Fuzzy view through Canon viewfinder

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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
news84451dei1lo4a975r64jco7ktk1vu5eu1@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.
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"Archie" <Archie@Hatespam.com> wrote in message
news84451dei1lo4a975r64jco7ktk1vu5eu1@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

 

[Guest]

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
> news84451dei1lo4a975r64jco7ktk1vu5eu1@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.

 

[Guest]

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

"Archie" <Archie@Hatespam.com> wrote in message
news84451dei1lo4a975r64jco7ktk1vu5eu1@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

 

[Guest]

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
>news84451dei1lo4a975r64jco7ktk1vu5eu1@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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

"Archie" <Archie@Hatespam.com> wrote in message
news46651p18e1lk13mleouj7l8g5auq27qcd@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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[ECM]

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

 

[Guest]

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

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message newsgm7511qlgj7lfhpb9sdrmbof87c1e6bfd@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

 

[Renee]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Renee]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Renee]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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