impossible review ratings

[Guest]

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

http://www.epinions.com/Digital_Cameras/
Just been browsing for the longest time now trying to find out what others
think about 'The Camera'. In the comparisons above, it would seem that every
camera was bought to spite other reviews.

single reviews on 90% of the cameras. The odds of finding a bad review on a
single review seems to be non-existent.

What this makes me think is that these reviews came from salesmen and not
users. 1966 reviews total. and only one review per camera.

Before digital, my favorite was a Yashica auto speed based on lighting. You
just had to make sure you listened for the shutter to close before making any
changes.

I'm looking for under $200.00. One site only does side by side for under
$400.00 and every choice based on my preferences pushes the limit almost to the
$400 mark. not a $200 or less anywhere.

I'm looking for the most popular to start comparisons from. But from the above,
there are no popular's.

is there a better link than
http://www.epinions.com/Digital_Cameras/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp
http://howstuffworks.shopping.com/xPP-Digital_Cameras

?
I tried the Walmart digital cameras link also. There's is salesmen reviews.

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:55:58 -0500, Husky <cbminfo@toast.net> found these
unused words floating about:

>http://www.epinions.com/Digital_Cameras/
>Just been browsing for the longest time now trying to find out what others
>think about 'The Camera'. In the comparisons above, it would seem that every
>camera was bought to spite other reviews.
>
>single reviews on 90% of the cameras. The odds of finding a bad review on a
>single review seems to be non-existent.
>
>What this makes me think is that these reviews came from salesmen and not
>users. 1966 reviews total. and only one review per camera.
>
>Before digital, my favorite was a Yashica auto speed based on lighting. You
>just had to make sure you listened for the shutter to close before making any
>changes.
>
>I'm looking for under $200.00. One site only does side by side for under
>$400.00 and every choice based on my preferences pushes the limit almost to the
>$400 mark. not a $200 or less anywhere.
>
>I'm looking for the most popular to start comparisons from. But from the above,
>there are no popular's.
>
>is there a better link than
>http://www.epinions.com/Digital_Cameras/
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp
>http://howstuffworks.shopping.com/xPP-Digital_Cameras
>
>?
>I tried the Walmart digital cameras link also. There's is salesmen reviews.

dpreview IMHO is probably the best ...

For under $200, there's not much 'fitting' to preferences - it's a down and
dirty minimum purchase for digital at this time.

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:51:27 -0800, J. A. Mc. <jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com> wrote:

I already had dpreview. that's the one where everything was just under $400.00.
I wouldn't spend that much on a camera unless I intended to use it every day.
And then there's not a $400.00 one I'd even consider for that type usage.

Oddly enough and it surprised me, the one that came closest to having all I was
after was casio.

>>is there a better link than
>>http://www.epinions.com/Digital_Cameras/
>>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp
>>http://howstuffworks.shopping.com/xPP-Digital_Cameras
>>
>>?
>>I tried the Walmart digital cameras link also. There's is salesmen reviews.
>
>dpreview IMHO is probably the best ...
>
>For under $200, there's not much 'fitting' to preferences - it's a down and
>dirty minimum purchase for digital at this time.

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

 

[Guest]

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

When you buy something new, it's only natural that you will love it to
death, as you have to justify your purchase to yourself, your
spouse... (O;

I find the FULL reviews at www.dpreview.com and
www.imaging-resource.com are generally thorough, and quite fair and
unbiased. Read their conclusions and take careful notice of the Pro
and Con lists, and then decide for yourself on which things are
important to you.. Always take readers and salespeoples opinions with
a big dose of salts. And if you hang around places like this, and
real photographers forums, you'll soon get the hang of what's good and
what's bad.

 

[Guest]

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

On 15 Nov 2004 21:32:35 -0800, chrlz@go.com (Chrlz) wrote:

I know the digital I'd want, a Yashica GS digital. Trouble is the GS hasn't
been made since 88. And never came out in digital. And then I find Yashica no
longer even exists.

Every review I've read, Eats batteries, slow speed, needs a tripod, not very
good in bright light, not very good at night, red eye is something you need to
live with. Needs tons of memory, etc....

Now the $4000.00 - $9000.00 digitals have licked All of those problems, but for
me to spend that much on a camera, it'd have to come with a bathroom, bedroom,
living room and air conditioning.

>When you buy something new, it's only natural that you will love it to
>death, as you have to justify your purchase to yourself, your
>spouse... (O;
>
>I find the FULL reviews at www.dpreview.com and
>www.imaging-resource.com are generally thorough, and quite fair and
>unbiased. Read their conclusions and take careful notice of the Pro
>and Con lists, and then decide for yourself on which things are
>important to you.. Always take readers and salespeoples opinions with
>a big dose of salts. And if you hang around places like this, and
>real photographers forums, you'll soon get the hang of what's good and
>what's bad.

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

 

[Guest]

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

On 15 Nov 2004 21:32:35 -0800, chrlz@go.com (Chrlz) wrote:

This imaging resource site is going to take some time. That should be the
recommended site for every one looking for their 1st camera. Though I've only
browsed 2 pages so far of the 'find your camera' db. I haven't even counted how
many pages of cameras it recommends. Sheesh.. Back to square 1.

Their DB should probably thin down the recommendations, or tighten up the
comparisons.
Just know this is going to take awhile..
I was considering digital because you can't leave a film camera in a glove box
here in Florida and expect it to work next time.

Then I see all the recommendations max out at slightly above normal heat temps
here in FL.

I'd intended on having a truck camera for when it's needed. ie: Travels with
the truck. vs having to remember to take it with me and remove it from the
truck every day.

Not like I'm asking it to operate on the surface of the Sun, but at least
capable of sitting in a hot Florida glove box permanently without self
destructing.

>When you buy something new, it's only natural that you will love it to
>death, as you have to justify your purchase to yourself, your
>spouse... (O;
>
>I find the FULL reviews at www.dpreview.com and
>www.imaging-resource.com are generally thorough, and quite fair and
>unbiased. Read their conclusions and take careful notice of the Pro
>and Con lists, and then decide for yourself on which things are
>important to you.. Always take readers and salespeoples opinions with
>a big dose of salts. And if you hang around places like this, and
>real photographers forums, you'll soon get the hang of what's good and
>what's bad.

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

 

[Guest]

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

It's probably fair to say that:

1. You might be better off starting a new thread, and just put your
requirements up in the title, eg "Wanted: Tough digicam to live in hot
glovebox". Well, ok, not exactly that, but you get my drift..

2. Digicams require power. Power means batteries. Batteries don't
like heat. They tend to self-discharge, and rechargable types will
not live as long if continually heated up. Put simply.. even for a
film camera, a glove box is no place to keep one, except maybe a $10
disposable. Lash out on a beercan cooler or similar, and/or relocate
it somewhere lower/less heat affected.

3. There are a $%^&load of cameras that are small and good, in fact
just about every camera from a well-known brand will probably serve
you pretty well. But just saying you want a 'truck camera' doesn't
help us to know what you want - are you only going to print to say 6x4
or view on a computer (2 Mp will be plenty)? Do you want higher
quality to print to 11x8 (3-5 Mp)? Do you want a small zoom (3x
should be ok) or do you want to shoot wildlife from a distance (5x or
more, proly won't fit in that glovebox)? Just browse a few reviews of
the cameras from Canon, Sony, Nikon, Olympus, Konica/Minolta (or
whoever else sounds good) and look for the most important things to
you, namely battery life.. and whatever else. You'll soon narrow it
down.


The reviews you are seeing are all pretty good simply because most of
these cameras ARE pretty good. If too much choice offends you, just
narrow it down to a couple of manufacturers, then a couple of cameras.

Or maybe ask the question on a trucker's forum!

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:56:55 -0500, Husky <cbminfo@toast.net> wrote:

>On 15 Nov 2004 21:32:35 -0800, chrlz@go.com (Chrlz) wrote:
>
>This imaging resource site is going to take some time. That should be the
>recommended site for every one looking for their 1st camera. Though I've only
>browsed 2 pages so far of the 'find your camera' db. I haven't even counted how
>many pages of cameras it recommends. Sheesh.. Back to square 1.
>
>Their DB should probably thin down the recommendations, or tighten up the
>comparisons.
>Just know this is going to take awhile..
>I was considering digital because you can't leave a film camera in a glove box
>here in Florida and expect it to work next time.

They have a connection to some pages under Daves Picks where they give
the best 2 meg camera blah blah , best one for entusiasts blah blah
under $xxx --- you know various categories like that.

You always have to take consumer reviews with a grain of salt. First
of all you dont know how knowledgeable and experienced the reviewer
is. And the initial excitement of getting any digital camera can
result in a gushing review the first few months or because of one
defective camera or even operator error ---- cause a scathing review
thats not really representative of the camera too. Still sometimes
you get good info like some defect sometimes that rarely covered by
the review sites that a consumer may discover.

 

[Guest]

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

On 16 Nov 2004 19:09:50 -0800, chrlz@go.com (Chrlz) wrote:

>It's probably fair to say that:
>
>1. You might be better off starting a new thread, and just put your
>requirements up in the title, eg "Wanted: Tough digicam to live in hot
>glovebox". Well, ok, not exactly that, but you get my drift..
Well the title of this thread has brought enough good responses. I'm thinking
your title would bring nothing but trolls looking for those dumb enough to
answer it.

>2. Digicams require power. Power means batteries. Batteries don't
>like heat. They tend to self-discharge, and rechargable types will
>not live as long if continually heated up. Put simply.. even for a
>film camera, a glove box is no place to keep one, except maybe a $10
>disposable. Lash out on a beercan cooler or similar, and/or relocate
>it somewhere lower/less heat affected.
Well I have the batteries out of my P3 now, they haven't been in there for a
long time. I know batteries don't last. I'm thinking the need for these
companies to add a view screen to keep up with the Jones's is the biggest
problem with batteries.
I would expect batteries to last a week or more here in FL.

>3. There are a $%^&load of cameras that are small and good, in fact
>just about every camera from a well-known brand will probably serve
>you pretty well. But just saying you want a 'truck camera' doesn't
>help us to know what you want - are you only going to print to say 6x4
>or view on a computer (2 Mp will be plenty)? Do you want higher
>quality to print to 11x8 (3-5 Mp)? Do you want a small zoom (3x
>should be ok) or do you want to shoot wildlife from a distance (5x or
>more, proly won't fit in that glovebox)? Just browse a few reviews of
>the cameras from Canon, Sony, Nikon, Olympus, Konica/Minolta (or
>whoever else sounds good) and look for the most important things to
>you, namely battery life.. and whatever else. You'll soon narrow it
>down.
The cameras will just have the images dumped to the computer. I don't keep
albums. So no need for hard copies.
The pictures taken are 'not planned' that's why I say a truck camera. ie:
Strange cloud formation weeks ago. it looked like pin striping with the clouds
rising in stripes. ie:Vertical clouds vs horizontal clouds. Traffic accident,
muggings, etc..

I can take a good picture, [I don't expect much from digital]. And till the
cheaper digitals work out their bugs so you don't need to spend $4000.00 -
$9000.00 to get a digital camera you can trust won't take that moment to say it
needs another hour or two for lighting to work, or some other failure, I'll
stick with film for photos I want to keep.

I figure if the image is at least 320x240 pixels on the HD, the quality should
be good enough to make out what the image was about.
This right here tells me I could probably get by with the original memory
supplied and medium fine quality. about 20-50 shots ?

I assume once you dump those shots, you can reformat the memory and go after
more pix ? or do we need new memory as often as buying film ?
That's it's biggest selling point to me.

>
>
>The reviews you are seeing are all pretty good simply because most of
>these cameras ARE pretty good. If too much choice offends you, just
>narrow it down to a couple of manufacturers, then a couple of cameras.
>
>Or maybe ask the question on a trucker's forum!

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

 

[Guest]

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

Husky wrote..
> .. the title of this thread has brought enough good responses. I'm thinking
> your title would bring nothing but trolls looking for those dumb enough to
> answer it.

Fair enough.

> Well I have the batteries out of my P3 now, they haven't been in there for a
> long time. I know batteries don't last. I'm thinking the need for these
> companies to add a view screen to keep up with the Jones's is the biggest
> problem with batteries.
> I would expect batteries to last a week or more here in FL.

With many of the smaller cameras, you can turn off the screen and use
the viewfinder to save power. In your case, I think it would pay to
get one that uses rechargable AA's, so you can always have easily
obtainable spares.

> The cameras will just have the images dumped to the computer. I don't keep
> albums. So no need for hard copies.

That tells me 3.3Mp will probably be ample, if not overkill..

> I can take a good picture, [I don't expect much from digital].

Well, apart from a few issues already mentioned, you might be
surprised. I had to be dragged kicking and screaming from film, but
eventually got won over when 5Mp cameras came onto the market and I
bought a Sony DSC-F717. Wonderful camera, but not suitable for you -
way too big.

> And till the
> cheaper digitals work out their bugs so you don't need to spend $4000.00 -
> $9000.00 to get a digital camera you can trust won't take that moment to say it
> needs another hour or two for lighting to work, or some other failure, I'll
> stick with film for photos I want to keep.

Haha! You have a pessimistic attitude, perhaps justifiably. But I
think if you choose wisely, you will be won over. This is not a
segment of the market I have much to do with lately, but recently I
suggested a friend buy a lower-end Sony, a little DSC-P73 (4Mp, 3x
Carl Zeiss zoom, good flash, easy to use, has macro and lots of other
stuff), and she is absolutely over the moon and loves it to death.
The 3.2 Mp version of that camera (DSC-P72) is available for around
$290 here in Australian, so over there it should be cheaper again.
And I have to admit she is getting great results from it, just by
leaving it set on fully auto. The ability of these cameras is very
similar to a well-equipped amateur level 35mm SLR, with slow autofocus
being one of the few areas they are a bit behind. (Pre-focussing is
pretty easy and effective with most, however).


> I figure if the image is at least 320x240 pixels on the HD, the quality should
> be good enough to make out what the image was about.
> This right here tells me I could probably get by with the original memory
> supplied and medium fine quality. about 20-50 shots ?

Well, yes, but really, once you see what these cameras are capable of,
I would strongly suggest you get, say, a 128Mb card and shoot at
higher resolutions. Memory isn't all that dear nowadays - 128Mb
memory cards go for about US$30-$40 on Ebay.

> I assume once you dump those shots, you can reformat the memory and go after
> more pix ? or do we need new memory as often as buying film ?

Correct, when you dump them to computer, you usually also delete them
from the card and start again. Also, you can delete as you shoot, so
it makes the memory card, and in fact the whole shooting process, very
efficient. You don't 'waste' shots and you get immediate feedback.

> That's it's biggest selling point to me.

Yep, that is probably it's big selling point to me too, but I refused
to move from film until it met my quality requirements, which was to
be able to print a good 11"x8". That's why I waited until a decent
5Mp camera came along (and I've now moved up to an 8Mp camera..).
Now, my film cameras gather dust, and will shortly be on Ebay..
Digital just has so many advantages - apart from the above, there's
automatic and preset white balance, fill-flash at all speeds, ability
to take short movies, no film to go 'off', no wait for developing,
printing at home, ease of creating backup copies, very low ongoing
costs, small and lightweight...etc..

Drop into your nearest REAL camera store, and have a play with a few
of the better brand-name 3-4 Mp units. Like I said, you might be
pleasantly surprised at how far digital has come.

 

[Guest]

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

On 17 Nov 2004 22:34:28 -0800, chrlz@go.com (Chrlz) wrote:

>> And till the cheaper digitals work out their bugs so you don't need to spend $4000.00 -
>> $9000.00 to get a digital camera you can trust won't take that moment to say it
>> needs another hour or two for lighting to work, or some other failure, I'll
>> stick with film for photos I want to keep.
>
>Haha! You have a pessimistic attitude, perhaps justifiably. But I
>think if you choose wisely, you will be won over. This is not a

I was in Walmart yesterday. And visiting the electronics section I picked up a
few I thought might be acceptable. picking it up was enough for me. It was all
plastic and had a $300+ price tag. If that was the top of the line for Walmart
I'm pretty sure I'll be getting that Mickey mouse digital now. $5.00 after all
rebates, and all you have to do is uninstall the plastic Mickey mouse in his
car.
I wouldn't have touched that camera for $50.00 much less $300.00 +

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

 

[Guest]

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

"Husky" <cbminfo@toast.net> wrote in message
newsk9pp09eqkm88u64n4lmn3s1jdkm24g9qu@4ax.com...
> On 17 Nov 2004 22:34:28 -0800, chrlz@go.com (Chrlz) wrote:
>
>>> And till the cheaper digitals work out their bugs so you don't need to
>>> spend $4000.00 -
>>> $9000.00 to get a digital camera you can trust won't take that moment to
>>> say it
>>> needs another hour or two for lighting to work, or some other failure,
>>> I'll
>>> stick with film for photos I want to keep.
>>
>>Haha! You have a pessimistic attitude, perhaps justifiably. But I
>>think if you choose wisely, you will be won over. This is not a
>
> I was in Walmart yesterday. And visiting the electronics section I picked
> up a
> few I thought might be acceptable. picking it up was enough for me. It was
> all
> plastic and had a $300+ price tag. If that was the top of the line for
> Walmart
> I'm pretty sure I'll be getting that Mickey mouse digital now. $5.00 after
> all
> rebates, and all you have to do is uninstall the plastic Mickey mouse in
> his
> car.
> I wouldn't have touched that camera for $50.00 much less $300.00 +
>
> --
> more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Don't buy a digital camera from Wal-Mart, they only stock the cheap models.

Go to a Photography store where there are sales people that know their
products. Get a demonstration from somebody that knows the camera.

Olympus and Nikon make very good digital cameras for $300-1500.

As far a plastic cases, goes, most have some plastic. Even $1500 cameras
have plastic. Knobs, view screens, and other parts are plastic.

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:06:58 GMT, "CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote:

I'm also trying to narrow down the selection in a photoshop NG. Since that will
be the program most dependent on quality and compatibility. I've already ruled
out anything that saves in Quick format. I'm sure some people swear by quick.
But MPG and JPG are the standard for most machines.

>> I wouldn't have touched that camera for $50.00 much less $300.00 +
>
>Don't buy a digital camera from Wal-Mart, they only stock the cheap models.
I'm real sure what I want won't come from Walmart.
>
>Go to a Photography store where there are sales people that know their
>products. Get a demonstration from somebody that knows the camera.
>
>Olympus and Nikon make very good digital cameras for $300-1500.
The one I looked at was a name brand. Think it was Canon. And the body was
plastic.
>
>As far a plastic cases, goes, most have some plastic. Even $1500 cameras
>have plastic. Knobs, view screens, and other parts are plastic.

Plastic cases say CHEAP and cutting corners to me. if the outside is cheap,
what is the insides like ? Insides have to mount to the case somehow. Plastic
is cheaper than metal and it should reflect that in the price. Plastic doesn't
say $300.00 + to me.

Plastic isn't designed to survive abrasion or strain as metal. Plus there's
nothing solid to depend on. I think I read about one camera that actually used
a plastic tripod mount hole. I can see that lasting about 1 turn beyond safe
limits before the tripod mount is useless. Metal would afford much better
resistance to over torquing. Plus you can repair metal threads. Plastic is
disposable. But not at $300.00.

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

 

[Guest]

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

"Husky" <cbminfo@toast.net> wrote in message
news:08opp0t2hpol2q6jsm5gbdk7a6ah9a75j0@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:06:58 GMT, "CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm also trying to narrow down the selection in a photoshop NG. Since that
> will
> be the program most dependent on quality and compatibility. I've already
> ruled
> out anything that saves in Quick format. I'm sure some people swear by
> quick.
> But MPG and JPG are the standard for most machines.
>
>>> I wouldn't have touched that camera for $50.00 much less $300.00 +
>>
>>Don't buy a digital camera from Wal-Mart, they only stock the cheap
>>models.
> I'm real sure what I want won't come from Walmart.
>>
>>Go to a Photography store where there are sales people that know their
>>products. Get a demonstration from somebody that knows the camera.
>>
>>Olympus and Nikon make very good digital cameras for $300-1500.
> The one I looked at was a name brand. Think it was Canon. And the body was
> plastic.
>>
>>As far a plastic cases, goes, most have some plastic. Even $1500 cameras
>>have plastic. Knobs, view screens, and other parts are plastic.
>
> Plastic cases say CHEAP and cutting corners to me. if the outside is
> cheap,
> what is the insides like ? Insides have to mount to the case somehow.
> Plastic
> is cheaper than metal and it should reflect that in the price. Plastic
> doesn't
> say $300.00 + to me.
>
> Plastic isn't designed to survive abrasion or strain as metal. Plus
> there's
> nothing solid to depend on. I think I read about one camera that actually
> used
> a plastic tripod mount hole. I can see that lasting about 1 turn beyond
> safe
> limits before the tripod mount is useless. Metal would afford much better
> resistance to over torquing. Plus you can repair metal threads. Plastic is
> disposable. But not at $300.00.
>
> --
> more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

All that you said is true.

The higher end digital cameras have a metal framework with a plastic skin.
It is much cheaper (even for high end cameras) to make a metal frame and
cover with molded plastic.

Check some of these cameras. High end and features similar to good 35 mm
cameras.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/cameras_digpro.html

Check the Nikon D100. It is about $1700.

And the Pentax *istD. It uses the same body construction as the Pentax *ist
35 mm cameras. If you have some Pentax K mount lens, you can use them on
this camera.

The Digital Canon EOS series can also use some to the Canon EOS lens that
were used on Canon 35 mm cameras.

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:55:59 GMT, "CSM1" <nomoremail@nomail.com> wrote:

I just want something that can take a beating and still produce half decent
shots for less than $200.00 and I say $200, only because I haven't seen
anything under $100 that fills the bill yet.

I don't need shots that Newsweek or national geographic buys. Just something
where I don't have to guess what the shot is of. ie: Better quality than a
parking lot or bank surveillance camera.

So far the ratings I've read don't bear out any such quality for anything less
than $4K.
But then I'm not looking at anything over $200.

I just looked at some $4k and $9k digitals out of curiosity as to what the
thing could have. I expected gold plating or something, but the specs sounded
like a $175.00 pentax film camera I now have.

>Check some of these cameras. High end and features similar to good 35 mm
>cameras.
>http://www.steves-digicams.com/cameras_digpro.html
>
>Check the Nikon D100. It is about $1700.
>
>And the Pentax *istD. It uses the same body construction as the Pentax *ist
>35 mm cameras. If you have some Pentax K mount lens, you can use them on
>this camera.
>
>The Digital Canon EOS series can also use some to the Canon EOS lens that
>were used on Canon 35 mm cameras.
>
>--
>CSM1
>http://www.carlmcmillan.com

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

 

[Guest]

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

Sheesh.

>I've already ruled out anything that saves in Quick format.

What??? All cameras in this market save in JPG or TIF. Now you are
talking about movies? - you didn't say anything about movies before?
And anyway, again, they will all use MPG or AVI, I'll wager, IF they
have a movie function.

> But MPG and JPG are the standard for most machines.

MPG-movie. JPG,TIF - still. Which is what they all use. I'm blowed
if I know where the question even came from.

> The one I looked at was a name brand. Think it was Canon. And the body was
> plastic.

Really? A quick (30 seconds at DPReview) look on the web shows:

Camera, MP, zoom, onlineprice
Sony DSC-P72, 3.3, 3x, $220
Nikon Coolpix 3200, 3.3, 3x, $190
Canon SD200, 3.2, 3x, $290

This was a US Walmart? All the above are nice solid sturdy cameras,
yes, some plastic, but next you'll be wanting it made out of good
solid timber..? No, you're right, they *don't* mak'em like that
anymore!


> Plastic cases say CHEAP and cutting corners to me. if the outside is cheap,
> what is the insides like ? Insides have to mount to the case somehow. Plastic
> is cheaper than metal and it should reflect that in the price. Plastic doesn't
> say $300.00 + to me.

Sounds a bit like trolling to me.... You've had enough clues, if you
don't like what you have found, don't buy. Stick to film.

 

[Guest]

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

On 18 Nov 2004 22:53:54 -0800, chrlz@go.com (Chrlz) wrote:
>snip
>Sounds a bit like trolling to me.... You've had enough clues, if you
>don't like what you have found, don't buy. Stick to film.

Exactly.

Pat yourself on the back. You've fed a troll. Don't do it again.

Pj

 

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:00:50 -0600, PJx <dingo@privacy.com> wrote:

>>Sounds a bit like trolling to me.... You've had enough clues, if you
>>don't like what you have found, don't buy. Stick to film.
>
> Exactly.
>
> Pat yourself on the back. You've fed a troll. Don't do it again.
Why because you and someone else have lost track of this subject ? I've seen
plenty of useful information in this thread. If you just want out of a thread,
just leave.

I don't see my need as wanting an indestructible camera that can take a beating
and provide good shots as anything different from what anyone else would want.

For that matter, other than a masochist or someone with money to burn I can't
think of anyone that would intentionally WANT to get junk and go back for more
junk indefinitely.

I'm thinking the trolls may be the 1st to holler troll when their real efforts
to troll fail.

If the only thing actually available for the average person is junk then most
likely I will stick with film. I don't intend to sell my pentax. But I do still
intend to try digital.

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

 

[Guest]

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

Husky <cbminfo@toast.net> wrote in message news:<63trp0h22el6fej4sc1tc83jqvn0vo5clp@4ax.com>...
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:00:50 -0600, PJx <dingo@privacy.com> wrote:
>
> >>Sounds a bit like trolling to me.... You've had enough clues, if you
> >>don't like what you have found, don't buy. Stick to film.
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> > Pat yourself on the back. You've fed a troll. Don't do it again.
> Why because you and someone else have lost track of this subject ? I've seen
> plenty of useful information in this thread. If you just want out of a thread,
> just leave.
>
> I don't see my need as wanting an indestructible camera that can take a beating
> and provide good shots as anything different from what anyone else would want.
>
> For that matter, other than a masochist or someone with money to burn I can't
> think of anyone that would intentionally WANT to get junk and go back for more
> junk indefinitely.
>
> I'm thinking the trolls may be the 1st to holler troll when their real efforts
> to troll fail.
>
> If the only thing actually available for the average person is junk then most
> likely I will stick with film. I don't intend to sell my pentax. But I do still
> intend to try digital.

Since your priority is ruggedness, here's what you might want:
Canon PowerShot SD110
Price compare, but its on amazon for $200. If you are willing to pay
$300 the Canon S410 is a ton better.
It is only 3MP, 2x zoom, but it has an all metal case and was well
liked when it was released.
Once you copy the pictures off the SD memory card, you can erase them
and take more.

 

[Guest]

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

On 21 Nov 2004 17:34:10 -0800, rocker1@shegolfs.com (Dave Arbok) wrote:

To get my feet wet, radio shack just came out with a $16.00 pen style digital.
I'm not real sure what others would buy it for. I got it to just see what all
the row about digital cameras was, and why the ones that work have such a huge
difference in cost from others.

As for a review, I wouldn't buy it as a beginner camera or anything other than
my purpose, to see what digital is all about.

It takes pictures at about 320x240 has 1 megs of memory, 2-3 modes.
All shots are out of focus. You can identify what the image is, but details
just aren't there.

The 1st one died between the store and home sitting in the box.

Batteries probably will last. I remove them when it isn't in use. Did the same
with film. Corrosion on battery contacts, you might as well scrap the camera.
I've only tried the 20 pix mode. there's a 38 pix and 152 pix mode.
plus a video mode.

>Since your priority is ruggedness, here's what you might want:
>Canon PowerShot SD110
>Price compare, but its on amazon for $200. If you are willing to pay
>$300 the Canon S410 is a ton better.
>It is only 3MP, 2x zoom, but it has an all metal case and was well
>liked when it was released.
>Once you copy the pictures off the SD memory card, you can erase them
>and take more.

there's really too many choices out there. And having used film and good
cameras for so long, my biggest problem now is finding one that does what the
film cameras I've had will do and not have to take out a 2nd mortgage for it.
The automated choice things fail to find what I want. Says make less choices.

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

 

[Guest]

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

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:55:58 -0500, Husky <cbminfo@toast.net> wrote:

Back again, this time looking for a good camera. And something I've found that
doesn't help sales at all is that none of them stand out.
It seems like there's at least one review for every camera made. If there
really were a Great value for a camera in price ranges, the reviews would all
say so. And the other cameras would be left scrambling to improve.
That might account for all the reviews. Not even one camera can fill the bill
for the majority wanting a camera that isn't going to self destruct, or burn
batteries.

And reviews it seems aren't worth the pixels they generate.

example: Reading some promising reviews on a HP 975. About half way down the
list of reviews, the reviews went 180 in the opposite direction.
After fiddling with this $16.00 Radio Shack pen digital [nice little toy]. I've
found that they'll release a camera that only Mr. Magoo could appreciate.
And that's the direction the reviews went. 50% Excellent quality images. Fair
quality images.. Huh ????
What good is a camera without excellent quality images ?

I just picked up a HP all-in-one printer, scanner, copier. For text I'd give it
A+, for images I'd give it D-. Fine for images at a distance too far to pick
out any details. I bought it for the Scanner. It's done fine for 10% of what I
got it for.

My request for a truck camera panned out fine cept for the two trolls claiming
I was trolling. Actually I was, I was trolling for more opinions than those on
the different web sites.

And you'd think this wouldn't even be a subject for discussion about a camera.
Image quality. Would you buy a TV that looked like it was shot behind a layer
of goo ? Only if it couldn't be plugged in at the store.

I would like something similar to my Pentax P30. something you can actually
control. Normal photos are good. But I like to have the ability to grab the
exotic picture. Neon nights in Vegas, moon auras, Hummingbirds in mid sweep.
And I don't think expecting the image quality to exist is too much to ask..

Just how, other than not knowing how to focus a camera could you get a poor
image. This doesn't take into account my $16.00 RS pen Spy camera. No focus to
it.

I'm shooting for under $200.00 this time. maybe a bit more. That's about what I
paid for the P30 or maybe it was $75.00.

Need to immerse myself again [since last shopping trip] on what's failing with
everyone, the camera everyone wants.

>http://www.epinions.com/Digital_Cameras/
>Just been browsing for the longest time now trying to find out what others
>think about 'The Camera'. In the comparisons above, it would seem that every
>camera was bought to spite other reviews.
>
>single reviews on 90% of the cameras. The odds of finding a bad review on a
>single review seems to be non-existent.
>
>What this makes me think is that these reviews came from salesmen and not
>users. 1966 reviews total. and only one review per camera.
>
>Before digital, my favorite was a Yashica auto speed based on lighting. You
>just had to make sure you listened for the shutter to close before making any
>changes.
>
>I'm looking for under $200.00. One site only does side by side for under
>$400.00 and every choice based on my preferences pushes the limit almost to the
>$400 mark. not a $200 or less anywhere.
>
>I'm looking for the most popular to start comparisons from. But from the above,
>there are no popular's.
>
>is there a better link than
>http://www.epinions.com/Digital_Cameras/
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp
>http://howstuffworks.shopping.com/xPP-Digital_Cameras
>
>?
>I tried the Walmart digital cameras link also. There's is salesmen reviews.

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

 

[Marvin]

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

Husky wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:55:58 -0500, Husky <cbminfo@toast.net> wrote:
>
> Back again, this time looking for a good camera. And something I've found that
> doesn't help sales at all is that none of them stand out.
> It seems like there's at least one review for every camera made. If there
> really were a Great value for a camera in price ranges, the reviews would all
> say so. And the other cameras would be left scrambling to improve.
> That might account for all the reviews. Not even one camera can fill the bill
> for the majority wanting a camera that isn't going to self destruct, or burn
> batteries.
>
> And reviews it seems aren't worth the pixels they generate.
>
> example: Reading some promising reviews on a HP 975. About half way down the
> list of reviews, the reviews went 180 in the opposite direction.
> After fiddling with this $16.00 Radio Shack pen digital [nice little toy]. I've
> found that they'll release a camera that only Mr. Magoo could appreciate.
> And that's the direction the reviews went. 50% Excellent quality images. Fair
> quality images.. Huh ????
> What good is a camera without excellent quality images ?
>
> I just picked up a HP all-in-one printer, scanner, copier. For text I'd give it
> A+, for images I'd give it D-. Fine for images at a distance too far to pick
> out any details. I bought it for the Scanner. It's done fine for 10% of what I
> got it for.
>
<snip>
You give thr impression of being locked into film photography, Enjoy it, as long as it lasts.

I recently got an HP combo printer, Officejet 4215xi, for only $90 at Costco. I'm
getting great photo prints. You need to use the right materials and settings. I use HP
ink cartridges and Kodak paper, I've set up the printer and monitor so that what I see on
the monitor is very close to the original scene, and the print is also very close. It
takes a little effort to learn how to get good results, and it surely took some effort for
you to learn how to use your film camera properly.

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 10 May 2005 12:32:04 -0400, Marvin <physchem@cloud9.net> wrote:

>Husky wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:55:58 -0500, Husky <cbminfo@toast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Back again, this time looking for a good camera. And something I've found that
>> doesn't help sales at all is that none of them stand out.
>> It seems like there's at least one review for every camera made. If there
>> really were a Great value for a camera in price ranges, the reviews would all
>> say so. And the other cameras would be left scrambling to improve.
>> That might account for all the reviews. Not even one camera can fill the bill
>> for the majority wanting a camera that isn't going to self destruct, or burn
>> batteries.
>>
>> And reviews it seems aren't worth the pixels they generate.
>>
>> example: Reading some promising reviews on a HP 975. About half way down the
>> list of reviews, the reviews went 180 in the opposite direction.
>> After fiddling with this $16.00 Radio Shack pen digital [nice little toy]. I've
>> found that they'll release a camera that only Mr. Magoo could appreciate.
>> And that's the direction the reviews went. 50% Excellent quality images. Fair
>> quality images.. Huh ????
>> What good is a camera without excellent quality images ?
>>
>> I just picked up a HP all-in-one printer, scanner, copier. For text I'd give it
>> A+, for images I'd give it D-. Fine for images at a distance too far to pick
>> out any details. I bought it for the Scanner. It's done fine for 10% of what I
>> got it for.
>>
><snip>
>You give thr impression of being locked into film photography, Enjoy it, as long as it lasts.
>
>I recently got an HP combo printer, Officejet 4215xi, for only $90 at Costco. I'm
>getting great photo prints. You need to use the right materials and settings. I use HP
>ink cartridges and Kodak paper, I've set up the printer and monitor so that what I see on
>the monitor is very close to the original scene, and the print is also very close. It
>takes a little effort to learn how to get good results, and it surely took some effort for
>you to learn how to use your film camera properly.

We're probably talking apples and oranges here. I have the HP psc 1310. Though
it does have an input on the front for images, I bought it for the printer,
scanner option. The scans get A+ on B&W text scans. Scans of book / magazine
images D-.

I'm just looking for a GOOD digital camera. And the reviews were NO help at
all.

If the camera can't take good pictures, then it's pretty much useless. The spy
pen from RS I mentioned doesn't have a focus. It's blurred from 0 inches to
infinite. You can make out what the images and colors are but not much else.
Not what I'd get a camera for. No magazine is going to pay a penny for an image
they can't tell if it's the front or rear of a cow, or something else
altogether.

Some images I saw on the pentax *ist D and DS looked good, but fell apart under
real close up scrutiny.
Example I have JPG's on my machine where you can count the pores on a face.
That's the camera I want. That image is sadly in an extreme minority. I'm
guessing it was done with a digital. I've also seen some very HQ scans online.
I don't think my HP psc1310 [psc = printer, scanner, copier] can duplicate that
quality. Hasn't done it yet.

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

 

[Guest]

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

Why not? Your HP printer has as much resolution as your local print
developer.

"Husky" <cbminfo@toast.net> wrote in message
news:4ss1819rmf67fsmhtkm9jk3ftps1nshq38@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 May 2005 12:32:04 -0400, Marvin <physchem@cloud9.net> wrote:
> I've also seen some very HQ scans online.
> I don't think my HP psc1310 [psc = printer, scanner, copier] can duplicate
that
> quality. Hasn't done it yet.
>
> --
> more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:24:54 -0400, "John P& Bengi"
<JBengi(spam)@(spam)yahoo,com> wrote:

>Why not? Your HP printer has as much resolution as your local print
>developer.
If I knew that, I'd probably be getting better scans.
>
>"Husky" <cbminfo@toast.net> wrote in message
>news:4ss1819rmf67fsmhtkm9jk3ftps1nshq38@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 May 2005 12:32:04 -0400, Marvin <physchem@cloud9.net> wrote:
>> I've also seen some very HQ scans online.
>> I don't think my HP psc1310 [psc = printer, scanner, copier] can duplicate
>that
>> quality. Hasn't done it yet.
>>
>> --
>> more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html
>

--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html