Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Would like opinion re first digital camera

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 8:03:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi all,
I've been looking for the last few months for a digital camera in stores
and read tons and tons of reviews, and now am confused as to what I
should get.
I am looking for a camera with at least a 1.8" LCD and a clear
viewfinder that is
not blurry (to me at least). I mainly want a camera for family indoor
shots and scenery
when I go somewhere .
But many will be indoors, so I want to try to get one with not much red
eye, though I notice most seem to have that problem. I looked at many
reviews and photo samples on Steves site and dresource.com. (I like
those two sites the best, but also have been to depreview.com.) I know
you can take red eye out with software, but I would prefer if possible
to try to get a camera that doesn't have a lot of red eye. I like
pictures that turn out clear and sharp.

A 3.2 MP is ok for me, as I don't want to pay much more than $250.00 US
or under. I am in Canada, but just to give you an idea of price and not
all models
in the US are available here.

Here's what I was considering:

Canon A75 or A85, but needing 4 batteries kind of puts me off though I
don't rule it out completely if its really a good camera. I would prefer
2 batteries. Canon have recently brought out two new cameras, the A510-
3 MP and the A520 - 4 MP which have two batteries and they take SD
memory cards. I was thinking of buying one of them, but the reviews on
all the sites I looked at, said they had a lot of red eye, and were not
s good as A75 and A85. The A75 and A85 are quite good prices here.

Kodak CX 7530, is a good price right now, and I like the look of Kodak
DX 7440, which is about $100.00 more.
Or Olympus D 580, also a good price camera. The samples on dresource.com
were good of the Olympus D580, and very little redeye on indoor photo on
the site, but said the flash was weak unless taking small groups, but
that might not be a big problem for me.

Any and all comments or personal experiences with any of these cameras
would be much appreciated.

Cathy

More about : opinion digital camera

Anonymous
March 25, 2005 8:40:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:03:54 -0500, Cathy wrote:

> Canon A75 or A85, but needing 4 batteries kind of puts me off though I
> don't rule it out completely if its really a good camera. I would prefer
> 2 batteries. Canon have recently brought out two new cameras, the A510-
> 3 MP and the A520 - 4 MP which have two batteries and they take SD
> memory cards. I was thinking of buying one of them, but the reviews on
> all the sites I looked at, said they had a lot of red eye, and were not
> s good as A75 and A85. The A75 and A85 are quite good prices here.

You don't really need a review to determine whether red-eye will
be a problem or not. Anti red-eye tricks with the flash aren't
especially helpful, and the preflash often makes the subject move,
messing up the picture. Look to see where the flash is located.
The further from the lens the better. Fuji's E500 and E510 are
similar to the Canons. They also use 2 AA batteries. I don't
recall reading reviews mentioning red-eye, but as their flashes
appear to be small pop-ups, they're further from the lens and will
probably produce much less red-eye, but you'd have to check it for
yourself. I think that they also have fairly large displays, but
don't recall the exact dimensions.

The E510 (and possibly the E500) has a very wide 28 mm (equiv.) for
the low end of the zoom, which would tend to make it a better choice
for what you want, indoor family shots and scenic landscapes.


> A 3.2 MP is ok for me, as I don't want to pay much more than $250.00 US
> or under. I am in Canada, but just to give you an idea of price and not
> all models in the US are available here.

Fuji's E510 has 5 mp and the E500 has less. I don't know what the
price would be in Canada, but I recently saw that B&H was selling
the E510 for $220. Would they not ship to Canada? I recall a
recent thread here discussing one of their shipments that seems to
have been delayed in Brazil's customs. :) 
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 9:30:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:sa3941drkg7521se2dfnfo095esv1j27m8@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:03:54 -0500, Cathy wrote:
>
> > Canon A75 or A85, but needing 4 batteries kind of puts me off though
I
> > don't rule it out completely if its really a good camera. I would
prefer
> > 2 batteries. Canon have recently brought out two new cameras, the
A510-
> > 3 MP and the A520 - 4 MP which have two batteries and they take SD
> > memory cards. I was thinking of buying one of them, but the reviews
on
> > all the sites I looked at, said they had a lot of red eye, and were
not
> > s good as A75 and A85. The A75 and A85 are quite good prices here.
>
> You don't really need a review to determine whether red-eye will
> be a problem or not. Anti red-eye tricks with the flash aren't
> especially helpful, and the preflash often makes the subject move,
> messing up the picture. Look to see where the flash is located.

The reviews I usually look at are Steves digicams, dresource.com and
image resource, and dpreview.com. The reviwers usually comment on red
eye problems or very little red eye, whatever the case.

> The further from the lens the better. Fuji's E500 and E510 are
> similar to the Canons. They also use 2 AA batteries. I don't
> recall reading reviews mentioning red-eye, but as their flashes
> appear to be small pop-ups, they're further from the lens and will
> probably produce much less red-eye, but you'd have to check it for
> yourself. I think that they also have fairly large displays, but
> don't recall the exact dimensions.

I seem to recall they have quite large displays as well, but I notice
that the E500 and E510 Fujis, have mixed reviews on review sites, and
thats why I didn't look at them closer though maybe I should have.

> The E510 (and possibly the E500) has a very wide 28 mm (equiv.) for
> the low end of the zoom, which would tend to make it a better choice
> for what you want, indoor family shots and scenic landscapes.

Could be. Those two cameras are more money than the Canon A75 and A85,
but not a huge difference, though I haven't looked at the prices of the
Fujis recently.

> > A 3.2 MP is ok for me, as I don't want to pay much more than $250.00
US
> > or under. I am in Canada, but just to give you an idea of price and
not
> > all models in the US are available here.
>
> Fuji's E510 has 5 mp and the E500 has less. I don't know what the
> price would be in Canada, but I recently saw that B&H was selling
> the E510 for $220. Would they not ship to Canada? I recall a
> recent thread here discussing one of their shipments that seems to
> have been delayed in Brazil's customs. :) 

Shipping to Canada is not the problem, and neither is Customs delays
unless the package is poorly described or something, but paying 15%
Customs tax when it came to Canada IS a problem and wouldn't be
worthwhile :) 
We have very skimpy Customs exemptions and pay 15% tax on anything over
$17.00 US coming into Canada. It would be far cheaper to buy it here,
and many times when the difference in currencies are taken into account,
it cost much the same here, depending on the item of course.
Sometimes people buy items from the US if they are not available here
and know they have to pay 15% and figure its worth it. But it has to be
taken into account that in the case of cameras or electronics and many
other things, that the warranty for something bought in the US is not
usually good outside the US.

Cathy
Related resources
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 11:36:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cathy wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've been looking for the last few months for a digital camera in stores
> and read tons and tons of reviews, and now am confused as to what I
> should get.
> I am looking for a camera with at least a 1.8" LCD and a clear
> viewfinder that is
> not blurry (to me at least). I mainly want a camera for family indoor
> shots and scenery
> when I go somewhere .
> But many will be indoors, so I want to try to get one with not much red
> eye, though I notice most seem to have that problem. I looked at many
> reviews and photo samples on Steves site and dresource.com. (I like
> those two sites the best, but also have been to depreview.com.) I know
> you can take red eye out with software, but I would prefer if possible
> to try to get a camera that doesn't have a lot of red eye. I like
> pictures that turn out clear and sharp.
>
> A 3.2 MP is ok for me, as I don't want to pay much more than $250.00 US
> or under. I am in Canada, but just to give you an idea of price and not
> all models
> in the US are available here.
>
> Here's what I was considering:
>
> Canon A75 or A85, but needing 4 batteries kind of puts me off though I
> don't rule it out completely if its really a good camera. I would prefer
> 2 batteries. Canon have recently brought out two new cameras, the A510-
> 3 MP and the A520 - 4 MP which have two batteries and they take SD
> memory cards. I was thinking of buying one of them, but the reviews on
> all the sites I looked at, said they had a lot of red eye, and were not
> s good as A75 and A85. The A75 and A85 are quite good prices here.
>
> Kodak CX 7530, is a good price right now, and I like the look of Kodak
> DX 7440, which is about $100.00 more.
> Or Olympus D 580, also a good price camera. The samples on dresource.com
> were good of the Olympus D580, and very little redeye on indoor photo on
> the site, but said the flash was weak unless taking small groups, but
> that might not be a big problem for me.
>
> Any and all comments or personal experiences with any of these cameras
> would be much appreciated.
>
> Cathy
>
All the cameras you list would be suitable for the uses you describe. I
would recommend the Kodak 7530 as a good camera for a non-technical type
who is more interested in good pictures that photography as a hobby.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 1:07:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:GU31e.9220$9o4.1586@fe03.lga...
> Cathy wrote:

<snip>

> > Canon A75 or A85, but needing 4 batteries kind of puts me off though
I
> > don't rule it out completely if its really a good camera. I would
prefer
> > 2 batteries. Canon have recently brought out two new cameras, the
A510-
> > 3 MP and the A520 - 4 MP which have two batteries and they take SD
> > memory cards. I was thinking of buying one of them, but the reviews
on
> > all the sites I looked at, said they had a lot of red eye, and were
not
> > s good as A75 and A85. The A75 and A85 are quite good prices here.
> >
> > Kodak CX 7530, is a good price right now, and I like the look of
Kodak
> > DX 7440, which is about $100.00 more.
> > Or Olympus D 580, also a good price camera. The samples on
dresource.com
> > were good of the Olympus D580, and very little redeye on indoor
photo on
> > the site, but said the flash was weak unless taking small groups,
but
> > that might not be a big problem for me.
> >
> > Any and all comments or personal experiences with any of these
cameras
> > would be much appreciated.
> >
> > Cathy
> >
> All the cameras you list would be suitable for the uses you describe.
I
> would recommend the Kodak 7530 as a good camera for a non-technical
type
> who is more interested in good pictures that photography as a hobby.

Yes, the Kodak CX 7530 seems OK and the price is quite good so its
another consideration. I didn't see any reviews of it on the main review
sites I usually look at but that doesn't always mean anything.. Do you
own the Kodak CX 7530? I wouldn't mind a camera which had a few manual
adjustments and not completely automatic, but photography as a hobby,
even though I find it interesting, is not my primary goal unless I get
carried away after I get the camera :) .

Cathy
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 1:18:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message news:GU31e.9220

> All the cameras you list would be suitable for the uses you describe.
I
> would recommend the Kodak 7530 as a good camera for a non-technical
type
> who is more interested in good pictures that photography as a hobby.

Ron, I just read about 9 customer reviews on the Kodak CX 7530 and most
said the battery life was poor compared to other compact type cameras.
Can't you buy chargeables for that camera?

Cathy
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 3:05:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
news:9Iudncm6wsEEF9nfRVn-3w@rogers.com...
>
> Canon A75 or A85, but needing 4 batteries kind of puts me off though I
> don't rule it out completely if its really a good camera. I would prefer
> 2 batteries. Canon have recently brought out two new cameras, the A510-
> 3 MP and the A520 - 4 MP which have two batteries and they take SD
> memory cards.

Is 4 batteries such a problem? Is it a weight/cost/size issues that concerns
you? I have an A60 which you are probably aware is similar to the A75/A85. I
find the 4 batteries weight it just right for my hands and rechargeables are
so inexpensive now that cost is not an issue. 2 batteries may be preferable
for you but don't let it have too much influence over your choice.
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 3:05:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"BigBird" <bigbird@int.net> wrote in message
news:3ajn9iF63csgtU1@individual.net...
>
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> news:9Iudncm6wsEEF9nfRVn-3w@rogers.com...
> >
> > Canon A75 or A85, but needing 4 batteries kind of puts me off though
I
> > don't rule it out completely if its really a good camera. I would
prefer
> > 2 batteries. Canon have recently brought out two new cameras, the
A510-
> > 3 MP and the A520 - 4 MP which have two batteries and they take SD
> > memory cards.
>
> Is 4 batteries such a problem? Is it a weight/cost/size issues that
concerns
> you? I have an A60 which you are probably aware is similar to the
A75/A85. I
> find the 4 batteries weight it just right for my hands and
rechargeables are
> so inexpensive now that cost is not an issue. 2 batteries may be
preferable
> for you but don't let it have too much influence over your choice.

Well, 4 batteries is not a great problem, but two batteries seem
preferable since thats what most cameras use and you only have to worry
about 2 batteries running out instead of 4. In the reviews I looked at
about the new Canon cameras A510 and A520 which came out in Jan. and
Feb. and have two batteries and are replacing the A75 and the A85, one
of the reasons for Canon changing to two batteries for the replacements,
was because many people didn't like the bulkiness of 4 batteries and two
batteries are preferred as its two less batteries to concern yourself
with.
But your're right. It shouldn't influence my choice. I've heard that the
A75 and A85 are very good cameras with good quality photos.

Cathy
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 4:36:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:18:46 -0500, "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote:

>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message news:GU31e.9220
>
>> All the cameras you list would be suitable for the uses you describe.
>I
>> would recommend the Kodak 7530 as a good camera for a non-technical
>type
>> who is more interested in good pictures that photography as a hobby.
>
>Ron, I just read about 9 customer reviews on the Kodak CX 7530 and most
>said the battery life was poor compared to other compact type cameras.
>Can't you buy chargeables for that camera?
>
>Cathy

Just catching up now ...

Here's another Kodak suggestion. The DX7440 4Mp 4X optical zoom was my
choice after months of research trying not to make a poor decision for
my first digital camera. The following review sold me and is spot on.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/dx7440.html

http://www.softmagic.ca/ No sales tax outside Quebec

The DX7440 price recently dropped to $309.56 because it's newest
version/replacement, the Kodak Z730 5Mp, will be out soon.

Kingston Secure Digital Memory Cards [Free shipping] … 256Mbs $41.99 /
512Mbs $69.00 are a bargain of excellent quality.

A 256Mb card will hold 134 full rez 4MP photos. I bought a second
256Mb SD card from Softmagic. Very fast service.

An extra Kodak Li-Ion 1700 mAh Rechargeable Battery $42.00 is handy
keeping the 1050 mAh that comes with the camera as a spare. I've never
needed the 1050 for a day's worth of photos or later file transfer to
computer but only while recharging the 1700 to retain the camera's
internal date.

Benefits of Li-Ion batteries: price is right for the Kodaks, retain
charge for a long time, the included battery charger is fast, Li-Ions
are small and easy to stash in a camera bag, no fumbling with a
handful of batteries.

IMHO, AA or Li-Ion batteries is not a real decision breaker when
considering any camera.

Futureshop.ca has a LowePro Rezo 50 camera bag $19.99 that is a
perfect fit.

Other recommended accessories: None.

---end

Hap
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 4:43:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:03:54 -0500, Cathy wrote:
>
>
>
>>Canon A75 or A85, but needing 4 batteries kind of puts me off though I
>>don't rule it out completely if its really a good camera. I would prefer
>>2 batteries. Canon have recently brought out two new cameras, the A510-
>>3 MP and the A520 - 4 MP which have two batteries and they take SD
>>memory cards. I was thinking of buying one of them, but the reviews on
>>all the sites I looked at, said they had a lot of red eye, and were not
>>s good as A75 and A85. The A75 and A85 are quite good prices here.
>>
>>
>
> You don't really need a review to determine whether red-eye will
>be a problem or not. Anti red-eye tricks with the flash aren't
>especially helpful, and the preflash often makes the subject move,
>messing up the picture. Look to see where the flash is located.
>The further from the lens the better. Fuji's E500 and E510 are
>similar to the Canons. They also use 2 AA batteries. I don't
>recall reading reviews mentioning red-eye, but as their flashes
>appear to be small pop-ups, they're further from the lens and will
>probably produce much less red-eye, but you'd have to check it for
>yourself. I think that they also have fairly large displays, but
>don't recall the exact dimensions.
>
> The E510 (and possibly the E500) has a very wide 28 mm (equiv.) for
>the low end of the zoom, which would tend to make it a better choice
>for what you want, indoor family shots and scenic landscapes.
>
>
>
>
>>A 3.2 MP is ok for me, as I don't want to pay much more than $250.00 US
>>or under. I am in Canada, but just to give you an idea of price and not
>>all models in the US are available here.
>>
>>
>
> Fuji's E510 has 5 mp and the E500 has less. I don't know what the
>price would be in Canada, but I recently saw that B&H was selling
>the E510 for $220. Would they not ship to Canada? I recall a
>recent thread here discussing one of their shipments that seems to
>have been delayed in Brazil's customs. :) 
>
>
>
Hi,
Oly C5050 or C5060 if size is not major concern. Very wide angle.
Check the review on them. I have C5060 for wide angle coverage.
Have dSLR as well.
Tony
Calgary
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 4:43:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:43:08 GMT, Tony Hwang wrote:

> Oly C5050 or C5060 if size is not major concern. Very wide angle.

I looked for a C5050 for quite some time before giving up (don't
care to purchase used). Didn't consider the C5060 because it
doesn't use AAs. Size wasn't too much of a concern so I got a Fuji
S5100 which is actually quite small. But it will only fit in very
large pockets, so it's not really suitable as a camera that will be
taken everywhere.
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 4:43:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:M631e.790730> Hi,
> Oly C5050 or C5060 if size is not major concern. Very wide angle.
> Check the review on them. I have C5060 for wide angle coverage.
> Have dSLR as well.
> Tony
> Calgary

The Olympus C5050 is a great looking camera, but its too big for me and
more than I want to pay.
I am looking for a compact camera that I can put in my purse.Doesn't
have to be ultra light as they tend to be more money, but maybe
something like M407, A75/A85/Kodak DX 7440 or Olympus D580 - along those
lines. Thanks anyway.

Cathy
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 5:26:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:43:08 GMT, Tony Hwang wrote:
>
>
>
>>Oly C5050 or C5060 if size is not major concern. Very wide angle.
>>
>>
>
> I looked for a C5050 for quite some time before giving up (don't
>care to purchase used). Didn't consider the C5060 because it
>doesn't use AAs. Size wasn't too much of a concern so I got a Fuji
>S5100 which is actually quite small. But it will only fit in very
>large pockets, so it's not really suitable as a camera that will be
>taken everywhere.
>
>
>
Hi,
C5060 is very easy on battery. I have two batteries. Carrying fully
charged one as spare.
Original poster said main use is indoor so I mentioned Oly. I think Oly
optics is superior to Fuji.
C5050 has brighter lens vs. C5060 has 4X optical zoom But overall 5050
may be better
camera than 5060.
Tony.
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 5:26:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 02:26:36 GMT, Tony Hwang wrote:

> C5060 is very easy on battery. I have two batteries. Carrying fully
> charged one as spare.

That may be, but I have other reasons for preferring AA batteries.
In 25 years if your cameras haven't been sold or given away and they
aren't broken, you'd be able to take them out of storage, pop some
AAs into the C5050 and see how much you remember. Do you think
you'd be able to find a new or working battery for the C5060?


> C5050 has brighter lens vs. C5060 has 4X optical zoom But overall
> 5050 may be better camera than 5060.

I always liked the C5050, but the Fuji has some nice features of
its own too. Not the least of which was that it uses AAs, is
moderately priced, produces high quality images, and is available!
:) 
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 5:28:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:03:54 -0500, Cathy wrote:
>
>
>
>>Canon A75 or A85, but needing 4 batteries kind of puts me off though I
>>don't rule it out completely if its really a good camera. I would prefer
>>2 batteries. Canon have recently brought out two new cameras, the A510-
>>3 MP and the A520 - 4 MP which have two batteries and they take SD
>>memory cards. I was thinking of buying one of them, but the reviews on
>>all the sites I looked at, said they had a lot of red eye, and were not
>>s good as A75 and A85. The A75 and A85 are quite good prices here.
>>
>>
>
> You don't really need a review to determine whether red-eye will
>be a problem or not. Anti red-eye tricks with the flash aren't
>especially helpful, and the preflash often makes the subject move,
>messing up the picture. Look to see where the flash is located.
>The further from the lens the better. Fuji's E500 and E510 are
>similar to the Canons. They also use 2 AA batteries. I don't
>recall reading reviews mentioning red-eye, but as their flashes
>appear to be small pop-ups, they're further from the lens and will
>probably produce much less red-eye, but you'd have to check it for
>yourself. I think that they also have fairly large displays, but
>don't recall the exact dimensions.
>
> The E510 (and possibly the E500) has a very wide 28 mm (equiv.) for
>the low end of the zoom, which would tend to make it a better choice
>for what you want, indoor family shots and scenic landscapes.
>
>
>
>
>>A 3.2 MP is ok for me, as I don't want to pay much more than $250.00 US
>>or under. I am in Canada, but just to give you an idea of price and not
>>all models in the US are available here.
>>
>>
>
> Fuji's E510 has 5 mp and the E500 has less. I don't know what the
>price would be in Canada, but I recently saw that B&H was selling
>the E510 for $220. Would they not ship to Canada? I recall a
>recent thread here discussing one of their shipments that seems to
>have been delayed in Brazil's customs. :) 
>
>
>
Hi,
B&H ships worldwide. I often buy things from them and they ship via USPS
air parcel.
Never had trouble with them.
Tony
Calgary
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 5:28:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:4N31e.787059>

Hi,
> B&H ships worldwide. I often buy things from them and they ship via
USPS
> air parcel.
> Never had trouble with them.
> Tony
> Calgary

Tony, I would have to pay 15% tax same as every province except
Alberta. So say I was to order a camera from B&H valued at $250.00 US.
Converted to Canadian dollars is $303.00 Can. X 15% = $45.90 Can.for
taxes, plus $5.00 to Canada post = $49.90 plus $303.00 =$352.90 total.
Unless the camera for example here costs $400.00 Can. plus 15% =$560.00
Can. and I am desperate to get that camera and that camera only, and its
only available in the US,why would I buy a camera from B& H. Also to be
added is their shipping charge.
Do you not mind paying Canada Customs tax when you order items from B&H?
Our Customs exemption is only $17.00 US. Plus, most times cameras bought
in the US have no valid warranty in Canada. If you are talking about
items other than a camera and the value is very low, that might be OK
for your purposes. But I never buy anything from the US. Too expensive.
I have a thing about paying Customs taxes :)  - its enough to pay Income
tax.

Its really all hypothetical anyway as I can buy many different cameras
here which will be fine for me and are available in Canada, so why would
I buy one there when I can get the exact same one here much cheaper with
a warranty valid in my own country? The prices of digital cameras in
Toronto stores (don't know about Calgary) have come down a lot in the
past few months and still coming down.

Cathy
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 6:12:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:43:08 GMT, Tony Hwang wrote:
>
>
>>Oly C5050 or C5060 if size is not major concern. Very wide angle.
>
>
> I looked for a C5050 for quite some time before giving up (don't
> care to purchase used). Didn't consider the C5060 because it
> doesn't use AAs. Size wasn't too much of a concern so I got a Fuji
> S5100 which is actually quite small. But it will only fit in very
> large pockets, so it's not really suitable as a camera that will be
> taken everywhere.
>

Not having enough money to buy a 'studio' camera (even if I HAD a
studio), and a 'travel' camera, I elect to buy ONLY cameras that I can
carry in my pocket. A camera you don't HAVE doesn't take any pictures.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 6:17:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cathy wrote:
> "Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:4N31e.787059>
>
> Hi,
>
>>B&H ships worldwide. I often buy things from them and they ship via
>
> USPS
>
>>air parcel.
>>Never had trouble with them.
>>Tony
>>Calgary
>
>
> Tony, I would have to pay 15% tax same as every province except
> Alberta. So say I was to order a camera from B&H valued at $250.00 US.
> Converted to Canadian dollars is $303.00 Can. X 15% = $45.90 Can.for
> taxes, plus $5.00 to Canada post = $49.90 plus $303.00 =$352.90 total.
> Unless the camera for example here costs $400.00 Can. plus 15% =$560.00
> Can. and I am desperate to get that camera and that camera only, and its
> only available in the US,why would I buy a camera from B& H. Also to be
> added is their shipping charge.
> Do you not mind paying Canada Customs tax when you order items from B&H?
> Our Customs exemption is only $17.00 US. Plus, most times cameras bought
> in the US have no valid warranty in Canada. If you are talking about
> items other than a camera and the value is very low, that might be OK
> for your purposes. But I never buy anything from the US. Too expensive.
> I have a thing about paying Customs taxes :)  - its enough to pay Income
> tax.
>
> Its really all hypothetical anyway as I can buy many different cameras
> here which will be fine for me and are available in Canada, so why would
> I buy one there when I can get the exact same one here much cheaper with
> a warranty valid in my own country? The prices of digital cameras in
> Toronto stores (don't know about Calgary) have come down a lot in the
> past few months and still coming down.
>
> Cathy
>

Hummm. Considering the NAFTA, isn't Canada in violation of the
agreement by charging such a tax?

Of course one would have to consider taxes, and exchange rates (and
warranties) when buying across national borders, but I can imagine that
pricing might make this practical in some cases. Again, I don't
understand why such a tax exists in view of NAFTA.
So much for 'free trade'.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 6:23:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cathy wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:GU31e.9220$9o4.1586@fe03.lga...
>
>>Cathy wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>Canon A75 or A85, but needing 4 batteries kind of puts me off though
>
> I
>
>>>don't rule it out completely if its really a good camera. I would
>
> prefer
>
>>>2 batteries. Canon have recently brought out two new cameras, the
>
> A510-
>
>>>3 MP and the A520 - 4 MP which have two batteries and they take SD
>>>memory cards. I was thinking of buying one of them, but the reviews
>
> on
>
>>>all the sites I looked at, said they had a lot of red eye, and were
>
> not
>
>>>s good as A75 and A85. The A75 and A85 are quite good prices here.
>>>
>>>Kodak CX 7530, is a good price right now, and I like the look of
>
> Kodak
>
>>>DX 7440, which is about $100.00 more.
>>>Or Olympus D 580, also a good price camera. The samples on
>
> dresource.com
>
>>>were good of the Olympus D580, and very little redeye on indoor
>
> photo on
>
>>>the site, but said the flash was weak unless taking small groups,
>
> but
>
>>>that might not be a big problem for me.
>>>
>>>Any and all comments or personal experiences with any of these
>
> cameras
>
>>>would be much appreciated.
>>>
>>>Cathy
>>>
>>
>>All the cameras you list would be suitable for the uses you describe.
>
> I
>
>>would recommend the Kodak 7530 as a good camera for a non-technical
>
> type
>
>>who is more interested in good pictures that photography as a hobby.
>
>
> Yes, the Kodak CX 7530 seems OK and the price is quite good so its
> another consideration. I didn't see any reviews of it on the main review
> sites I usually look at but that doesn't always mean anything.. Do you
> own the Kodak CX 7530? I wouldn't mind a camera which had a few manual
> adjustments and not completely automatic, but photography as a hobby,
> even though I find it interesting, is not my primary goal unless I get
> carried away after I get the camera :) .
>
> Cathy
>
I have had a Kodak DX3600 and now own a DX6440. While I am not into
photography as a hobby any longer, I have the technical knowledge to use
manual controls (but no longer have the patience). The DX6440 (replaced
by the DX7440) offers a nice zoom lens, and enough manual controls to
allow some pictures under special conditions. I VERY rarely use
anything other than automatic, or the mode settings as they cover 99% of
my picture taking needs, but it is nice to have them for those rare
pictures where I have TIME to mess with them, and would like to get the
picture.
I have found the Kodak cameras to give excellent color, and generally
good pictures under most conditions. If you want to see some of my
pictures, go to www.webshots.com and search for rphunter42. All of the
pictures since Jan 2004 have been taken by the DX6440.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 6:29:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cathy wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message news:GU31e.9220
>
>
>>All the cameras you list would be suitable for the uses you describe.
>
> I
>
>>would recommend the Kodak 7530 as a good camera for a non-technical
>
> type
>
>>who is more interested in good pictures that photography as a hobby.
>
>
> Ron, I just read about 9 customer reviews on the Kodak CX 7530 and most
> said the battery life was poor compared to other compact type cameras.
> Can't you buy chargeables for that camera?
>
> Cathy
>
The 7530 uses AA batteries. Alkalines are NOT recommended. It will use
two NIMH batteries, either individual, or in the Kodak battery pack
(which I have found to work very well on my DX6440), or a CRV3 lithium
(disposable) battery. I usually carry a fully charged (in the dock)
camera with the Kodak battery pack, and a lithium CRV3 as backup. Since
the lithiums have a 10 year shelf life, they are the perfect backup
battery. On my last vacation, I managed 250 pictures on the NIMH
battery pack before it needed recharging.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 6:32:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hap Shaughnessy wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:18:46 -0500, "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message news:GU31e.9220
>>
>>
>>>All the cameras you list would be suitable for the uses you describe.
>>
>>I
>>
>>>would recommend the Kodak 7530 as a good camera for a non-technical
>>
>>type
>>
>>>who is more interested in good pictures that photography as a hobby.
>>
>>Ron, I just read about 9 customer reviews on the Kodak CX 7530 and most
>>said the battery life was poor compared to other compact type cameras.
>>Can't you buy chargeables for that camera?
>>
>>Cathy
>
>
> Just catching up now ...
>
> Here's another Kodak suggestion. The DX7440 4Mp 4X optical zoom was my
> choice after months of research trying not to make a poor decision for
> my first digital camera. The following review sold me and is spot on.
>
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/dx7440.html
>
> http://www.softmagic.ca/ No sales tax outside Quebec
>
> The DX7440 price recently dropped to $309.56 because it's newest
> version/replacement, the Kodak Z730 5Mp, will be out soon.
>
> Kingston Secure Digital Memory Cards [Free shipping] … 256Mbs $41.99 /
> 512Mbs $69.00 are a bargain of excellent quality.
>
> A 256Mb card will hold 134 full rez 4MP photos. I bought a second
> 256Mb SD card from Softmagic. Very fast service.
>
> An extra Kodak Li-Ion 1700 mAh Rechargeable Battery $42.00 is handy
> keeping the 1050 mAh that comes with the camera as a spare. I've never
> needed the 1050 for a day's worth of photos or later file transfer to
> computer but only while recharging the 1700 to retain the camera's
> internal date.
>
> Benefits of Li-Ion batteries: price is right for the Kodaks, retain
> charge for a long time, the included battery charger is fast, Li-Ions
> are small and easy to stash in a camera bag, no fumbling with a
> handful of batteries.
>
> IMHO, AA or Li-Ion batteries is not a real decision breaker when
> considering any camera.
>
> Futureshop.ca has a LowePro Rezo 50 camera bag $19.99 that is a
> perfect fit.
>
> Other recommended accessories: None.
>
> ---end
>
> Hap
OUCH. I don't know where you are, Hap, but Fry's here (Ft. Worth, Tx.)
had 256 SD cards for $9.99 after rebates just yesterday! I agree that
the lithiums (even the disposable ones) make great backups.



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 6:34:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cathy wrote:

>"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:M631e.790730> Hi,
>
>
>>Oly C5050 or C5060 if size is not major concern. Very wide angle.
>>Check the review on them. I have C5060 for wide angle coverage.
>>Have dSLR as well.
>>Tony
>>Calgary
>>
>>
>
>The Olympus C5050 is a great looking camera, but its too big for me and
>more than I want to pay.
>I am looking for a compact camera that I can put in my purse.Doesn't
>have to be ultra light as they tend to be more money, but maybe
>something like M407, A75/A85/Kodak DX 7440 or Olympus D580 - along those
>lines. Thanks anyway.
>
>Cathy
>
>
>
Hi,
Canon S50 is VERY good one Used one may be in your budget..
Tony
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 6:34:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:mL41e.787539$Xk.772298@pd7tw3no...
> Cathy wrote:
>
> >"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:M631e.790730>
Hi,
> >
> >
> >>Oly C5050 or C5060 if size is not major concern. Very wide angle.
> >>Check the review on them. I have C5060 for wide angle coverage.
> >>Have dSLR as well.
> >>Tony
> >>Calgary
> >>
> >>
> >
> >The Olympus C5050 is a great looking camera, but its too big for me
and
> >more than I want to pay.
> >I am looking for a compact camera that I can put in my purse.Doesn't
> >have to be ultra light as they tend to be more money, but maybe
> >something like M407, A75/A85/Kodak DX 7440 or Olympus D580 - along
those
> >lines. Thanks anyway.
> >
> >Cathy
> >
> >
> >
> Hi,
> Canon S50 is VERY good one Used one may be in your budget..
> Tony

I like the look of the S50, but couldn't find it on any of the sites I
check. I found S60 for $499.99 on Futureshop site. I usually look at
Staples.ca or Futureshop or Best buy for camera prices.

Cathy
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 6:42:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 02:26:36 GMT, Tony Hwang wrote:
>
>
>
>>C5060 is very easy on battery. I have two batteries. Carrying fully
>>charged one as spare.
>>
>>
>
> That may be, but I have other reasons for preferring AA batteries.
>In 25 years if your cameras haven't been sold or given away and they
>aren't broken, you'd be able to take them out of storage, pop some
>AAs into the C5050 and see how much you remember. Do you think
>you'd be able to find a new or working battery for the C5060?
>
>
>
>
>>C5050 has brighter lens vs. C5060 has 4X optical zoom But overall
>>5050 may be better camera than 5060.
>>
>>
>
> I always liked the C5050, but the Fuji has some nice features of
>its own too. Not the least of which was that it uses AAs, is
>moderately priced, produces high quality images, and is available!
>:) 
>
>
>
Hi,
25 years? Wow! I'd be dead by then, LOL. I never owned Fuji anything
except using some films.
Been playing with cameras since I was in elementary school that was in
the '50s. My film camera outfit
was all Minolta based on modified XK body. Now onto digital, Nikon,
Canon, Oly and have Panasonic
FZ20 on the way for occasional long zoom use. Lots of wild life(animals,
birds) where I live.
Tony
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 11:45:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <9Iudncm6wsEEF9nfRVn-3w@rogers.com>, Cathy <not@there.com>
wrote:

> Any and all comments or personal experiences with any of these cameras
> would be much appreciated.

General observations:

- Don't get too hung up on the number of batteries; twice as many AA's
will likely be replaced half as often. Me, I prefer rechargables.

- Red eye is simple. Measure the distance between the lens and the
flash; the greater it is, the less often you'll see this. ALL cameras
with built-in flash will usually cause red eye; the red eye reduction
features like preflash simply don't work. If this is a huge concern,
look for a camera that will accept an external flash.

The good news is, red eye is easily removed with most editing software.

- Finally, unless you're really impoverished, don't agonize too much
about your selection. Just buy one and work with it, to see what works
for YOU and what features drive you crazy. Most likely the SECOND
camera you buy will be the one you really like.
March 26, 2005 12:21:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I myself use DSLR cameras but my wife has an Olympus C760. I believe it is
now superseded but this little camera has made her very happy. It does
sometimes make red-eye and it does have a shutter lag but it really is very
nice camera for family use. The later model is even better. I would advise
you to stay away from Kodak cameras of all models. Their Easy Share software
installs spyware on your PC and give many older PCs a lot of drama.

If I were to buy a non-slr camera today, I would purchase a Panasonic 'FZ'.
These are equipped with some formidable features and the FZ20 is quite good
enough to use for real estate and postcard photography on a professional
level. I've just finished a brochure for a tour operator who supplied all
the photos and they were from a FZ20 camera. Very impressive stuff.

Hope this helps,
Douglas
-----------------------------
"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
news:9Iudncm6wsEEF9nfRVn-3w@rogers.com...
> Hi all,
> I've been looking for the last few months for a digital camera in stores
> and read tons and tons of reviews, and now am confused as to what I
> should get.
> I am looking for a camera with at least a 1.8" LCD and a clear
> viewfinder that is
> not blurry (to me at least). I mainly want a camera for family indoor
> shots and scenery
> when I go somewhere .
> But many will be indoors, so I want to try to get one with not much red
> eye, though I notice most seem to have that problem. I looked at many
> reviews and photo samples on Steves site and dresource.com. (I like
> those two sites the best, but also have been to depreview.com.) I know
> you can take red eye out with software, but I would prefer if possible
> to try to get a camera that doesn't have a lot of red eye. I like
> pictures that turn out clear and sharp.
>
> A 3.2 MP is ok for me, as I don't want to pay much more than $250.00 US
> or under. I am in Canada, but just to give you an idea of price and not
> all models
> in the US are available here.
>
> Here's what I was considering:
>
> Canon A75 or A85, but needing 4 batteries kind of puts me off though I
> don't rule it out completely if its really a good camera. I would prefer
> 2 batteries. Canon have recently brought out two new cameras, the A510-
> 3 MP and the A520 - 4 MP which have two batteries and they take SD
> memory cards. I was thinking of buying one of them, but the reviews on
> all the sites I looked at, said they had a lot of red eye, and were not
> s good as A75 and A85. The A75 and A85 are quite good prices here.
>
> Kodak CX 7530, is a good price right now, and I like the look of Kodak
> DX 7440, which is about $100.00 more.
> Or Olympus D 580, also a good price camera. The samples on dresource.com
> were good of the Olympus D580, and very little redeye on indoor photo on
> the site, but said the flash was weak unless taking small groups, but
> that might not be a big problem for me.
>
> Any and all comments or personal experiences with any of these cameras
> would be much appreciated.
>
> Cathy
>
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 12:21:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Douglas" <decipleofeos@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ajkohF699eb2U1@individual.net...
> I myself use DSLR cameras but my wife has an Olympus C760. I believe
it is
> now superseded but this little camera has made her very happy. It does
> sometimes make red-eye and it does have a shutter lag but it really is
very
> nice camera for family use. The later model is even better. I would
advise
> you to stay away from Kodak cameras of all models. Their Easy Share
software
> installs spyware on your PC and give many older PCs a lot of drama.

I have never seen the Olympus C760 here. Or it could be I've never paid
attention if it is more than I want to pay.

> If I were to buy a non-slr camera today, I would purchase a Panasonic
'FZ'.
> These are equipped with some formidable features and the FZ20 is quite
good
> enough to use for real estate and postcard photography on a
professional
> level. I've just finished a brochure for a tour operator who supplied
all
> the photos and they were from a FZ20 camera. Very impressive stuff.

The Panasonic FZ 20 looks like a very nice camera but about $300.00 more
than I want to pay. It looks more like an SLR type. I really can't
justify paying much more than $250.00 US or under if I can find
something I like.
Thanks for your input.

Cathy
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 1:48:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott Schuckert wrote:
> In article <9Iudncm6wsEEF9nfRVn-3w@rogers.com>, Cathy <not@there.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Any and all comments or personal experiences with any of these cameras
>>would be much appreciated.
>
>
> General observations:
>
> - Don't get too hung up on the number of batteries; twice as many AA's
> will likely be replaced half as often. Me, I prefer rechargables.

Rechargeables are my preference as well, but I also keep a disposable
lithium handy. Note that while 4 batteries probably last twice as long,
they also weigh twice as much.


>
> - Red eye is simple. Measure the distance between the lens and the
> flash; the greater it is, the less often you'll see this. ALL cameras
> with built-in flash will usually cause red eye; the red eye reduction
> features like preflash simply don't work. If this is a huge concern,
> look for a camera that will accept an external flash.

I find the preflash does little to prevent red-eye, unless you count the
people who squint at the preflash, and you catch their eyes closed....

>
> The good news is, red eye is easily removed with most editing software.
>
> - Finally, unless you're really impoverished, don't agonize too much
> about your selection. Just buy one and work with it, to see what works
> for YOU and what features drive you crazy. Most likely the SECOND
> camera you buy will be the one you really like.

That has certainly been my experience.



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 6:09:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don't get a digital camera. Does film present a problem for you? If
not, why bother?


Cathy wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've been looking for the last few months for a digital camera in
stores
> and read tons and tons of reviews, and now am confused as to what I
> should get.
> I am looking for a camera with at least a 1.8" LCD and a clear
> viewfinder that is
> not blurry (to me at least). I mainly want a camera for family indoor
> shots and scenery
> when I go somewhere .
> But many will be indoors, so I want to try to get one with not much
red
> eye, though I notice most seem to have that problem. I looked at many
> reviews and photo samples on Steves site and dresource.com. (I like
> those two sites the best, but also have been to depreview.com.) I
know
> you can take red eye out with software, but I would prefer if
possible
> to try to get a camera that doesn't have a lot of red eye. I like
> pictures that turn out clear and sharp.
>
> A 3.2 MP is ok for me, as I don't want to pay much more than $250.00
US
> or under. I am in Canada, but just to give you an idea of price and
not
> all models
> in the US are available here.
>
> Here's what I was considering:
>
> Canon A75 or A85, but needing 4 batteries kind of puts me off though
I
> don't rule it out completely if its really a good camera. I would
prefer
> 2 batteries. Canon have recently brought out two new cameras, the
A510-
> 3 MP and the A520 - 4 MP which have two batteries and they take SD
> memory cards. I was thinking of buying one of them, but the reviews
on
> all the sites I looked at, said they had a lot of red eye, and were
not
> s good as A75 and A85. The A75 and A85 are quite good prices here.
>
> Kodak CX 7530, is a good price right now, and I like the look of
Kodak
> DX 7440, which is about $100.00 more.
> Or Olympus D 580, also a good price camera. The samples on
dresource.com
> were good of the Olympus D580, and very little redeye on indoor photo
on
> the site, but said the flash was weak unless taking small groups,
but
> that might not be a big problem for me.
>
> Any and all comments or personal experiences with any of these
cameras
> would be much appreciated.
>
> Cathy
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 8:02:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
news:l_-dnfiFiaxWTNnfRVn-qg@rogers.com...
> Kodak
> Yes, the Kodak CX 7530 seems OK and the price is quite good so its
> another consideration. I didn't see any reviews of it on the main review
> sites I usually look at but that doesn't always mean anything.. Do you
> own the Kodak CX 7530? I wouldn't mind a camera which had a few manual
> adjustments and not completely automatic, but photography as a hobby,
> even though I find it interesting, is not my primary goal unless I get
> carried away after I get the camera :) .
>
> Cathy
>

Cathy

The lens on the CX7530 is a Retinar (if I'm not mistaken) while the lens on
the DX7440 is a Schneider.
I have a DX6340 with the same Schneider lens and wouldn't downgrade to a
Retinar.

Gerrit
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 8:02:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gerrit 't Hart wrote:
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> news:l_-dnfiFiaxWTNnfRVn-qg@rogers.com...
>
>>Kodak
>>Yes, the Kodak CX 7530 seems OK and the price is quite good so its
>>another consideration. I didn't see any reviews of it on the main review
>>sites I usually look at but that doesn't always mean anything.. Do you
>>own the Kodak CX 7530? I wouldn't mind a camera which had a few manual
>>adjustments and not completely automatic, but photography as a hobby,
>>even though I find it interesting, is not my primary goal unless I get
>>carried away after I get the camera :) .
>>
>>Cathy
>>
>
>
> Cathy
>
> The lens on the CX7530 is a Retinar (if I'm not mistaken) while the lens on
> the DX7440 is a Schneider.
> I have a DX6340 with the same Schneider lens and wouldn't downgrade to a
> Retinar.
>
> Gerrit
>
>
Kodak has been building the Retinar lens for ages. Nothing wrong with it.
I believe the Schneider is probably better, but the difference may well
be insignificant at this level.
I also like the Schneider lens on my DX6440, but the lens on my older
DX3600 was a Retinar, and it was quite satisfactory.




--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 8:03:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Hap Shaughnessy" <hap@lac-du-possum.ca> wrote in message
news:1o0a41t4gmotu0jboom4ee25sin0gctjdo@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:18:46 -0500, "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote:
>
> >"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message news:GU31e.9220
> >
> >> All the cameras you list would be suitable for the uses you
describe.
> >I
> >> would recommend the Kodak 7530 as a good camera for a non-technical
> >type
> >> who is more interested in good pictures that photography as a
hobby.
> >
> >Ron, I just read about 9 customer reviews on the Kodak CX 7530 and
most
> >said the battery life was poor compared to other compact type
cameras.
> >Can't you buy chargeables for that camera?
> >
> >Cathy
>
> Just catching up now ...
>
> Here's another Kodak suggestion. The DX7440 4Mp 4X optical zoom was my
> choice after months of research trying not to make a poor decision for
> my first digital camera. The following review sold me and is spot on.
>
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/dx7440.html

I looked at the Kodak DX 7440 on Steves digicams site and a few other
sites and I like the cameras features, except I am not a big fan of
proprietary batteries and its a little bigger than I thought of getting.
I kind of like the idea of having a camera which takes AA's just in case
the batteries run down and many people say to get a camera which takes
AA's batteries as they are readily available. Though I maybe shouldn't
rule the camera out .

> http://www.softmagic.ca/ No sales tax outside Quebec
>
> The DX7440 price recently dropped to $309.56 because it's newest
> version/replacement, the Kodak Z730 5Mp, will be out soon.

I went to the site above and I'm surprised no sales tax outside of
Quebec. The company is in
Quebec I notice, but you would think they would have to charge sales tax
to provinces which have it. I wouldn't complain though.:) 

I have to say I wouldn't buy a camera I had never actually seen. I need
to check it out in person and look through the viewfinder to see how it
looks - not just pictures of it in reviews and also important is to be
able to take it back if you really had to. Its a good price on
softmagic.ca though. I've only seen it advertised in one store here. Its
an online and also a real store, and it was $349.99 last time I
looked.. I've never seen it advertised in Future shop, Best buy or
Blacks or Staples, though they advertise the Kodak DX 7630 - the next
one up from the
DX 7440 with an all black body, and its $369.99 on sale right now. If
buying from Softmagic.ca, the total price would be $342.00 total, and
would cost $50.00 more to buy in the store.

> Kingston Secure Digital Memory Cards [Free shipping] . 256Mbs $41.99
/
> 512Mbs $69.00 are a bargain of excellent quality.
>
> A 256Mb card will hold 134 full rez 4MP photos. I bought a second
> 256Mb SD card from Softmagic. Very fast service.
>
> An extra Kodak Li-Ion 1700 mAh Rechargeable Battery $42.00 is handy
> keeping the 1050 mAh that comes with the camera as a spare. I've never
> needed the 1050 for a day's worth of photos or later file transfer to
> computer but only while recharging the 1700 to retain the camera's
> internal date.

If I bought an extra rechargeable battery for $42.00 the price is
creeping up to $400.00 which is more than I want to pay, and you seem to
need to have extra batteries, no matter what kind of batteries you need.

Thanks very much for all your information. I will consider it along with
others I am considering.

Cathy
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 8:10:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gerrit 't Hart" <gthart@sad.au> wrote in message
news:42452519$0$16015$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> news:l_-dnfiFiaxWTNnfRVn-qg@rogers.com...
> > Kodak
> > Yes, the Kodak CX 7530 seems OK and the price is quite good so its
> > another consideration. I didn't see any reviews of it on the main
review
> > sites I usually look at but that doesn't always mean anything.. Do
you
> > own the Kodak CX 7530? I wouldn't mind a camera which had a few
manual
> > adjustments and not completely automatic, but photography as a
hobby,
> > even though I find it interesting, is not my primary goal unless I
get
> > carried away after I get the camera :) .
> >
> > Cathy
> >
>
> Cathy
>
> The lens on the CX7530 is a Retinar (if I'm not mistaken) while the
lens on
> the DX7440 is a Schneider.
> I have a DX6340 with the same Schneider lens and wouldn't downgrade to
a
> Retinar.
>
> Gerrit

Thats interesting. So are you saying that if I got the CX 7530 that I
would be downgrading because the lens in the CX 7530 is not as good as
the Schneider lens in the DX 6340?
One thing, the CX 7530 and DX 6340 both take AA batteries, so you just
have to buy a rechargeable battery charger. Seems hard to get everything
I want.I like the DX7440 but not proprietary batteries, especially when
extra battery charger is not cheap. Puts the price up. Thanks.

Cathy
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 8:43:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:EM91e.10101$Bw.5565@fe03.lga...
> Cathy wrote:
> > "Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:4N31e.787059>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >>B&H ships worldwide. I often buy things from them and they ship via
> >
> > USPS
> >
> >>air parcel.
> >>Never had trouble with them.
> >>Tony
> >>Calgary
> >
> >
> > Tony, I would have to pay 15% tax same as every province except
> > Alberta. So say I was to order a camera from B&H valued at $250.00
US.
> > Converted to Canadian dollars is $303.00 Can. X 15% = $45.90 Can.for
> > taxes, plus $5.00 to Canada post = $49.90 plus $303.00 =$352.90
total.
> > Unless the camera for example here costs $400.00 Can. plus 15%
=$560.00
> > Can. and I am desperate to get that camera and that camera only, and
its
> > only available in the US,why would I buy a camera from B& H. Also to
be
> > added is their shipping charge.
> > Do you not mind paying Canada Customs tax when you order items from
B&H?
> > Our Customs exemption is only $17.00 US. Plus, most times cameras
bought
> > in the US have no valid warranty in Canada. If you are talking about
> > items other than a camera and the value is very low, that might be
OK
> > for your purposes. But I never buy anything from the US. Too
expensive.
> > I have a thing about paying Customs taxes :)  - its enough to pay
Income
> > tax.
> >
> > Its really all hypothetical anyway as I can buy many different
cameras
> > here which will be fine for me and are available in Canada, so why
would
> > I buy one there when I can get the exact same one here much cheaper
with
> > a warranty valid in my own country? The prices of digital cameras in
> > Toronto stores (don't know about Calgary) have come down a lot in
the
> > past few months and still coming down.
> >
> > Cathy
> >
>
> Hummm. Considering the NAFTA, isn't Canada in violation of the
> agreement by charging such a tax?

No, there is no violation. You are thinking of Customs DUTY. Under
NAFTA, there is no Customs duty charged when importing items into Canada
if the item is made in the US or Canada, but there is still two taxes to
be paid (PST (provincial sales tax) - 8% and GST - 7% (General services
tax) - so a total of 15% tax payable on ALL items imported - it doesn't
matter what country the item is from. When living here, we pay 15% tax
(provincial and GST) for most products we buy, with some exceptions.
There is no tax on food products and childrens clothes and some other
things. The only store I feel I am getting a break is grocery stores :) 

> Of course one would have to consider taxes, and exchange rates (and
> warranties) when buying across national borders, but I can imagine
that
> pricing might make this practical in some cases. Again, I don't
> understand why such a tax exists in view of NAFTA.
> So much for 'free trade'.

As I said NAFTA only allows for no DUTY on items coming into Canada.
Customs duty was what was agreed upon in NAFTA talks. Provincial taxes
are a different matter and nothing to do with free trade. It wouldn't be
worth my while to buy a camera from the US.Maybe in some cases it might
be worth it, especially if the person can't find the same item here and
don't mind paying tax. A few months ago, I ordered a couple of DVD
movies from Amazon.com because I couldn't get them at Amazon.ca. I
actually didn't have to pay tax as Customs let it go, and it wouldn't
have been that much anyway, as the total value was quite low. But say I
bought a camera from Japan or Europe. Not only would I pay the 15% tax
on the value of the camera, but would probably also have to pay duty.
Thats the difference about NAFTA. Tax but no duty.

Cathy
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 8:49:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:9S91e.14013$Gy3.13760@fe07.lga...
> Cathy wrote:
> > Yes, the Kodak CX 7530 seems OK and the price is quite good so its
> > another consideration. I didn't see any reviews of it on the main
review
> > sites I usually look at but that doesn't always mean anything.. Do
you
> > own the Kodak CX 7530? I wouldn't mind a camera which had a few
manual
> > adjustments and not completely automatic, but photography as a
hobby,
> > even though I find it interesting, is not my primary goal unless I
get
> > carried away after I get the camera :) .
> >
> > Cathy
> >
> I have had a Kodak DX3600 and now own a DX6440. While I am not into
> photography as a hobby any longer, I have the technical knowledge to
use
> manual controls (but no longer have the patience). The DX6440
(replaced
> by the DX7440) offers a nice zoom lens, and enough manual controls to
> allow some pictures under special conditions. I VERY rarely use
> anything other than automatic, or the mode settings as they cover 99%
of
> my picture taking needs, but it is nice to have them for those rare
> pictures where I have TIME to mess with them, and would like to get
the
> picture.
> I have found the Kodak cameras to give excellent color, and generally
> good pictures under most conditions. If you want to see some of my
> pictures, go to www.webshots.com and search for rphunter42. All of
the
> pictures since Jan 2004 have been taken by the DX6440.

I looked at your pictures and they are beautiful. Is that you and your
wife in the photos? You look like a happy couple. The colors are really
nice and so is the scenery and flowers. They are the kind of pictures I
like to take, especially if you are on vacation or at some scenic spot.
I must say the DX 6440 takes very good pictures.
One thing bad about buying cameras here is when I see cameras I like say
at Staples where they seem to have quite a few Kodak cameras, they have
certain Kodak models for a while, then they go to higher models and
don't have the ones like DX 6440 any more. I saw it advertised before on
Staples.ca site but don't see it now. I don't mind cameras that have
some manual settings, as that allows for some creativity.
By the way, is webshots.com site free for listing your photos?

Cathy
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 8:52:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:VX91e.14014$gA3.5550@fe07.lga...
> Cathy wrote:
>
> > Ron, I just read about 9 customer reviews on the Kodak CX 7530 and
most
> > said the battery life was poor compared to other compact type
cameras.
> > Can't you buy chargeables for that camera?
> >
> > Cathy
> >
> The 7530 uses AA batteries. Alkalines are NOT recommended. It will
use
> two NIMH batteries, either individual, or in the Kodak battery pack
> (which I have found to work very well on my DX6440), or a CRV3 lithium
> (disposable) battery. I usually carry a fully charged (in the dock)
> camera with the Kodak battery pack, and a lithium CRV3 as backup.
Since
> the lithiums have a 10 year shelf life, they are the perfect backup
> battery. On my last vacation, I managed 250 pictures on the NIMH
> battery pack before it needed recharging.

Do you mean that the AA batteries have to be rechargeables? what if you
ran out of batteries and in a pinch, couldn't you use AA alkalines? Is
it better in your view to buy extra chargeable AA's ?
Arent lithium batteries expensive?

Cathy
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 8:58:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott Schuckert" <not@aol.com> wrote in message
news:260320050845345307%not@aol.com...
> In article <9Iudncm6wsEEF9nfRVn-3w@rogers.com>, Cathy <not@there.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Any and all comments or personal experiences with any of these
cameras
> > would be much appreciated.
>
> General observations:
>
> - Don't get too hung up on the number of batteries; twice as many
AA's
> will likely be replaced half as often. Me, I prefer rechargables.
>
> - Red eye is simple. Measure the distance between the lens and the
> flash; the greater it is, the less often you'll see this. ALL cameras
> with built-in flash will usually cause red eye; the red eye reduction
> features like preflash simply don't work. If this is a huge concern,
> look for a camera that will accept an external flash.
>
> The good news is, red eye is easily removed with most editing
software.
>
> - Finally, unless you're really impoverished, don't agonize too much
> about your selection. Just buy one and work with it, to see what works
> for YOU and what features drive you crazy. Most likely the SECOND
> camera you buy will be the one you really like.

You are probably right Scott.One of these days I will get something
suitable for myself. In the meantime I am getting a lot of great
information here from people and learning a lot which is always a good
thing. I still think I prefer two batteries though :) 
Thanks.

Cathy
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 9:18:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cathy wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:9S91e.14013$Gy3.13760@fe07.lga...
>
>>Cathy wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, the Kodak CX 7530 seems OK and the price is quite good so its
>>>another consideration. I didn't see any reviews of it on the main
>
> review
>
>>>sites I usually look at but that doesn't always mean anything.. Do
>
> you
>
>>>own the Kodak CX 7530? I wouldn't mind a camera which had a few
>
> manual
>
>>>adjustments and not completely automatic, but photography as a
>
> hobby,
>
>>>even though I find it interesting, is not my primary goal unless I
>
> get
>
>>>carried away after I get the camera :) .
>>>
>>>Cathy
>>>
>>
>>I have had a Kodak DX3600 and now own a DX6440. While I am not into
>>photography as a hobby any longer, I have the technical knowledge to
>
> use
>
>>manual controls (but no longer have the patience). The DX6440
>
> (replaced
>
>>by the DX7440) offers a nice zoom lens, and enough manual controls to
>>allow some pictures under special conditions. I VERY rarely use
>>anything other than automatic, or the mode settings as they cover 99%
>
> of
>
>>my picture taking needs, but it is nice to have them for those rare
>>pictures where I have TIME to mess with them, and would like to get
>
> the
>
>>picture.
>>I have found the Kodak cameras to give excellent color, and generally
>>good pictures under most conditions. If you want to see some of my
>>pictures, go to www.webshots.com and search for rphunter42. All of
>
> the
>
>>pictures since Jan 2004 have been taken by the DX6440.
>
>
> I looked at your pictures and they are beautiful. Is that you and your
> wife in the photos? You look like a happy couple. The colors are really
> nice and so is the scenery and flowers. They are the kind of pictures I
> like to take, especially if you are on vacation or at some scenic spot.
> I must say the DX 6440 takes very good pictures.
> One thing bad about buying cameras here is when I see cameras I like say
> at Staples where they seem to have quite a few Kodak cameras, they have
> certain Kodak models for a while, then they go to higher models and
> don't have the ones like DX 6440 any more. I saw it advertised before on
> Staples.ca site but don't see it now. I don't mind cameras that have
> some manual settings, as that allows for some creativity.
> By the way, is webshots.com site free for listing your photos?
>
> Cathy
>
You may be able to find the DX6440 at some online sites, or some local
stores, if you are lucky.
My wife and I appear in some of the pictures. If you see two overweight
60ish people, that's probably us. Grin.

Cameras are like just about any other high tech item, they come and go
as newer things come along.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 9:18:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111878569.264635.26670@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Don't get a digital camera. Does film present a problem for you? If
> not, why bother?

Why shouldn't I get a digital camera if I want one? Do you have a
problem with digital cameras? I already have a 35 mm camera, but a
digital camera is not the same thing.

Cathy

> Cathy wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I've been looking for the last few months for a digital camera in
> stores
> > and read tons and tons of reviews, and now am confused as to what I
> > should get.
> > I am looking for a camera with at least a 1.8" LCD and a clear
> > viewfinder that is
> > not blurry (to me at least). I mainly want a camera for family
indoor
> > shots and scenery
> > when I go somewhere .
> > But many will be indoors, so I want to try to get one with not much
> red
> > eye, though I notice most seem to have that problem. I looked at
many
> > reviews and photo samples on Steves site and dresource.com. (I like
> > those two sites the best, but also have been to depreview.com.) I
> know
> > you can take red eye out with software, but I would prefer if
> possible
> > to try to get a camera that doesn't have a lot of red eye. I like
> > pictures that turn out clear and sharp.
> >
> > A 3.2 MP is ok for me, as I don't want to pay much more than $250.00
> US
> > or under. I am in Canada, but just to give you an idea of price and
> not
> > all models
> > in the US are available here.
> >
> > Here's what I was considering:
> >
> > Canon A75 or A85, but needing 4 batteries kind of puts me off though
> I
> > don't rule it out completely if its really a good camera. I would
> prefer
> > 2 batteries. Canon have recently brought out two new cameras, the
> A510-
> > 3 MP and the A520 - 4 MP which have two batteries and they take SD
> > memory cards. I was thinking of buying one of them, but the reviews
> on
> > all the sites I looked at, said they had a lot of red eye, and were
> not
> > s good as A75 and A85. The A75 and A85 are quite good prices here.
> >
> > Kodak CX 7530, is a good price right now, and I like the look of
> Kodak
> > DX 7440, which is about $100.00 more.
> > Or Olympus D 580, also a good price camera. The samples on
> dresource.com
> > were good of the Olympus D580, and very little redeye on indoor
photo
> on
> > the site, but said the flash was weak unless taking small groups,
> but
> > that might not be a big problem for me.
> >
> > Any and all comments or personal experiences with any of these
> cameras
> > would be much appreciated.
> >
> > Cathy
>
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 9:22:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cathy wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:VX91e.14014$gA3.5550@fe07.lga...
>
>>Cathy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ron, I just read about 9 customer reviews on the Kodak CX 7530 and
>
> most
>
>>>said the battery life was poor compared to other compact type
>
> cameras.
>
>>>Can't you buy chargeables for that camera?
>>>
>>>Cathy
>>>
>>
>>The 7530 uses AA batteries. Alkalines are NOT recommended. It will
>
> use
>
>>two NIMH batteries, either individual, or in the Kodak battery pack
>>(which I have found to work very well on my DX6440), or a CRV3 lithium
>>(disposable) battery. I usually carry a fully charged (in the dock)
>>camera with the Kodak battery pack, and a lithium CRV3 as backup.
>
> Since
>
>>the lithiums have a 10 year shelf life, they are the perfect backup
>>battery. On my last vacation, I managed 250 pictures on the NIMH
>>battery pack before it needed recharging.
>
>
> Do you mean that the AA batteries have to be rechargeables? what if you
> ran out of batteries and in a pinch, couldn't you use AA alkalines? Is
> it better in your view to buy extra chargeable AA's ?
> Arent lithium batteries expensive?
>
> Cathy
>
>
Alkaline batteries put out 1.6 volts (approx.), while NIMH batteries put
out 1.3 volts (fully charged). Using two alkaline batteries consitutes
a bit more voltage than some cameras are happy with. I suspect that the
newer Kodak cameras will handle them, but my older DX3600 had no less
that 4 warnings in the manual to NOT use Alkalines.
As for lithium disposables, yes, they are about $10 (US) each, but they
are good for about 300 shots, or more, and will last for up to 10 years
while retaining 80% of their original charge. That is about $.03 per
shot. Not bad for a backup.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 9:24:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cathy wrote:
> <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1111878569.264635.26670@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Don't get a digital camera. Does film present a problem for you? If
>>not, why bother?
>
>
> Why shouldn't I get a digital camera if I want one? Do you have a
> problem with digital cameras? I already have a 35 mm camera, but a
> digital camera is not the same thing.
>
> Cathy
>
>

I also have a 35 mm film camera, which I expect NEVER to use again.
Digital is a perfect fit for my needs.



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 1:10:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:18:50 -0500, Cathy wrote:

>> Don't get a digital camera. Does film present a problem for you? If
>> not, why bother?
>
> Why shouldn't I get a digital camera if I want one? Do you have a
> problem with digital cameras? I already have a 35 mm camera, but a
> digital camera is not the same thing.

Don't worry about uraniumcommittee Cathy. He's a well known
troll, and believe it or not, this post of his is one of his most
rational and least offensive. If you read enough of his trolls,
you'll eventually see that he is also contemptuous of most film
equipment, if it isn't made by Leica. In other newsgroups he's one
of the first to make it in most people's killfiles.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 1:41:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:52:43 -0500, Cathy wrote:

> Do you mean that the AA batteries have to be rechargeables? what if you
> ran out of batteries and in a pinch, couldn't you use AA alkalines? Is
> it better in your view to buy extra chargeable AA's ?
> Arent lithium batteries expensive?

Alkaline batteries usually aren't recommended, but they're better
than they used to be. Relatively, that is. In the early days of
digital cameras they got a terrible reputation because some cameras
couldn't take even a dozen pictures per set of alkalines. They're
not good for any digital device that presents a heavy load to the
battery. But the situation has changed tremendously, at least for
some cameras. For example, Ricoh's Caplio R1V (that's still not
available here) can be powered by a rechargeable Lithium battery
(rated up to 500 shots), by 2 NiMH AA batteries (a bit less but
still in the high 400's) or by 2 alkaline AAs (200 shots). Many of
the latest cameras that use only 2 AAs can take a lot of pictures
using alkalines. The higher the load the worse they perform,
compared to NiMH AAs. If the load is low enough, they can even
match or outperform high capacity NiMH AAs. The catch is that the
load presented by digital cameras isn't low enough, so NiMH
batteries will last longer per charge. But for many people,
especially those that don't take very many pictures, alkaline
batteries will do a fine job, as long as the camera is efficient and
only sips current from the batteries. Greater efficiency in their
new cameras (A95, A520, etc) is why Canon was able to go from 4 AAs
to only 2. All things aren't equal though, and if you take a lot of
pictures with flash, the 4 battery A95 might have an advantage since
the A510 and A520's flashes probably aren't any more efficient than
the A95's.

Replaceable lithium batteries are definitely not cost effective.
Their 10 year shelf life sounds appealing, but I've been able to buy
name brand alkaline AAs for 20 cents each or less, and the last
batteries I bought several months ago had an expiration date of 2013
on the package. Lithiums have an advantage in applications where it
might be very inconvenient to replace depleted batteries, where low
weight is a premium, or in very cold climates. Just inventing
numbers here, but if you have a camera that normally takes 100
pictures with alkalines, 200 with NiMH and 400 with lithiums, in
really cold weather, sufficient to reduce the number of pictures
taken with alkalines and NiMH to a dozen or two, lithiums will
suffer far less, maybe dropping from 400 to 350 pictures. Of course
all of these seemingly dead batteries will quickly perk up once they
return to normal temperatures.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 2:08:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 03:12:03 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Not having enough money to buy a 'studio' camera (even if I HAD a
> studio), and a 'travel' camera, I elect to buy ONLY cameras that I can
> carry in my pocket. A camera you don't HAVE doesn't take any pictures.

Well, that's a truism only if you don't leave it with someone that
knows how to use it. :)  Your DX6440 is a nice, small camera. But
it would still be too large for me to take it everywhere. I already
have a camera about that size and it stays home too often, mostly
because of its thickness, about 1 1/2". A camera barely thicker
than an AA battery would be about right, say about the size of
Sony's ICF-SW1 and ICF-SW100 radios or even a little thinner, which
would make it very pocketable.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 3:39:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:2i5c4198sdqnb8h53e369on06s14i6hc87@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:52:43 -0500, Cathy wrote:
>
> > Do you mean that the AA batteries have to be rechargeables? what if
you
> > ran out of batteries and in a pinch, couldn't you use AA alkalines?
Is
> > it better in your view to buy extra chargeable AA's ?
> > Arent lithium batteries expensive?
>
> Alkaline batteries usually aren't recommended, but they're better
> than they used to be. Relatively, that is. In the early days of
> digital cameras they got a terrible reputation because some cameras
> couldn't take even a dozen pictures per set of alkalines. They're
> not good for any digital device that presents a heavy load to the
> battery. But the situation has changed tremendously, at least for
> some cameras. For example, Ricoh's Caplio R1V (that's still not
> available here) can be powered by a rechargeable Lithium battery
> (rated up to 500 shots), by 2 NiMH AA batteries (a bit less but
> still in the high 400's) or by 2 alkaline AAs (200 shots). Many of
> the latest cameras that use only 2 AAs can take a lot of pictures
> using alkalines. The higher the load the worse they perform,
> compared to NiMH AAs. If the load is low enough, they can even
> match or outperform high capacity NiMH AAs. The catch is that the
> load presented by digital cameras isn't low enough, so NiMH
> batteries will last longer per charge.

When you say "load", do you mean how many photos are taken?

But for many people,
> especially those that don't take very many pictures, alkaline
> batteries will do a fine job, as long as the camera is efficient and
> only sips current from the batteries. Greater efficiency in their
> new cameras (A95, A520, etc) is why Canon was able to go from 4 AAs
> to only 2.

The A95 takes 4 batteries doesn't it? Canon only changed to A510 and
A520 recently since those two models replaced A75 and A85. The A95
hasn't been replaced yet, by a model with two batteries, but it probably
will be. I was really interested in the A510 or the A520, but the A510
which is 3.2 MP, is a higher price here than most other brand 3.2 MP's,
and so is the A520. But what made me hesitate was that most camera
reviews said that the A75 and A85 which they replaced, were really
better cameras with better quality photos, even though they had 4
batteries. If you see www.dcresource.com thats what he says anyway,
though Steves digicam wasn't quite so critical.

All things aren't equal though, and if you take a lot of
> pictures with flash, the 4 battery A95 might have an advantage since
> the A510 and A520's flashes probably aren't any more efficient than
> the A95's.

Maybe not, but the A510 and A520 are more compact, though from all
accounts are not as good as the A75 and A85, so I would rather have 4
batteries in a camera that takes better photos than one with two
batteries. But there are still good, cheaper cameras which take 2
batteries. Its the proprietary batteries which don't thrill me, because
you really need extra batteries and the proprietary ones are more money
than alkalines, and not as readily available. I use Radio Shack
alkalines at home for various uses and find them to be very long
lasting, good batteries.

> Replaceable lithium batteries are definitely not cost effective.
> Their 10 year shelf life sounds appealing, but I've been able to buy
> name brand alkaline AAs for 20 cents each or less, and the last
> batteries I bought several months ago had an expiration date of 2013
> on the package. Lithiums have an advantage in applications where it
> might be very inconvenient to replace depleted batteries, where low
> weight is a premium, or in very cold climates. Just inventing
> numbers here, but if you have a camera that normally takes 100
> pictures with alkalines, 200 with NiMH and 400 with lithiums, in
> really cold weather, sufficient to reduce the number of pictures
> taken with alkalines and NiMH to a dozen or two, lithiums will
> suffer far less, maybe dropping from 400 to 350 pictures. Of course
> all of these seemingly dead batteries will quickly perk up once they
> return to normal temperatures.

Cathy
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 4:36:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:eZm1e.17518$Sn1.13493@fe04.lga...
> Cathy wrote:
> > I looked at your pictures and they are beautiful. Is that you and
your
> > wife in the photos? You look like a happy couple. The colors are
really
> > nice and so is the scenery and flowers. They are the kind of
pictures I
> > like to take, especially if you are on vacation or at some scenic
spot.
> > I must say the DX 6440 takes very good pictures.
> > One thing bad about buying cameras here is when I see cameras I like
say
> > at Staples where they seem to have quite a few Kodak cameras, they
have
> > certain Kodak models for a while, then they go to higher models and
> > don't have the ones like DX 6440 any more. I saw it advertised
before on
> > Staples.ca site but don't see it now. I don't mind cameras that have
> > some manual settings, as that allows for some creativity.
> > By the way, is webshots.com site free for listing your photos?
> >
> > Cathy
> >
> You may be able to find the DX6440 at some online sites, or some local
> stores, if you are lucky.

I did see it on staples online site and most of the same cameras (though
not all) are in their stores as on their website, but haven't seen it
for a while. I did look in one Staples store a couple of weeks ago and
they didn't have the DX 6440. I remembered it from a review of it a
while ago, and it looked like quite a good camera.

> My wife and I appear in some of the pictures. If you see two
overweight
> 60ish people, that's probably us. Grin.

Well, you and your wife look very nice in the pictures. Where were those
pictures taken? such beautiful flowers and rich colors. And is webhost
site where you have your pics a free site for putting your pictures?

> Cameras are like just about any other high tech item, they come and go
> as newer things come along.

I wonder where the older models go. They can't sell them all, but not
long after newer models come out, the older models seem to completely
disappear.

Cathy
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 5:22:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:33n1e.17522$xS7.925@fe04.lga...
> Cathy wrote:

> > Why shouldn't I get a digital camera if I want one? Do you have a
> > problem with digital cameras? I already have a 35 mm camera, but a
> > digital camera is not the same thing.
> >
> > Cathy

> I also have a 35 mm film camera, which I expect NEVER to use again.
> Digital is a perfect fit for my needs.

I think even if I had a digital camera, there might be occasions I might
want to use my 35 mm. It takes very good photos and takes excellent
macro shots. though I really can't compare since I've never had a
digital camera.

Cathy
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 5:43:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:52:43 -0500, Cathy wrote:
>
>
>>Do you mean that the AA batteries have to be rechargeables? what if you
>>ran out of batteries and in a pinch, couldn't you use AA alkalines? Is
>>it better in your view to buy extra chargeable AA's ?
>>Arent lithium batteries expensive?
>
>
> Alkaline batteries usually aren't recommended, but they're better
> than they used to be. Relatively, that is. In the early days of
> digital cameras they got a terrible reputation because some cameras
> couldn't take even a dozen pictures per set of alkalines. They're
> not good for any digital device that presents a heavy load to the
> battery. But the situation has changed tremendously, at least for
> some cameras. For example, Ricoh's Caplio R1V (that's still not
> available here) can be powered by a rechargeable Lithium battery
> (rated up to 500 shots), by 2 NiMH AA batteries (a bit less but
> still in the high 400's) or by 2 alkaline AAs (200 shots). Many of
> the latest cameras that use only 2 AAs can take a lot of pictures
> using alkalines. The higher the load the worse they perform,
> compared to NiMH AAs. If the load is low enough, they can even
> match or outperform high capacity NiMH AAs. The catch is that the
> load presented by digital cameras isn't low enough, so NiMH
> batteries will last longer per charge. But for many people,
> especially those that don't take very many pictures, alkaline
> batteries will do a fine job, as long as the camera is efficient and
> only sips current from the batteries. Greater efficiency in their
> new cameras (A95, A520, etc) is why Canon was able to go from 4 AAs
> to only 2. All things aren't equal though, and if you take a lot of
> pictures with flash, the 4 battery A95 might have an advantage since
> the A510 and A520's flashes probably aren't any more efficient than
> the A95's.
>
> Replaceable lithium batteries are definitely not cost effective.
> Their 10 year shelf life sounds appealing, but I've been able to buy
> name brand alkaline AAs for 20 cents each or less, and the last
> batteries I bought several months ago had an expiration date of 2013
> on the package. Lithiums have an advantage in applications where it
> might be very inconvenient to replace depleted batteries, where low
> weight is a premium, or in very cold climates. Just inventing
> numbers here, but if you have a camera that normally takes 100
> pictures with alkalines, 200 with NiMH and 400 with lithiums, in
> really cold weather, sufficient to reduce the number of pictures
> taken with alkalines and NiMH to a dozen or two, lithiums will
> suffer far less, maybe dropping from 400 to 350 pictures. Of course
> all of these seemingly dead batteries will quickly perk up once they
> return to normal temperatures.
>

While newer cameras seem to require lower current than older ones, and
newer batteries have also seen improvements, using alkalines in a camera
is still a bit of a risk. For one thing, the cost becomes prohibitive
is the camera is used for a lot of pictures. The cost of a battery
charger and 4 AAs is usually about $20, and they will last longer than a
few hundred dollars worth of alkalines. Since my camera uses 2 AAs, and
will use CRV3 batteries, I keep the set of NIMH in the camera charged,
and a disposable lithium CRV3 battery as backup. This has worked well
for my for the last 3 years. On longer trips, I do take 4 sets of AA
and a Maha 401 charger.



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 5:46:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 03:12:03 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>Not having enough money to buy a 'studio' camera (even if I HAD a
>>studio), and a 'travel' camera, I elect to buy ONLY cameras that I can
>>carry in my pocket. A camera you don't HAVE doesn't take any pictures.
>
>
> Well, that's a truism only if you don't leave it with someone that
> knows how to use it. :)  Your DX6440 is a nice, small camera. But
> it would still be too large for me to take it everywhere. I already
> have a camera about that size and it stays home too often, mostly
> because of its thickness, about 1 1/2". A camera barely thicker
> than an AA battery would be about right, say about the size of
> Sony's ICF-SW1 and ICF-SW100 radios or even a little thinner, which
> would make it very pocketable.
>

The Casio Exlim line is VERY pocketable, if somewhat expensive, but
since I am not into tight clothes, I have no problem carrying the DX6440
in my pants, or jacket, pocket. I am a bit too overweight for a belt
case to be comfortable, but working on that problem (overweight). I
find the size of the DX6440 to be quite usable, even though it is too
bit to put back in the pocket with the lens extended. I REALLY like the
integral lens cover.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 6:05:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cathy wrote:
> "ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
> news:2i5c4198sdqnb8h53e369on06s14i6hc87@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 17:52:43 -0500, Cathy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Do you mean that the AA batteries have to be rechargeables? what if
>
> you
>
>>>ran out of batteries and in a pinch, couldn't you use AA alkalines?
>
> Is
>
>>>it better in your view to buy extra chargeable AA's ?
>>>Arent lithium batteries expensive?
>>
>> Alkaline batteries usually aren't recommended, but they're better
>>than they used to be. Relatively, that is. In the early days of
>>digital cameras they got a terrible reputation because some cameras
>>couldn't take even a dozen pictures per set of alkalines. They're
>>not good for any digital device that presents a heavy load to the
>>battery. But the situation has changed tremendously, at least for
>>some cameras. For example, Ricoh's Caplio R1V (that's still not
>>available here) can be powered by a rechargeable Lithium battery
>>(rated up to 500 shots), by 2 NiMH AA batteries (a bit less but
>>still in the high 400's) or by 2 alkaline AAs (200 shots). Many of
>>the latest cameras that use only 2 AAs can take a lot of pictures
>>using alkalines. The higher the load the worse they perform,
>>compared to NiMH AAs. If the load is low enough, they can even
>>match or outperform high capacity NiMH AAs. The catch is that the
>>load presented by digital cameras isn't low enough, so NiMH
>>batteries will last longer per charge.
>
>
> When you say "load", do you mean how many photos are taken?

NO. 'Load' refers to the current drain (short duration, high current)
most digital cameras require.

>
> But for many people,
>
>>especially those that don't take very many pictures, alkaline
>>batteries will do a fine job, as long as the camera is efficient and
>>only sips current from the batteries. Greater efficiency in their
>>new cameras (A95, A520, etc) is why Canon was able to go from 4 AAs
>>to only 2.
>
>
> The A95 takes 4 batteries doesn't it? Canon only changed to A510 and
> A520 recently since those two models replaced A75 and A85. The A95
> hasn't been replaced yet, by a model with two batteries, but it probably
> will be. I was really interested in the A510 or the A520, but the A510
> which is 3.2 MP, is a higher price here than most other brand 3.2 MP's,
> and so is the A520. But what made me hesitate was that most camera
> reviews said that the A75 and A85 which they replaced, were really
> better cameras with better quality photos, even though they had 4
> batteries. If you see www.dcresource.com thats what he says anyway,
> though Steves digicam wasn't quite so critical.
>
> All things aren't equal though, and if you take a lot of
>
>>pictures with flash, the 4 battery A95 might have an advantage since
>>the A510 and A520's flashes probably aren't any more efficient than
>>the A95's.
>
>
> Maybe not, but the A510 and A520 are more compact, though from all
> accounts are not as good as the A75 and A85, so I would rather have 4
> batteries in a camera that takes better photos than one with two
> batteries. But there are still good, cheaper cameras which take 2
> batteries. Its the proprietary batteries which don't thrill me, because
> you really need extra batteries and the proprietary ones are more money
> than alkalines, and not as readily available. I use Radio Shack
> alkalines at home for various uses and find them to be very long
> lasting, good batteries.
>
>
>> Replaceable lithium batteries are definitely not cost effective.
>>Their 10 year shelf life sounds appealing, but I've been able to buy
>>name brand alkaline AAs for 20 cents each or less, and the last
>>batteries I bought several months ago had an expiration date of 2013
>>on the package. Lithiums have an advantage in applications where it
>>might be very inconvenient to replace depleted batteries, where low
>>weight is a premium, or in very cold climates. Just inventing
>>numbers here, but if you have a camera that normally takes 100
>>pictures with alkalines, 200 with NiMH and 400 with lithiums, in
>>really cold weather, sufficient to reduce the number of pictures
>>taken with alkalines and NiMH to a dozen or two, lithiums will
>>suffer far less, maybe dropping from 400 to 350 pictures. Of course
>>all of these seemingly dead batteries will quickly perk up once they
>>return to normal temperatures.

For some cameras, alkalines just aren't feasible. Many users report
getting only 5 to 10 shots on a set of 2 or 4 alkaline batteries. Some
newer cameras do much better. In any case, alkalines just don't have a
good price/performance ratio in digital cameras. Would you rather spend
$10 on a lithium battery and get 300 pictures, or $2 on a set of
alkaline batteries, and get 20 pictures?

>
>
> Cathy
>

I think a 10 year expiration figure on alkaline batteries is just a bit
optimistic.
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
!