for 128MB!

But if you go but the "rules" or "best practice suggestions" I still
claim that CF is both fast and realiable.

That being said, you should allow for Gumperson's law and Horner's
five thumb postulate ! (http://www.theparticle.com/murphy.html)
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 4:27:34 PM

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

On Tue, 11 May 2004 20:57:52 +0200, Rolf Egil Sølvik
<rolfegil@c2i.net> was understood to have stated the following:

>On Tue, 11 May 2004 12:48:05 -0400, "David W. Poole, Jr." wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 May 2004 19:57:45 +0200, Rolf Egil Sølvik
>I bought the Iomega Zip-drive (the first one, the one with the
>dreadful Click-of-Death syndrome) so the dangers of CF compared to SD
>seems rather small to me when I compare the risks.

Had I not already had one of those Syquest 270mb failures, I probably
would have picked up a zip drive as well. I remember that my employer
received a zip disc from one of our customers, and the drive destroyed
the media, ticking off the customer as the zip disc contained the only
copy of the data they wanted manipulated. :-)

>My self-experienced problems with CF is very small, having only
>needed to rescue a single card so far, and that was for a co-worker
>that were let down by the shop where he bought it as they said it
>(the card seemed blank) probably couldn't be rescued - which took me
>only 1 - 1 1/2 minutes in total for 128MB!

That's good to keep in mind; I'm picking up more and more SD cards,
and if I ever get in to a problem like this, I'll refer back to this
thread to get the addy of some of those utilities. :-) Right now I'm
needing a Palm OS app to catalog what's on all of these cards I'm
dragging around. :-D Wal-Mart had a discount bin with a couple of 32mb
SD cards for $10 each which I snagged, and I just won a 512mb off of
eBay, so I'm walking around with about 1.3gb worth of SD cards on my
person. The worst-case image I've recorded so far has been a 1.9mb
image, so I should be able to record 732 images of this nature before
I have to worry about unloading.

>But if you go but the "rules" or "best practice suggestions" I still
>claim that CF is both fast and realiable.

Again, only two people I know have CF technology, and I've had no
complaints from either, although neither of them "push" their
technology like I do. Of the roughly 7,000 photos I've snapped in the
last month and a half, I've done a tremendous amount of SD card
swapping between Palm OS, Panasonic OS, and various incarnations of
Windows without any data loss. I will admit that my camera (a
Panasonic DMC-FZ10K) has a burst mode that is reasonably useless for
high quality captures of more than 4 at a time, given the speed at
which the machine can write to the cards. If burst mode were more
important to me, and/or photography was to become a "paying" hobby, I
would reconsider going with a CF based solution.

>That being said, you should allow for Gumperson's law and Horner's
>five thumb postulate ! (http://www.theparticle.com/murphy.html)

Hey, those *ruled*; thanks!
!