Fuzzy view through Canon viewfinder

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.
32 answers Last reply
More about fuzzy view canon viewfinder
  1. 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:p84451dei1lo4a975r64jco7ktk1vu5eu1@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.
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Archie" <Archie@Hatespam.com> wrote in message
    news:p84451dei1lo4a975r64jco7ktk1vu5eu1@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
  3. 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:p84451dei1lo4a975r64jco7ktk1vu5eu1@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.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Archie" <Archie@Hatespam.com> wrote in message
    news:p84451dei1lo4a975r64jco7ktk1vu5eu1@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
  5. 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:p84451dei1lo4a975r64jco7ktk1vu5eu1@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.
  6. 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
  7. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Archie" <Archie@Hatespam.com> wrote in message
    news:o46651p18e1lk13mleouj7l8g5auq27qcd@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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
    message news:pgm7511qlgj7lfhpb9sdrmbof87c1e6bfd@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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
    news:OIE6e.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
  21. 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.
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. 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. :)
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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.
  31. 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
  32. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

Canon Photo Hewlett Packard Cameras