Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Fuzzy view through Canon viewfinder

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 5, 2005 8:23:21 AM

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

What is the view on Canon P&S viewfinders? I find them to be unsharp
(for the S410, S500, A95, etc.). The quality of the viewfinders is
rarely mentioned in the reviews one finds on the web.

I've tried with and without glasses, and it is worse with glasses, for
me anyway.

By comparison, I find the HP cameras to look much clearer.
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 5, 2005 10:06:47 AM

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

buy Nikon you get a viewfinder focus.........well my 5700 has it.


"Archie" <Archie@Hatespam.com> wrote in message
news:p 84451dei1lo4a975r64jco7ktk1vu5eu1@4ax.com...
> What is the view on Canon P&S viewfinders? I find them to be unsharp
> (for the S410, S500, A95, etc.). The quality of the viewfinders is
> rarely mentioned in the reviews one finds on the web.
>
> I've tried with and without glasses, and it is worse with glasses, for
> me anyway.
>
> By comparison, I find the HP cameras to look much clearer.
>
>
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 5, 2005 10:26:49 AM

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

"Archie" <Archie@Hatespam.com> wrote in message
news:p 84451dei1lo4a975r64jco7ktk1vu5eu1@4ax.com...
> What is the view on Canon P&S viewfinders? I find them to be unsharp
> (for the S410, S500, A95, etc.). The quality of the viewfinders is
> rarely mentioned in the reviews one finds on the web.
>
> I've tried with and without glasses, and it is worse with glasses, for
> me anyway.
>
> By comparison, I find the HP cameras to look much clearer.
>
>

I never use the optical viewfinder on a P&S digicam, LCD all the way for me.

Mark
Related resources
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 5, 2005 3:22:56 PM

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

"Mark B." <mbohntrash54@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:A9udnVUEqPCQ9c_fRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
> "Archie" <Archie@Hatespam.com> wrote in message
> news:p 84451dei1lo4a975r64jco7ktk1vu5eu1@4ax.com...
>> What is the view on Canon P&S viewfinders? I find them to be unsharp
>> (for the S410, S500, A95, etc.). The quality of the viewfinders is
>> rarely mentioned in the reviews one finds on the web.
>>
>> I've tried with and without glasses, and it is worse with glasses, for
>> me anyway.
>>
>> By comparison, I find the HP cameras to look much clearer.
>>
>>
>
> I never use the optical viewfinder on a P&S digicam, LCD all the way for
> me.
>
> Mark

How sad for you.
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 6, 2005 2:39:11 AM

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

"Archie" <Archie@Hatespam.com> wrote in message
news:p 84451dei1lo4a975r64jco7ktk1vu5eu1@4ax.com...
> What is the view on Canon P&S viewfinders? I find them to be unsharp
> (for the S410, S500, A95, etc.). The quality of the viewfinders is
> rarely mentioned in the reviews one finds on the web.
>
> I've tried with and without glasses, and it is worse with glasses, for
> me anyway.
>
> By comparison, I find the HP cameras to look much clearer.

Archie, I partly agree with you. I found HP M307 and M407 to have very
clear viewfinders while I've been looking for the last few months. But I
found Canon A75 quite clear and A85 and A95 were OK. But many makes have
quite blurred viewfinders (to me at least). Maybe its because I wear
glasses, or in my case, its probably middle age :)  I have very sensitive
eyes. Most of the young guys selling cameras in stores don't even notice
and say to me "the viewfinder doesn't look blurry to me" and I said "of
course not, you are young and don't have glasses. Wait till you get
older and lets see if you say the same thing ". I don't want to depend
only on LCD's because I see better in the viewfinder. I would need at
least a 1.8" LCD but I should get 2" LCD. I would probably use the
viewfinder most of the time, but its nice to have the LCD too. I looked
at HP M407 a few months ago but there are not many reviews on it, so I
am still wavering. Its the cheapest camera I've seen for a 4 MP- $199.00
Can. $165.00 US. The M307 and 407 have 1.8" LCD's but with the M607 and
M 707 for some unknown reason that makes no sense to me, they went back
to the tiny 1.5" LCD. I would need binoculars :)  If the M407 had a 2"
LCD, I would seriously consider it, as long as the quality of the
pictures was ok, which I am not sure about.

Cathy
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 6, 2005 3:01:11 AM

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

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 06:26:49 -0400, "Mark B."
<mbohntrash54@comcast.net> wrote:

>"Archie" <Archie@Hatespam.com> wrote in message
>news:p 84451dei1lo4a975r64jco7ktk1vu5eu1@4ax.com...
>> What is the view on Canon P&S viewfinders? I find them to be unsharp
>> (for the S410, S500, A95, etc.). The quality of the viewfinders is
>> rarely mentioned in the reviews one finds on the web.
>>
>> I've tried with and without glasses, and it is worse with glasses, for
>> me anyway.
>>
>> By comparison, I find the HP cameras to look much clearer.
>>
>>
>
>I never use the optical viewfinder on a P&S digicam, LCD all the way for me.
>

Try that while locking the focus, with the button half way down.

A.
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 6, 2005 10:58:42 AM

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

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:kyu4e.907$5F3.676@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Mark B." <mbohntrash54@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:A9udnVUEqPCQ9c_fRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I never use the optical viewfinder on a P&S digicam, LCD all the way for
>> me.
>>
>> Mark
>
> How sad for you.
>

Why is that? Please explain.

Mark
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 6, 2005 11:01:15 AM

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

"Archie" <Archie@Hatespam.com> wrote in message
news:o 46651p18e1lk13mleouj7l8g5auq27qcd@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 06:26:49 -0400, "Mark B."
> <mbohntrash54@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>>I never use the optical viewfinder on a P&S digicam, LCD all the way for
>>me.
>>
>
> Try that while locking the focus, with the button half way down.
>
> A.

That's exactly how I operate my G1. What's the big deal? I'd much rather
look at the view the lens is seeing than try to look through the optical
viewfinder, which as the OP pointed out is terrible on most digicams not to
mention is not what will be captured on the sensor.

Mark
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 6, 2005 4:48:11 PM

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

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 06:58:42 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , "Mark B."
<mbohntrash54@comcast.net> in <V86dnUgaW8d5Xc7fRVn-iw@comcast.com>
wrote:

>"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
>news:kyu4e.907$5F3.676@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "Mark B." <mbohntrash54@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:A9udnVUEqPCQ9c_fRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I never use the optical viewfinder on a P&S digicam, LCD all the way for
>>> me.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>
>> How sad for you.
>>
>
>Why is that? Please explain.
>
As discussed elsewhere it is harder to hold the camera still that way.
I also find that it is much more difficult to compose a good shot that
way. I do it when I want the camera somewhere my eye can't be (and the
swivel lens on the F707 gives me lots of those opportunities) but
otherwise close to the face, with no distractions, allows crisper
better photos.



--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
April 6, 2005 10:22:43 PM

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

I agree - HP makes great viewfinders - I used an old 315xi for 4 years
without ever turning on the LCD - it seriously chewed batteries,
anyways. OTOH, my Oly C-5060 can't really be used WITHOUT the LCD - the
optical viewfinder only covers about 70-80% of the scene, so I never
get my shot framing right. I use the optical viewfinder when I'm taking
"vacation snaps" and the framing really doesn't matter, and with 5
Mpixels I can crop to 1/2 size and still print great 8X10's; otherwise
for "hobby pictures" I use the LCD and either a monopod or a tripod.

ECM
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 7, 2005 1:12:51 AM

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

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:p gm7511qlgj7lfhpb9sdrmbof87c1e6bfd@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> "Mark B." <mbohntrash54@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:A9udnVUEqPCQ9c_fRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I never use the optical viewfinder on a P&S digicam, LCD all the way
>>>> for
>>>> me.
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>
>>> How sad for you.
>>>
>>
>>Why is that? Please explain.
>>
> As discussed elsewhere it is harder to hold the camera still that way.
> I also find that it is much more difficult to compose a good shot that
> way. I do it when I want the camera somewhere my eye can't be (and the
> swivel lens on the F707 gives me lots of those opportunities) but
> otherwise close to the face, with no distractions, allows crisper
> better photos.
>

If we were talking about a digital SLR, I'd agree 100% - very difficult to
hold a SLR with even a smallish lens any length away from your face and get
a steady shot. Even if this feature eventually migrates to DSLRs, I'll
still use the optical viewfinder. But with a light digicam, it's not a
problem in most cases. I've never had any problem with my G1 or A70 doing
this.

Mark
April 9, 2005 2:22:54 AM

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

"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
news:8v2dnWtfe7sK1s7fRVn-qQ@rogers.com...

<snip>
>But many makes have
> quite blurred viewfinders (to me at least). Maybe its because I wear
> glasses, or in my case, its probably middle age :) 

<snip>
>I would probably use the
> viewfinder most of the time, but its nice to have the LCD too.


Sounds like you need a camera with a diopter adjustment dial.

I usually use the viewfinder because I can hold the camera steadier when I
brace my arms closer to my body. I set the diopter on my Canon when I first
got it because my eyes aren't that sharp either. I found the diopter
adjustment to be a great feature to have.

Renee
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 9, 2005 3:44:34 AM

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

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message news:2vD5e.25740

> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> news:8v2dnWtfe7sK1s7fRVn-qQ@rogers.com...
>
> <snip>
> >But many makes have
> > quite blurred viewfinders (to me at least). Maybe its because I wear
> > glasses, or in my case, its probably middle age :) 
>
> <snip>
> >I would probably use the
> > viewfinder most of the time, but its nice to have the LCD too.
>
>
> Sounds like you need a camera with a diopter adjustment dial.

You are probably right, but I haven't seen many cameras that have the
diopter adjustment, and never actually looked in one with that feature.
They seem to be in more expensive cameras. I am looking for a camera
around $299.00 Can.$ so around $250.00 US. We get most of the models
here that you do in the US, but not all,and depending on the camera
make, some cameras here cost quite a lot more than in the US. I could
pay a little more if I really liked a camera, but not a lot more, as I
would not be using it frequently - mainly want one for family 4X6 stills
and scenery.
I'd like to get one with 2" LCD if possible, but for me the viewfinder
has to be pretty clear.

> I usually use the viewfinder because I can hold the camera steadier
when I
> brace my arms closer to my body. I set the diopter on my Canon when I
first
> got it because my eyes aren't that sharp either. I found the diopter
> adjustment to be a great feature to have.

Yes, you are right, holding the camera in the way you describe sounds
like a good idea.
Is a diopter for using with no glasses, kind of like using binoculars? I
don't need glasses when looking through my binoculars and always think
this would be great if my vision was like this all the time and I
wouldn't need glasses :) 
What model Canon do you have? I am looking for point and shoot and have
looked at many reviews, and many cameras in the stores.I didn't look for
a while, but starting to look again.
Thanks Renee.

Cathy
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 9, 2005 5:16:50 AM

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

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 23:44:34 -0400, Cathy wrote:

> They seem to be in more expensive cameras. I am looking for a camera
> around $299.00 Can.$ so around $250.00 US. We get most of the models
> here that you do in the US, but not all,and depending on the camera
> make, some cameras here cost quite a lot more than in the US. I could
> pay a little more if I really liked a camera, but not a lot more, as I
> would not be using it frequently - mainly want one for family 4X6 stills
> and scenery.
> I'd like to get one with 2" LCD if possible, but for me the viewfinder
> has to be pretty clear.

You might want to consider some of Panasonic's Lumix cameras, even
though some of them might be slightly above your price limit. I
don't recall all of the spec's so you'd have to look them up, but
the ones I'm thinking of have what many here might consider a
drawback - no viewfinder. But they're small, have large displays
(up to 2.5 inches) and 3x or 6x optical zoom, depending on model.
What most people here don't like about using the display to take the
picture is that it's supposedly not as stable as if a viewfinder is
used. But these Panasonics all have image stabilization built into
the cameras, which should more than compensate. Here's some of the
(incomplete) data I had saved:

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LS1 : Image Stabilization, AA batteries, (3.7
x 2.5 x 1.2 in)

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ1 / DMC-LZ2 : AA batteries, I.S., 6x optical:
LZ2==5mp, (4.0 x 2.5 x 1.3 in); large but LoRes LCD

Panasonix Lumix DMC-FX7 : (3.7 x 2.0 x 1.0 in), Stabilization; USB
Full Speed; 2.5" display; AF illuminator
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 9, 2005 3:17:45 PM

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

On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 23:44:34 -0400, "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote:

>"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message news:2vD5e.25740
>
>> Sounds like you need a camera with a diopter adjustment dial.
>
>You are probably right, but I haven't seen many cameras that have the
>diopter adjustment, and never actually looked in one with that feature.
>They seem to be in more expensive cameras. I am looking for a camera
>around $299.00 Can.$ so around $250.00 US.

I didn't see the start of this thread, but the Minolta Z series has
diopter adjustment, and the lower models in the range might be an
acceptable price for you.

--
Stephen Poley
April 10, 2005 5:26:20 AM

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

"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
news:nNednWkxEsr60srfRVn-2Q@rogers.com...
> "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message news:2vD5e.25740
>
>> Sounds like you need a camera with a diopter adjustment dial.
>
> You are probably right, but I haven't seen many cameras that have the
> diopter adjustment, and never actually looked in one with that feature.
> They seem to be in more expensive cameras. I am looking for a camera
> around $299.00 Can.$ so around $250.00 US. We get most of the models
> here that you do in the US, but not all,and depending on the camera
> make, some cameras here cost quite a lot more than in the US. I could
> pay a little more if I really liked a camera, but not a lot more, as I
> would not be using it frequently - mainly want one for family 4X6 stills
> and scenery.
> I'd like to get one with 2" LCD if possible, but for me the viewfinder
> has to be pretty clear.
>
>> I usually use the viewfinder because I can hold the camera steadier
> when I
>> brace my arms closer to my body. I set the diopter on my Canon when I
> first
>> got it because my eyes aren't that sharp either. I found the diopter
>> adjustment to be a great feature to have.
>
> Yes, you are right, holding the camera in the way you describe sounds
> like a good idea.
> Is a diopter for using with no glasses, kind of like using binoculars? I
> don't need glasses when looking through my binoculars and always think
> this would be great if my vision was like this all the time and I
> wouldn't need glasses :) 
> What model Canon do you have? I am looking for point and shoot and have
> looked at many reviews, and many cameras in the stores.I didn't look for
> a while, but starting to look again.
> Thanks Renee.
>
> Cathy
>

Cathy, I'm blind without contacts or glasses. Since I'm usually wearing
glasses, taking them off every time I shoot would be bothersome. So I always
shoot all my photos with them on. But I can also see through the viewfinder
without glasses or contacts by adjusting the diopter. Not sure if it'll work
that way for everyone.

I have an S1 IS. ($299.95 at NewEgg, $309.95 at B&H -- two vendors I hear
people trust doing business with). But it doesn't sound like the S1 is one
you'd want to look at. It only has a 1.5" LCD and has an 10x ultra-zoom, a
feature you didn't say you'd have use for. Sounds like you'd be better off
with a wider-angle camera for those landscape photos than a tele-photo one.
(Though the S1 does take interchangeable lenses like wide-angles. But
point-and-shoot photographers probably don't care to lug around extra camera
gear and weight.)

All the cameras you look at *should* have a feature that lets you zoom in on
the image while you're reviewing it on the LCD -- you can tell if the photo
you just took is out of focus. So if you're mainly going to use the
viewfinder, don't let a smaller LCD sway your decision.

Whatever models you decide to check out, try to look at some photos taken by
owners who are casual shooters or amateur photographers. They're the ones
who are usually taking the shaky shots, and under less than ideal
circumstances. See how good their shots are coming out.


Renee

http://photofan.multiply.com/photos
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 10, 2005 8:41:37 PM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:anoe51pfotvajljk0lnk2l8pn89ajl667b@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 23:44:34 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
> > They seem to be in more expensive cameras. I am looking for a camera
> > around $299.00 Can.$ so around $250.00 US. We get most of the models
> > here that you do in the US, but not all,and depending on the camera
> > make, some cameras here cost quite a lot more than in the US. I
could
> > pay a little more if I really liked a camera, but not a lot more, as
I
> > would not be using it frequently - mainly want one for family 4X6
stills
> > and scenery.
> > I'd like to get one with 2" LCD if possible, but for me the
viewfinder
> > has to be pretty clear.
>
> You might want to consider some of Panasonic's Lumix cameras, even
> though some of them might be slightly above your price limit. I
> don't recall all of the spec's so you'd have to look them up, but
> the ones I'm thinking of have what many here might consider a
> drawback - no viewfinder.

To be honest, I would not buy a camera with no viewfinder. I am used to
a 35 mm and dependent on a viewfinder. I know I would have problems
adjusting to an LCD only as I would use a viewfinder more than an LCD,
though nice to have an LCD. I've only seen one camera on my travels
here with no viewfinder, so they don't seem to be very popular - but
maybe later they will be. However, I don't think they are 2" LCD's. I
haven't seen many Panasonic cameras in stores here. On the STaples site,
I only saw two and they were LC50 and LC70, both had 1.5" LCD. Too small
for me. I need 1.8" at least. On other sites of camera stores here, I
didn't see any Panasonics. Canons, Sony, Fuji and Olympus are more
common. But you have more variety than we do and usually cheaper, though
we have quite frequent sales here so I keep looking.

<snip>

> Panasonic Lumix DMC-LS1 : Image Stabilization, AA batteries, (3.7
> x 2.5 x 1.2 in)
>
> Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ1 / DMC-LZ2 : AA batteries, I.S., 6x optical:
> LZ2==5mp, (4.0 x 2.5 x 1.3 in); large but LoRes LCD
>
> Panasonix Lumix DMC-FX7 : (3.7 x 2.0 x 1.0 in), Stabilization; USB
> Full Speed; 2.5" display; AF illuminator

I looked up the cameras you mention above, but the lack of viewfinder
would not do for me.
Thanks though.

Cathy
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 10, 2005 8:48:20 PM

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

"Stephen Poley" <sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:f97f5192isp1vh649hhcr3drgv6lmmj1h2@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 23:44:34 -0400, "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote:
>
> >"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message news:2vD5e.25740
> >
> >> Sounds like you need a camera with a diopter adjustment dial.
> >
> >You are probably right, but I haven't seen many cameras that have the
> >diopter adjustment, and never actually looked in one with that
feature.
> >They seem to be in more expensive cameras. I am looking for a camera
> >around $299.00 Can.$ so around $250.00 US.
>
> I didn't see the start of this thread, but the Minolta Z series has
> diopter adjustment, and the lower models in the range might be an
> acceptable price for you.

I looked to see what Minolta Z series cameras looked like, but they are
too big for what I want. I am looking for a compact point and shoot
something like A75/85, but wanted to see if I can get something with two
batteries. The A510 and A520 replaced them but they seem to have mixed
reviews. New cameras are coming out all the time and are fairly
reasonable prices which I consider to be $250.00 US.
Thanks.

Cathy
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 10, 2005 9:09:04 PM

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

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:0h%5e.54248$Fz.44700@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> news:nNednWkxEsr60srfRVn-2Q@rogers.com...
> > "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message news:2vD5e.25740

<snip>

> >> I usually use the viewfinder because I can hold the camera steadier
> > when I
> >> brace my arms closer to my body. I set the diopter on my Canon when
I
> > first
> >> got it because my eyes aren't that sharp either. I found the
diopter
> >> adjustment to be a great feature to have.
> >
> > Yes, you are right, holding the camera in the way you describe
sounds
> > like a good idea.
> > Is a diopter for using with no glasses, kind of like using
binoculars? I
> > don't need glasses when looking through my binoculars and always
think
> > this would be great if my vision was like this all the time and I
> > wouldn't need glasses :) 
> > What model Canon do you have? I am looking for point and shoot and
have
> > looked at many reviews, and many cameras in the stores.I didn't look
for
> > a while, but starting to look again.
> > Thanks Renee.
> >
> > Cathy
> >
>
> Cathy, I'm blind without contacts or glasses. Since I'm usually
wearing
> glasses, taking them off every time I shoot would be bothersome. So I
always
> shoot all my photos with them on. But I can also see through the
viewfinder
> without glasses or contacts by adjusting the diopter. Not sure if
it'll work
> that way for everyone.

I don't recall seeing a camera with a diopter on my travels. I think
they are probably more money and that is why. Most chain stores here
that carry cameras just carry the most popular and most sold makes.
There is one camera store I have looked in, and they sell cameras only,
I might find more there with diopters, but their prices are a little
higher than the chain stores, though they sometimes have camera sales. I
could do without a diopter if I had to. For my needs, its not the most
important thing but would be nice. As long as the viewfinder is clear to
me, that would be ok. Some are clear and some are very fuzzy to me.

> I have an S1 IS. ($299.95 at NewEgg, $309.95 at B&H -- two vendors I
hear
> people trust doing business with). But it doesn't sound like the S1 is
one
> you'd want to look at. It only has a 1.5" LCD and has an 10x
ultra-zoom, a
> feature you didn't say you'd have use for. Sounds like you'd be better
off
> with a wider-angle camera for those landscape photos than a tele-photo
one.
> (Though the S1 does take interchangeable lenses like wide-angles. But
> point-and-shoot photographers probably don't care to lug around extra
camera
> gear and weight.)

I am looking for only a point and shoot. The S1 is a Canon? there is
also an S1 Nikon.
We don't have Newegg or B& H in this country (Canada). We have Staples,
Best Buy, Future shop, Henrys and thats the main ones.

> All the cameras you look at *should* have a feature that lets you
zoom in on
> the image while you're reviewing it on the LCD -- you can tell if the
photo
> you just took is out of focus. So if you're mainly going to use the
> viewfinder, don't let a smaller LCD sway your decision.

Well, I would have to have at least a 1.8" LCD as a 1.5" is way too
small for me to see comfortably. Even though I would be using a
viewfinder most of the time, I need to have an LCD that I can also use
and that could not be a 1.5". Most newer cameras coming out have 2 and
2.5" LCD's, which is much more to my liking. so no use for me to settle
for a 1.5", so I have to say that a 1.5" would definitely sway my
decision. I looked online at a couple of new Sony cameras online which
will be coming out soon and one store here will carry them. Depends on
the price though.It has a 2.5" LCD. I also saw a Pentax Optio coming out
which will be 2". No prices for them given yet.

> Whatever models you decide to check out, try to look at some photos
taken by
> owners who are casual shooters or amateur photographers. They're the
ones
> who are usually taking the shaky shots, and under less than ideal
> circumstances. See how good their shots are coming out.

I check reviews and photos on Steves digicam and dscresource and
dpreview.
I would have to be more serious as to what I want to buy and when I go
to stores, they would let me see the camera with the LCD lit up. half
the time they seem to be out of batteries.

> http://photofan.multiply.com/photos

Did you take these photos?

Cathy
April 12, 2005 4:34:54 AM

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

"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
news:nrqdnU21koguCMTfRVn-sQ@rogers.com...
<snip>
> I am looking for only a point and shoot. The S1 is a Canon? there is
> also an S1 Nikon.
> We don't have Newegg or B& H in this country (Canada). We have Staples,
> Best Buy, Future shop, Henrys and thats the main ones.
<snip>
> I would have to be more serious as to what I want to buy and when I go
> to stores, they would let me see the camera with the LCD lit up. half
> the time they seem to be out of batteries.
>
> Did you take these photos?
>
> Cathy
>

Hi Cathy,

I have a Canon S1 IS. The S1 photos were taken by me. The A95 photos were
taken by a friend. She's strictly a point-and-shoot gal like yourself. I had
to twist her arm to try some of her other camera settings. I'd never give up
my ultra-zoom but if I had to choose a p&s without it, it'd be the A95. The
camera gets a lot of good reviews; her photos come out great and she know
less about what she's doing than I do (if that's possible) :-)

Some people take their own flash memory cards to the stores to shoot test
pictures. I don't see why you can't bring in your own batteries.

Renee
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 12, 2005 4:34:55 AM

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

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:o IE6e.38803$Pc.17029@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> news:nrqdnU21koguCMTfRVn-sQ@rogers.com...
> <snip>
> > I am looking for only a point and shoot. The S1 is a Canon? there is
> > also an S1 Nikon.
> > We don't have Newegg or B& H in this country (Canada). We have
Staples,
> > Best Buy, Future shop, Henrys and thats the main ones.
> <snip>
> > I would have to be more serious as to what I want to buy and when I
go
> > to stores, they would let me see the camera with the LCD lit up.
half
> > the time they seem to be out of batteries.
> >
> > Did you take these photos?
> >
> > Cathy
> >
>
> Hi Cathy,
>
> I have a Canon S1 IS. The S1 photos were taken by me. The A95 photos
were
> taken by a friend. She's strictly a point-and-shoot gal like yourself.
I had
> to twist her arm to try some of her other camera settings. I'd never
give up
> my ultra-zoom but if I had to choose a p&s without it, it'd be the
A95.

Hi Renee:

The photos you took are quite beautiful. Your camera looks like it is
mainly for taking professional photos. Are you a professional
photographer with a magazine?

The
> camera gets a lot of good reviews; her photos come out great and she
know
> less about what she's doing than I do (if that's possible) :-)

Your friends photos are very nice as well. The A95 is sold quite widely
here, but has not come down in price as much as the A75 and A85 have.
The A75 in particular is quite cheap right now (though I wouldn't say
any cameras are cheap) :)  I think I mentioned my son has an A80 Canon
and is very happy with it. They are a little bit bigger than I would
like and have 4 batteries. I think I wouild like 2 batteries.

> Some people take their own flash memory cards to the stores to shoot
test
> pictures. I don't see why you can't bring in your own batteries.
>
> Renee

I don't think it would work out bringing any memory cards to stores,
since I really don't know which camera I will buy and could use SD or CF
or x (the Olympus and Fuji one), or Sony Memory sticks. I am still just
looking really. But its not a bad idea to take along batteries when I
get more serious :) . I see a couple of new cameras out which have 2"
LCD's but they are more money than I want to pay, but maybe they will be
on sale sometime. I am just a casual camera user and want one mainly for
taking pics of my family and anything else that might come up worth
photographing, so I can't justify paying much. I like the Sony P150 but
its too expensive here. I notice that all or most Sony cameras seem to
come with chargers and chargeable batteries, but they are proprietary,
so I am not too crazy about that, as you can't just stick in a couple of
AA's if need be, but you can't have everything it seems.

Cathy
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 12, 2005 4:34:56 AM

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

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:24:42 -0400, Cathy wrote:

> I notice that all or most Sony cameras seem to
> come with chargers and chargeable batteries, but they are proprietary,
> so I am not too crazy about that, as you can't just stick in a couple of
> AA's if need be, but you can't have everything it seems.

Sony does have a few cameras that use AA batteries. They're
fairly new so the prices probably won't drop too soon, but they
aren't too far above your price point and they're fairly small, like
the Canon and Fuji compact cameras. From my mini data file:

> Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W5 : B&H == $329.95 (in stock) Silver
> • 5mp, AA batteries, (3.6" x 2.4" x 1.5"); AF Illuminator, 2.5" Display,
> • Manual mode; 0.01 sec. shutter lag; 0.33 sec delay between shots;
> • 32MB flash memory built-in; live histogram;
> • During long exposures, Slow Shutter NR captures the scene, and then
> the CCD noise pattern with a dark frame exposure. By subtracting the
> two, even long exposures can be clear.
>
> Available picture resolutions:
> • 5.0 Megapixel (2592 x 1944) 3:2 mode (2592 x 1728)
> • 3.1 Megapixel (2048 x 1536) 1.2 Megapixel (1280 x 960)
> • VGA (640 x 480)
>
> • The Manual Exposure Mode provides extended control with
> 46-step adjustable shutter speed (30 - 1/1000 sec.), and 2-step
> Aperture control.
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 12, 2005 5:34:07 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:1bim511sd0u1vm6quo19btm0mru3ja8nd2@4ax.com...

By the way, did you know your message is in big fonts? Its making my
fonts bigger too. haha

> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:24:42 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
> > I notice that all or most Sony cameras seem to
> > come with chargers and chargeable batteries, but they are
proprietary,
> > so I am not too crazy about that, as you can't just stick in a
couple of
> > AA's if need be, but you can't have everything it seems.
>
> Sony does have a few cameras that use AA batteries. They're
> fairly new so the prices probably won't drop too soon, but they
> aren't too far above your price point and they're fairly small, like
> the Canon and Fuji compact cameras. From my mini data file:

Yes, I saw a couple of new Sonys and they took AA batteries. The DSC-S60
and it has a 2" LCD as well. It is around $350.00 Can.$ ($283.00 US),
but I am trying to stay close to $300.00 Can. or $320.00, but if the
Sony S60 includes a charger, it would come to the same thing as if I
bought a camera for $300.00 Can. and had to buy a charger. But the
DSC-S60 I saw online on one of the camera stores here didn't say if it
had a charger, so maybe it doesn.t. It weighs 8.7 oz so not all that
compact. I saw a Sony P100 in a store a few months ago and I have
thought since that I should have got it. It was red which I kind of
liked. It was 1.8" LCD, so it might have been OK. Most cameras here are
silver or black for SLR's. At the time a couple of people said to me
don't get a camera with proprietary memory cards, especially Sony as the
memory sticks are more expensive.

> > Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W5 : B&H == $329.95 (in stock) Silver
> > • 5mp, AA batteries, (3.6" x 2.4" x 1.5"); AF Illuminator, 2.5"
Display,
> > • Manual mode; 0.01 sec. shutter lag; 0.33 sec delay between shots;
> > • 32MB flash memory built-in; live histogram;
> > • During long exposures, Slow Shutter NR captures the scene, and
then
> > the CCD noise pattern with a dark frame exposure. By subtracting
the
> > two, even long exposures can be clear.

That one has been advertised for a while here, same with the DSC W1. but
both don't
seem to have very good reviews or at least they are very mixed. But they
are too expensive for me. The W1 is $323.00 US and the W5 is $352.00 US.
I need to try to get something up to around $260.00 US. I see on one
camera site here today that there is a new HP 717 camera out. First time
I've seen it. Its $399.99. Can. so still more than I want to pay, but HP
cameras come down a lot in price here fairly quickly. They are the
cheapest cameras around. Most cameras here are about $40.00 -$75.00 US
more than in the US, though not always. The newer ones are almost always
more money than the US. You have many more stores to compete with each
other for market share which is always better for consumers.

Thanks.

Cathy
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 12, 2005 2:54:10 PM

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

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 01:34:07 -0400, Cathy wrote:

> "ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
> news:1bim511sd0u1vm6quo19btm0mru3ja8nd2@4ax.com...
>
> By the way, did you know your message is in big fonts? Its making
> my fonts bigger too. haha

It shouldn't have. In all of my messages or just the one you
referred to? My newsreader doesn't really have font options such as
yours (OE) does. If you changed fonts in the middle of your
messages I wouldn't know it. All I can select for viewing is fixed
pitch or proportional, and the setting applies to the entire
message, not parts of it. In your entire message, including quotes
from my previous message, everything was the same, ie, no "big
fonts". Even our text settings (as shown in the message headers) is
identical:

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Maybe a transmission glitch produced a garbled character or two?
I've seen that with HTML or output sent to a printer, where a single
messed up character can inadvertantly change the fonts of following
characters, and if the page is reloaded, or the output sent to the
printer a second time, the bogus fonts don't reappear. Only my
email program (Eudora) allows for different fonts to be used within
messages, and I'm not aware that it can be used for anything but
email.
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 12, 2005 5:44:17 PM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:73nn51hrqmplnprki38vsjsg36ans4k9re@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 01:34:07 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
> > "ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
> > news:1bim511sd0u1vm6quo19btm0mru3ja8nd2@4ax.com...
> >
> > By the way, did you know your message is in big fonts? Its making
> > my fonts bigger too. haha
>
> It shouldn't have. In all of my messages or just the one you
> referred to?

I only saw the one you posted for me which had big fonts. I didn't check
others which you posted
around the same time you sent mine. Do you keep a copy of your "Sent"
mail? was the one to me which I am referring in your usual font?

My newsreader doesn't really have font options such as
> yours (OE) does. If you changed fonts in the middle of your
> messages I wouldn't know it. All I can select for viewing is fixed
> pitch or proportional, and the setting applies to the entire
> message, not parts of it. In your entire message, including quotes
> from my previous message, everything was the same, ie, no "big
> fonts". Even our text settings (as shown in the message headers) is
> identical:

How strange.
I have never changed fonts in the 8 years I've used Outlook Express.
Mine is always set to
Medium. Medium is what I am using now and your message this time is the
same as mine. I never use HTML either. Yesterday, when your message had
big fonts, yours was the only one in this Newsgroup to have big fonts.
All the other 150 messages were "regular" - same as usual. When I
replied to your message, I couldn't get my settings to type in regular
size fonts. It wouldn't let me so my reply was in large fonts.The only
time I have seen this is if the sender is using HTML text and I have
checked "Reply to message in format it was written" (something like
that) in OE, but I never put a check in there as I never use HTML
settings.

> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> Maybe a transmission glitch produced a garbled character or two?

Your entire message was in large fonts, from the start of your message.
Was my reply back to you in large fonts? It was sent that way on my end
in reply to your large fonts.

> I've seen that with HTML or output sent to a printer, where a single
> messed up character can inadvertantly change the fonts of following
> characters, and if the page is reloaded, or the output sent to the
> printer a second time, the bogus fonts don't reappear. Only my
> email program (Eudora) allows for different fonts to be used within
> messages, and I'm not aware that it can be used for anything but
> email.

It must have been some glitch and appeared like it was on your end, and
the reason I say that was because your message was the only one in the
dozens of newsgroup messages I saw last night. Also I sent other
messages last night and all were in my regular font. Oh well, I really
don't know what happened, but this message of yours is back to normal.
:) 

Cathy
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 13, 2005 12:07:12 AM

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

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:44:17 -0400, Cathy wrote:

>> It shouldn't have. In all of my messages or just the one you
>> referred to?
>
> I only saw the one you posted for me which had big fonts. I didn't check
> others which you posted
> around the same time you sent mine. Do you keep a copy of your "Sent"
> mail? was the one to me which I am referring in your usual font?

Yes, I keep copies, but I also retrieved the message and it
appeared just above yours in this thread. Looks fine to me.


>> My newsreader doesn't really have font options such as
>> yours (OE) does. If you changed fonts in the middle of your
>> messages I wouldn't know it. All I can select for viewing is fixed
>> pitch or proportional, and the setting applies to the entire
>> message, not parts of it. In your entire message, including quotes
>> from my previous message, everything was the same, ie, no "big
>> fonts". Even our text settings (as shown in the message headers) is
>> identical:
>
> How strange.
> I have never changed fonts in the 8 years I've used Outlook Express.
> Mine is always set to
> Medium. Medium is what I am using now and your message this time is the
> same as mine. I never use HTML either. Yesterday, when your message had
> big fonts, yours was the only one in this Newsgroup to have big fonts.
> All the other 150 messages were "regular" - same as usual. When I
> replied to your message, I couldn't get my settings to type in regular
> size fonts. It wouldn't let me so my reply was in large fonts.The only
> time I have seen this is if the sender is using HTML text and I have
> checked "Reply to message in format it was written" (something like
> that) in OE, but I never put a check in there as I never use HTML
> settings.

You may have sent the reply using large fonts, but it looked the
same as all other messages. The only way my newsreader will display
a different font is for me to configure it to display all received
messages with that font. If doesn't understand or do anything with
embedded font commands that may have been sent by OE. If HTML is
included in a message, it'll show the HTML command (such as an
embedded "<FONT COLOR=BLUE>") but it is treated only as ASCII text,
not as a command.



>> Maybe a transmission glitch produced a garbled character or two?
>
> Your entire message was in large fonts, from the start of your message.
> Was my reply back to you in large fonts? It was sent that way on my end
> in reply to your large fonts.

No, your reply looked like all replies. My newsreader is not OE,
thank heaven. :) 


>> I've seen that with HTML or output sent to a printer, where a single
>> messed up character can inadvertantly change the fonts of following
>> characters, and if the page is reloaded, or the output sent to the
>> printer a second time, the bogus fonts don't reappear. Only my
>> email program (Eudora) allows for different fonts to be used within
>> messages, and I'm not aware that it can be used for anything but
>> email.
>
> It must have been some glitch and appeared like it was on your end, and
> the reason I say that was because your message was the only one in the
> dozens of newsgroup messages I saw last night. Also I sent other
> messages last night and all were in my regular font. Oh well, I really
> don't know what happened, but this message of yours is back to normal.
> :) 

I think the glitch was neither on my end (the Agent newsreader)
nor on your end (OE), but somewhere in between. The copy of my
message that Agent retrieved has no unusual characters in it, so the
message made it to my news server as it should have. The glitch
(garbled text) could have appeared either when it was being sent
from my news server to yours, or it could have appeared later, when
it was being sent from your news server to OE running on your
computer. I don't know what OE's capabilities are, but I could test
these two possibilities with Agent by deleting the body of the
message and re-retrieving it. If it came back again showing large
fonts (just a "thought experiment" here, since Agent doesn't do
fonts), I'd assume that the news server had the garbled copy of the
message. If it came back showing normal fonts, I'd assume that the
large fonts were due to a glitch while the newsreader was retrieving
the message the first time.

The fact that on your end none of the following messages had large
fonts only means that OE wasn't written by a totally incompetent
programmer that thought that font commands intended for one specific
message should apply to all following messages unless or until
cancelled by a later message's font command. In other words, even
if the glitch occurred on your end, you wouldn't expect all
succeeding messages to continue displaying large fonts. :) 
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 13, 2005 2:19:01 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:7smo51p7sc0uvmic68lq8nudtbqh5f7b6g@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:44:17 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
> >> It shouldn't have. In all of my messages or just the one you
> >> referred to?
> >
> > I only saw the one you posted for me which had big fonts. I didn't
check
> > others which you posted
> > around the same time you sent mine. Do you keep a copy of your
"Sent"
> > mail? was the one to me which I am referring in your usual font?
>
> Yes, I keep copies, but I also retrieved the message and it
> appeared just above yours in this thread. Looks fine to me.

So something must have happened between your sending your post to your
news server and my viewing your newsgroup post from my server in OE.

> >> My newsreader doesn't really have font options such as
> >> yours (OE) does. If you changed fonts in the middle of your
> >> messages I wouldn't know it. All I can select for viewing is fixed
> >> pitch or proportional, and the setting applies to the entire
> >> message, not parts of it. In your entire message, including quotes
> >> from my previous message, everything was the same, ie, no "big
> >> fonts". Even our text settings (as shown in the message headers)
is
> >> identical:
> >
> > How strange.
> > I have never changed fonts in the 8 years I've used Outlook Express.
> > Mine is always set to
> > Medium. Medium is what I am using now and your message this time is
the
> > same as mine. I never use HTML either. Yesterday, when your message
had
> > big fonts, yours was the only one in this Newsgroup to have big
fonts.
> > All the other 150 messages were "regular" - same as usual. When I
> > replied to your message, I couldn't get my settings to type in
regular
> > size fonts. It wouldn't let me so my reply was in large fonts.The
only
> > time I have seen this is if the sender is using HTML text and I have
> > checked "Reply to message in format it was written" (something like
> > that) in OE, but I never put a check in there as I never use HTML
> > settings.
>
> You may have sent the reply using large fonts, but it looked the
> same as all other messages. The only way my newsreader will display
> a different font is for me to configure it to display all received
> messages with that font. If doesn't understand or do anything with
> embedded font commands that may have been sent by OE. If HTML is
> included in a message, it'll show the HTML command (such as an
> embedded "<FONT COLOR=BLUE>") but it is treated only as ASCII text,
> not as a command.

Well, I know I've never changed fonts in OE ever since I used OE which
was 8 or so years ago when I first had OE. I never saw any need to
change fonts.

> >> Maybe a transmission glitch produced a garbled character or two?
> >
> > Your entire message was in large fonts, from the start of your
message.
> > Was my reply back to you in large fonts? It was sent that way on my
end
> > in reply to your large fonts.
>
> No, your reply looked like all replies. My newsreader is not OE,
> thank heaven. :) 

Now, now :)  I can only speak for myself and say I've have never had a
problem with OE and been quite happy with it and I've been using it for
many years. You just have to make sure you install all the latest
critical updates. This is the first time this has happened, unless the
sender set it that way, which does not seem to be the case in this
instance.

> >> I've seen that with HTML or output sent to a printer, where a
single
> >> messed up character can inadvertantly change the fonts of following
> >> characters, and if the page is reloaded, or the output sent to the
> >> printer a second time, the bogus fonts don't reappear. Only my
> >> email program (Eudora) allows for different fonts to be used within
> >> messages, and I'm not aware that it can be used for anything but
> >> email.
> >
> > It must have been some glitch and appeared like it was on your end,
and
> > the reason I say that was because your message was the only one in
the
> > dozens of newsgroup messages I saw last night. Also I sent other
> > messages last night and all were in my regular font. Oh well, I
really
> > don't know what happened, but this message of yours is back to
normal.
> > :) 
>
> I think the glitch was neither on my end (the Agent newsreader)
> nor on your end (OE), but somewhere in between. The copy of my
> message that Agent retrieved has no unusual characters in it, so the
> message made it to my news server as it should have. The glitch
> (garbled text) could have appeared either when it was being sent
> from my news server to yours, or it could have appeared later, when
> it was being sent from your news server to OE running on your
> computer.

That could be I guess. I really don't know .

I don't know what OE's capabilities are, but I could test
> these two possibilities with Agent by deleting the body of the
> message and re-retrieving it. If it came back again showing large
> fonts (just a "thought experiment" here, since Agent doesn't do
> fonts), I'd assume that the news server had the garbled copy of the
> message. If it came back showing normal fonts, I'd assume that the
> large fonts were due to a glitch while the newsreader was retrieving
> the message the first time.

Well, anything is possible. Maybe the news server at my ISP somehow
changed it to large fonts, though I don't know a lot about news servers.

> The fact that on your end none of the following messages had large
> fonts only means that OE wasn't written by a totally incompetent
> programmer that thought that font commands intended for one specific
> message should apply to all following messages unless or until
> cancelled by a later message's font command. In other words, even
> if the glitch occurred on your end, you wouldn't expect all
> succeeding messages to continue displaying large fonts. :) 

I really don't know. It never happened before, so I have never given it
any thought.

Well, I can only say that I don't know how that would happen and can't
even speculate.
Obviously the message got changed somewhere and somehow along the way,
so I guess we have to leave it at that. Its one of the life's many
mysteries :) 

Cathy
April 13, 2005 5:53:23 AM

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

"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
news:l42dnQH3A86hosbfRVn-iA@rogers.com...
> Hi Renee:
>
> The photos you took are quite beautiful. Your camera looks like it is
> mainly for taking professional photos. Are you a professional
> photographer with a magazine?
<snip>
> I think I mentioned my son has an A80 Canon
> and is very happy with it. They are a little bit bigger than I would
> like and have 4 batteries. I think I wouild like 2 batteries.
>
<snip>
> I like the Sony P150 but
> its too expensive here. I notice that all or most Sony cameras seem to
> come with chargers and chargeable batteries, but they are proprietary,
> so I am not too crazy about that, as you can't just stick in a couple of
> AA's if need be, but you can't have everything it seems.
>
> Cathy
>

Hi Cathy,

Thank you. Your comments brought me a smile, but probably a great big laugh
to the experienced photographers on this NG. As anyone who's seen my posts
during the past year can tell you, I definitely qualify as a amateur/casual
shooter. My lack of photo compositional forethought, artistry and creatively
is testament to that. Thankfully, most digicams these days can make a snap
shooter look good. Sounds like you're doing your homework and I'm sure
whatever you finally settle on, you'll be happy with the results.

The LCDs on digicams are power hogs so that's probably why most take the 4
AAs. In my case, the zoom mechanism also consumes a lot of juice.

I know what you mean about wanting a small purse-size camera. Most women
don't want to carry both a handbag and camera bag on their shoulder. I have
some thoughts on the ideal women's camera tote -- something large enough
inside to carry a wallet, cosmetic bag, cell phone, maybe a PDA, the
occasional plane tickets, with an interior pocket for keys and pens and
outside zipper for security, material is weatherproof, and it has an outside
pouch big enough to accommodate the camera. Like my Tamrac, the camera pouch
would have a zipper for full weatherproofing, and Velcro and a clip for
security. I'm partial to leather for my handbags but I'd settle for another
light-weight material as long as it was stylish or cute. Now that'd be a
tote! I hope the camera bag manufacturers are listening. I'd be first in
line to buy one.

Sorry, don't mean to be so chatty, Cathy . . . :-)

Renee
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 14, 2005 1:12:42 AM

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

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:nY_6e.60503$Fz.20776@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> news:l42dnQH3A86hosbfRVn-iA@rogers.com...
> > Hi Renee:
> >
> > The photos you took are quite beautiful. Your camera looks like it
is
> > mainly for taking professional photos. Are you a professional
> > photographer with a magazine?
> <snip>
> > I think I mentioned my son has an A80 Canon
> > and is very happy with it. They are a little bit bigger than I would
> > like and have 4 batteries. I think I wouild like 2 batteries.
> >
> <snip>
> > I like the Sony P150 but
> > its too expensive here. I notice that all or most Sony cameras seem
to
> > come with chargers and chargeable batteries, but they are
proprietary,
> > so I am not too crazy about that, as you can't just stick in a
couple of
> > AA's if need be, but you can't have everything it seems.
> >
> > Cathy
> >
>
> Hi Cathy,
>
> Thank you. Your comments brought me a smile, but probably a great big
laugh
> to the experienced photographers on this NG. As anyone who's seen my
posts
> during the past year can tell you, I definitely qualify as a
amateur/casual
> shooter. My lack of photo compositional forethought, artistry and
creatively
> is testament to that. Thankfully, most digicams these days can make a
snap
> shooter look good.

You are too modest Renee. You don't have to be a professional
photographer to have a good eye for photography. I have a good eye for
scenery and love mountains and lakes, though we don't have any mountains
where I am. We have Lake Ontario but the closest I get to it is seeing
it in the distance from my 16th floor apartment balcony.
You seem to like to do macros of flowers and I like that one you did of
the blue parrot. Your photos are nice and clear. I don't like blurry
photos, or blurry anything :) 

I went to Scotland a year and a half ago and took 9 films when I was
there for two weeks. That was with my 35 mm Concord camera which I
bought two days before I left, and it has a macro lens and a zoom lens
and automatic and a nice clear viewfinder, and the photos were
beautiful. I took an old 35mm Pentax as a backup in case the new camera
failed and I would end up with no photos. But maybe it was just that
model Concord, for it took some of the best photos ever. I am Scottish
by birth and took photos of my home town where I hadn't been for 35
years. My town is very historical as so many places over there are, and
I try to compose the picture nicely and get interesting shots, and I
did. I took some photos of the 12th Century Abbey there along with a big
park where peacocks were wandering around. I should maybe have put some
of my photos on
my free web space on my ISP, but I don't know anything about that. I
scanned some of the photos. It would have been nice if I had a digital
camera for my trip, but on the other hand, I was very pleased with the
photos I took. Besides, I can be perfectionistic about photo taking and
might delete the wrong photos :) 

>Sounds like you're doing your homework and I'm sure
> whatever you finally settle on, you'll be happy with the results.

I see so many cameras that I like, but haven't gotten around to getting
one yet. I've had to buy a lot of big items lately, so not ready to
spend more money unless I see something great, which I doubt.

> The LCDs on digicams are power hogs so that's probably why most take
the 4
> AAs. In my case, the zoom mechanism also consumes a lot of juice.

Most cameras are only two AA's though. Only the A75/A85/A95 seem to be 4
batteries. Thats why Canon brought out the two battery A510 and A520
trying to make the camera a bit less bulky, and you only have to worry
about two batteries instead of 4. But I have read a few times now, that
the A75/A85/A95 are better cameras in some ways than the A510/A520.

> I know what you mean about wanting a small purse-size camera. Most
women
> don't want to carry both a handbag and camera bag on their shoulder.

Thats what I always do. I don't think I would want to have a camera that
was ultra compact though like the SD200/SD300 and some others. The young
guys and maybe gals too, seem to like them, but I think they are too
small and I like to have a good grip on a camera. They seem to take nice
photos though.

I have
> some thoughts on the ideal women's camera tote -- something large
enough
> inside to carry a wallet, cosmetic bag, cell phone, maybe a PDA, the
> occasional plane tickets, with an interior pocket for keys and pens
and
> outside zipper for security, material is weatherproof, and it has an
outside
> pouch big enough to accommodate the camera. Like my Tamrac, the camera
pouch
> would have a zipper for full weatherproofing, and Velcro and a clip
for
> security. I'm partial to leather for my handbags but I'd settle for
another
> light-weight material as long as it was stylish or cute. Now that'd be
a
> tote! I hope the camera bag manufacturers are listening. I'd be first
in
> line to buy one.

That sounds like a small suitcase. I have a small suitcase thing like
that with small wheels.
It can be used to put on your back, thoguh I can't see myself doing that
at my age.I would never need half that stuff you mentioned -: ) And I
would never have "occasional" plane tickets" to anywhere though would be
nice.

> Sorry, don't mean to be so chatty, Cathy . . . :-)

Thats ok. its a lot better than all those crossposted Usenet attacks
I've seen here lately. My kill filter has never been used so much, but
these people are from google groups and look like they are all young
guys. Also, you can't filter out a lot of them as they change their name
and use a different number in their "From" address each time, so you
can't block them, and if you filter by subject, they just change the
subject. I was ready to get out of here. Its very aggravating. They
shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Cathy
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 14, 2005 4:14:06 AM

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

Cathy wrote:
> "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
> news:nY_6e.60503$Fz.20776@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
>>news:l42dnQH3A86hosbfRVn-iA@rogers.com...
>>
>>>Hi Renee:
>>>
>>>The photos you took are quite beautiful. Your camera looks like it
>
> is
>
>>>mainly for taking professional photos. Are you a professional
>>>photographer with a magazine?
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>I think I mentioned my son has an A80 Canon
>>>and is very happy with it. They are a little bit bigger than I would
>>>like and have 4 batteries. I think I wouild like 2 batteries.
>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>I like the Sony P150 but
>>>its too expensive here. I notice that all or most Sony cameras seem
>
> to
>
>>>come with chargers and chargeable batteries, but they are
>
> proprietary,
>
>>>so I am not too crazy about that, as you can't just stick in a
>
> couple of
>
>>>AA's if need be, but you can't have everything it seems.
>>>
>>>Cathy
>>>
>>
>>Hi Cathy,
>>
>>Thank you. Your comments brought me a smile, but probably a great big
>
> laugh
>
>>to the experienced photographers on this NG. As anyone who's seen my
>
> posts
>
>>during the past year can tell you, I definitely qualify as a
>
> amateur/casual
>
>>shooter. My lack of photo compositional forethought, artistry and
>
> creatively
>
>>is testament to that. Thankfully, most digicams these days can make a
>
> snap
>
>>shooter look good.
>
>
> You are too modest Renee. You don't have to be a professional
> photographer to have a good eye for photography. I have a good eye for
> scenery and love mountains and lakes, though we don't have any mountains
> where I am. We have Lake Ontario but the closest I get to it is seeing
> it in the distance from my 16th floor apartment balcony.
> You seem to like to do macros of flowers and I like that one you did of
> the blue parrot. Your photos are nice and clear. I don't like blurry
> photos, or blurry anything :) 
>
> I went to Scotland a year and a half ago and took 9 films when I was
> there for two weeks. That was with my 35 mm Concord camera which I
> bought two days before I left, and it has a macro lens and a zoom lens
> and automatic and a nice clear viewfinder, and the photos were
> beautiful. I took an old 35mm Pentax as a backup in case the new camera
> failed and I would end up with no photos. But maybe it was just that
> model Concord, for it took some of the best photos ever. I am Scottish
> by birth and took photos of my home town where I hadn't been for 35
> years. My town is very historical as so many places over there are, and
> I try to compose the picture nicely and get interesting shots, and I
> did. I took some photos of the 12th Century Abbey there along with a big
> park where peacocks were wandering around. I should maybe have put some
> of my photos on
> my free web space on my ISP, but I don't know anything about that. I
> scanned some of the photos. It would have been nice if I had a digital
> camera for my trip, but on the other hand, I was very pleased with the
> photos I took. Besides, I can be perfectionistic about photo taking and
> might delete the wrong photos :) 
>
>
>>Sounds like you're doing your homework and I'm sure
>>whatever you finally settle on, you'll be happy with the results.
>
>
> I see so many cameras that I like, but haven't gotten around to getting
> one yet. I've had to buy a lot of big items lately, so not ready to
> spend more money unless I see something great, which I doubt.
>
>
>>The LCDs on digicams are power hogs so that's probably why most take
>
> the 4
>
>>AAs. In my case, the zoom mechanism also consumes a lot of juice.
>
>
> Most cameras are only two AA's though. Only the A75/A85/A95 seem to be 4
> batteries. Thats why Canon brought out the two battery A510 and A520
> trying to make the camera a bit less bulky, and you only have to worry
> about two batteries instead of 4. But I have read a few times now, that
> the A75/A85/A95 are better cameras in some ways than the A510/A520.
>
>
>>I know what you mean about wanting a small purse-size camera. Most
>
> women
>
>>don't want to carry both a handbag and camera bag on their shoulder.
>
>
> Thats what I always do. I don't think I would want to have a camera that
> was ultra compact though like the SD200/SD300 and some others. The young
> guys and maybe gals too, seem to like them, but I think they are too
> small and I like to have a good grip on a camera. They seem to take nice
> photos though.
>
> I have
>
>>some thoughts on the ideal women's camera tote -- something large
>
> enough
>
>>inside to carry a wallet, cosmetic bag, cell phone, maybe a PDA, the
>>occasional plane tickets, with an interior pocket for keys and pens
>
> and
>
>>outside zipper for security, material is weatherproof, and it has an
>
> outside
>
>>pouch big enough to accommodate the camera. Like my Tamrac, the camera
>
> pouch
>
>>would have a zipper for full weatherproofing, and Velcro and a clip
>
> for
>
>>security. I'm partial to leather for my handbags but I'd settle for
>
> another
>
>>light-weight material as long as it was stylish or cute. Now that'd be
>
> a
>
>>tote! I hope the camera bag manufacturers are listening. I'd be first
>
> in
>
>>line to buy one.
>
>
> That sounds like a small suitcase. I have a small suitcase thing like
> that with small wheels.
> It can be used to put on your back, thoguh I can't see myself doing that
> at my age.I would never need half that stuff you mentioned -: ) And I
> would never have "occasional" plane tickets" to anywhere though would be
> nice.
>
>
>>Sorry, don't mean to be so chatty, Cathy . . . :-)
>
>
> Thats ok. its a lot better than all those crossposted Usenet attacks
> I've seen here lately. My kill filter has never been used so much, but
> these people are from google groups and look like they are all young
> guys. Also, you can't filter out a lot of them as they change their name
> and use a different number in their "From" address each time, so you
> can't block them, and if you filter by subject, they just change the
> subject. I was ready to get out of here. Its very aggravating. They
> shouldn't be allowed to do that.
>
> Cathy
>
I manage to filter most of them by killing messages with some of the
words they choose. Most of them have little to do with photography.

I would be VERY happy to see USENET limit cross-posting to only two
newsgroups.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 14, 2005 3:54:09 PM

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

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:14:06 -0500, in rec.photo.digital , Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> in <z_m7e.5573$303.241@fe05.lga> wrote:

[snip]

>I manage to filter most of them by killing messages with some of the
>words they choose. Most of them have little to do with photography.
>
>I would be VERY happy to see USENET limit cross-posting to only two
>newsgroups.

Talk.origins went moderated several years ago. The only significant
moderation is a limitation to four newsgroups total. It worked out
very well. 2-3 might be fine for this group, I can't think of a valid
four group cross-post at the moment.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
April 15, 2005 4:24:37 AM

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

"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
news:3fmdnRFDvuTXXsDfRVn-qg@rogers.com...
> I went to Scotland a year and a half ago and took 9 films when I was
> there for two weeks. That was with my 35 mm Concord camera which I
> bought two days before I left, and it has a macro lens and a zoom lens
> and automatic and a nice clear viewfinder, and the photos were
> beautiful. I took an old 35mm Pentax as a backup in case the new camera
> failed and I would end up with no photos. But maybe it was just that
> model Concord, for it took some of the best photos ever. I am Scottish
> by birth and took photos of my home town where I hadn't been for 35
> years. My town is very historical as so many places over there are, and
> I try to compose the picture nicely and get interesting shots, and I
> did. I took some photos of the 12th Century Abbey there along with a big
> park where peacocks were wandering around. I should maybe have put some
> of my photos on
> my free web space on my ISP, but I don't know anything about that. I
> scanned some of the photos. It would have been nice if I had a digital
> camera for my trip, but on the other hand, I was very pleased with the
> photos I took. Besides, I can be perfectionistic about photo taking and
> might delete the wrong photos :) 

<snipped contents of Renee's purse>

> That sounds like a small suitcase. I have a small suitcase thing like
> that with small wheels.
> It can be used to put on your back, thoguh I can't see myself doing that
> at my age.I would never need half that stuff you mentioned -: ) And I
> would never have "occasional" plane tickets" to anywhere though would be
> nice.
>
>> Sorry, don't mean to be so chatty, Cathy . . . :-)
>
> Thats ok. its a lot better than all those crossposted Usenet attacks
> I've seen here lately. My kill filter has never been used so much, but
> these people are from google groups and look like they are all young
> guys. Also, you can't filter out a lot of them as they change their name
> and use a different number in their "From" address each time, so you
> can't block them, and if you filter by subject, they just change the
> subject. I was ready to get out of here. Its very aggravating. They
> shouldn't be allowed to do that.
>
> Cathy
>

Hi Cathy,

Your Scotland photos sound beautiful. You can ***easily*** put your scanned
photos on your own photo sharing site. I like www.multiply.com . It's easy
to use, lets you post photos, recipes, market items, links, blog/journal,
etc. You get 1 gigabyte of free storage space. 1 GB on multiply.com stores a
lot of photos. If your son's ISP is like mine, he's limited to only a small
amount of server space.

About the suitcase thing -- that was very funny, Cathy. :-) Actually,
the contents of my purse includes more than that. I forgot to mention the
sunglasses, checkbook and handful of grocery coupons I always seem to have.
I like to be prepared for anything.

I use OE for my newsreader, too. I load a program before opening OE called
NewsProxy. It does a great job of filtering out all the poop in this NG. You
probably can search groups.google.com to find out where to download it. If
you decide to use it, give a holler for help setting it up.

Renee

P.S. my multiply site is photofan.multiply.com
Anonymous
a b α HP
April 17, 2005 4:27:00 AM

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

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message news:9RD7e.610

Hi Renee. missed this message.

> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message

<snip>

> > years. My town is very historical as so many places over there are,
and
> > I try to compose the picture nicely and get interesting shots, and I
> > did. I took some photos of the 12th Century Abbey there along with a
big
> > park where peacocks were wandering around. I should maybe have put
some
> > of my photos on
> > my free web space on my ISP, but I don't know anything about that. I
> > scanned some of the photos. It would have been nice if I had a
digital
> > camera for my trip, but on the other hand, I was very pleased with
the
> > photos I took. Besides, I can be perfectionistic about photo taking
and
> > might delete the wrong photos :) 
>
> <snipped contents of Renee's purse>

don't snip the money bills :) 

> > That sounds like a small suitcase. I have a small suitcase thing
like
> > that with small wheels.
> > It can be used to put on your back, thoguh I can't see myself doing
that
> > at my age.I would never need half that stuff you mentioned -: ) And
I
> > would never have "occasional" plane tickets" to anywhere though
would be
> > nice.
> Hi Cathy,
>
> Your Scotland photos sound beautiful. You can ***easily*** put your
scanned
> photos on your own photo sharing site. I like www.multiply.com .

Well, as I was saying I would have to check as to what my provider gives
for web space. Last I saw on their home page, they said they had stopped
using their own web site for customers web space but you could upload
jpgs to geocities. I think geocities is free anyway, so no great favor.
Is www.multiply.com free? Geocities was free last I heard. I only have
a few photos that have been scanned that I took on my vaction. Any
others would have to be scanned. so I am not in a hurry to do that. .

It's easy
> to use, lets you post photos, recipes, market items, links,
blog/journal,
> etc. You get 1 gigabyte of free storage space. 1 GB on multiply.com
stores a
> lot of photos. If your son's ISP is like mine, he's limited to only a
small
> amount of server space.

I don't remember mentioning anything about my sons ISP regarding web
space. I don't think he even has web space or had any photos on it. I
don't think so. He would have the same web space as me since he is with
the same provider as me.

> About the suitcase thing -- that was very funny, Cathy. :-)
Actually,
> the contents of my purse includes more than that. I forgot to mention
the
> sunglasses, checkbook and handful of grocery coupons I always seem to
have.
> I like to be prepared for anything.

Now you need something bigger the knapsack/suitcase I was talking
about.Maybe you need a big suitcase with wheels that you draw along or
you could buy one of those shopping buggys. I have two of those , one
medium and one small. They are indispensible.

> I use OE for my newsreader, too. I load a program before opening OE
called
> NewsProxy. It does a great job of filtering out all the poop in this
NG. You
> probably can search groups.google.com to find out where to download
it. If
> you decide to use it, give a holler for help setting it up.

I have most things filtered out from the NG. If I think I need something
more heavy duty, I might look for News Proxy, but if its hard to set up,
I don't have patience. I have tons of utilities as it is.

> Renee
>
> P.S. my multiply site is photofan.multiply.com

I checked multiply site but was only there briefly. I don't have time
right now. Is there a separate site called photofan?

Cathy
!