Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sony digital camera opinions?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 19, 2005 2:58:35 AM

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

I've been looking at a couple of Sony cameras which I quite like- newer
ones that came out not long ago. They use AA batteries and one comes
with a charger for AA batteries, but they told me in the store, you can
use any any kind of AA chargeables. The memory stick is proprietary to
Sony which I knew. I saw a message here that gave me the impression
that a Sony may not be such a good idea because of proprietary memory
sticks. I know they are more money than SD or CF, but I would probably
only get a 128 MB memory stick, which is not much more money than the
SD.
As you go up to higher memory cards, there is more difference in money,
but I doubt I would be going any higher than 128MB. What are peoples
experiences or opinions here of Sony digital cameras?

Cathy
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 19, 2005 3:36:46 AM

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

I have had a P200 for two months and am very pleased with it. It
doesn't use AA batteries but its lithium battery lasts for about 370
shots or 3.5 hours of viewing time on the LCD. I haven't come close to
draining a battery yet. The newer Sony's all seem to have very good
battery life.

As for the picture quality, I have been very satisfied with the P200.
It's not on par with the photos from our Digital Rebel but they're
surprisingly good for a point and shoot camera. I doubt you would be
disatisfied with most of the compact cameras available today. The hard
part is determing what features are most important to you and then
finding the camera that has them.

Cathy wrote:
> I've been looking at a couple of Sony cameras which I quite like- newer
> ones that came out not long ago. They use AA batteries and one comes
> with a charger for AA batteries, but they told me in the store, you can
> use any any kind of AA chargeables. The memory stick is proprietary to
> Sony which I knew. I saw a message here that gave me the impression
> that a Sony may not be such a good idea because of proprietary memory
> sticks. I know they are more money than SD or CF, but I would probably
> only get a 128 MB memory stick, which is not much more money than the
> SD.
> As you go up to higher memory cards, there is more difference in money,
> but I doubt I would be going any higher than 128MB. What are peoples
> experiences or opinions here of Sony digital cameras?
>
> Cathy
>
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 19, 2005 4:15:39 AM

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

"Michael Johnson, PE" <nospam@ourhouse.com> wrote in message
news:1o2dnVSgEoFR4fnfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> I have had a P200 for two months and am very pleased with it. It
> doesn't use AA batteries but its lithium battery lasts for about 370
> shots or 3.5 hours of viewing time on the LCD. I haven't come close
to
> draining a battery yet. The newer Sony's all seem to have very good
> battery life.

The girl in the camera shop today, said that the two Sony's I looked at,
both used AA alkalines and AA rechargeables, and with one of the Sony's
it came with a charger and 2 AA rechargeables. The other one just came
with rechargeable batteries but you would have to buy a charger. It was
cheaper than the one with the charger and rechargeables. The girl said
that the newer Sony's are mostly coming out with AA batteries.
I like that idea more than proprietary chargers and batteries. I was
wondering about the memory stick and how it performs as compared to SD
and CF. I checked the price of a 128MB memory stick, (not the Pro
version) and it was not much more than the 128MB SD memory cards, as the
MB's went up, so did the difference in price between memory stick and
SD. Also, is there a big difference between memory stick and Pro
version? which do you use?

> As for the picture quality, I have been very satisfied with the P200.
> It's not on par with the photos from our Digital Rebel but they're
> surprisingly good for a point and shoot camera.

Have you taken any indoor pictures with a flash? and is red eye a
problem with flash?

I doubt you would be
> disatisfied with most of the compact cameras available today. The
hard
> part is determing what features are most important to you and then
> finding the camera that has them.

Thanks.

Cathy

> Cathy wrote:
> > I've been looking at a couple of Sony cameras which I quite like-
newer
> > ones that came out not long ago. They use AA batteries and one comes
> > with a charger for AA batteries, but they told me in the store, you
can
> > use any any kind of AA chargeables. The memory stick is proprietary
to
> > Sony which I knew. I saw a message here that gave me the impression
> > that a Sony may not be such a good idea because of proprietary
memory
> > sticks. I know they are more money than SD or CF, but I would
probably
> > only get a 128 MB memory stick, which is not much more money than
the
> > SD.
> > As you go up to higher memory cards, there is more difference in
money,
> > but I doubt I would be going any higher than 128MB. What are peoples
> > experiences or opinions here of Sony digital cameras?
> >
> > Cathy
> >
Related resources
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 19, 2005 6:32:34 AM

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

Cathy wrote:
> I've been looking at a couple of Sony cameras which I quite like- newer
> ones that came out not long ago. They use AA batteries and one comes
> with a charger for AA batteries, but they told me in the store, you can
> use any any kind of AA chargeables. The memory stick is proprietary to
> Sony which I knew. I saw a message here that gave me the impression
> that a Sony may not be such a good idea because of proprietary memory
> sticks. I know they are more money than SD or CF, but I would probably
> only get a 128 MB memory stick, which is not much more money than the
> SD.
> As you go up to higher memory cards, there is more difference in money,
> but I doubt I would be going any higher than 128MB. What are peoples
> experiences or opinions here of Sony digital cameras?
>
> Cathy
>
Sony products are usually more expensive than others, partly because of
the general policy toward proprietary everything in their products. For
that reason, avoid buying their products. I was vastly amused by my
brother in law with his Sony 717 at the family christmas party, changing
his memory stick 'end' every few pictures, which I snapped happily with
my Kodak which gets 300 pictures on a 256meg card.
I believe some of his pictures are included on my webshots albums. Just
look for the ones with the overly intense reds with the orange tint.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 19, 2005 10:00:38 AM

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

I'll also happily stick up for the Sony cameras (even though I don't
currently have one!), and the lenses on their low-end cameras are the
equal or better of most similar cameras. And they supply the ccd
sensors for an awful lot of those other cameras.. Rather than accept
what you read here, get over to dpreview.com or imaging-resource.com
and actually look at the reviews and the samples there. I just checked
dpreview's conclusion on a typical mid-range Sony (DSC-L1), which uses
a Zeiss lens by the way, as do most of their range.. DPReview said:
================= quote
...the L1 compares well with competitors such as the Canon SD300 and
Olympus Stylus Verve Digita (both of which sell for slightly more)
================= endquote

Memory Stick Pro are faster than the standard ones, and offer larger
capacities. But for the cameras the OP is considering, the standard
sticks should have adequate speed. It is hard to generalise given all
the speeds now available, but in general terms the standard memory
stick is *a bit* slower than standard cf/sd/xd cards, but the MS Pro is
faster.. I suspect Justin's problem above relates more to his
card-reader's system than to the memory sticks.

I have had an extremely good run out of their gear - it is generally
reliable, well-designed and tough (yes, even the low-end of their
range), and even though I now have an Oly camera, the camera that I
think I prefer over all those I have used is the classic Sony DSC-F717
- I miss the old girl. Bad reds? Only if you don't know how to
post-process, and use a red-challenged printer... The older F707 did
have over-saturated reds, but even that was easy to deal with. Again
take it from DPReview (admittedly an old review..) who said:
=========================== quote
Even a year on from my DSC-F707 review I find myself unable to name a
new five megapixel prosumer digital camera which takes better pictures
than the DSC-F717, and that is saying a lot. The key to the success of
the DSC-F707 and F717 is the flexibility and quality of that fast F2.0
- F2.4 five times optical zoom lens. It's sharp and fast with a
trademark silent focus and zoom system which must be carried over from
Sony's camcorder line. Sony has also proved that they listen to users,
the F707 wasn't without its problems, a few of which were fixed in that
model, the rest of which appear to have been addressed in the F717.
Most notable is colour balance which is greatly improved, no more
washed out and oversaturated reds, no more 'glowing greens'
====================== endquote

And maybe it's different in the US, but here in Oz, the Sony cameras in
the low-to-medium quality range are *exceptionally* well-priced
compared to the competition. And if anything, I think Olympus makes
the trendiest looking cameras, eg that mju thingy..

Anyway, take all these posts with a grain of salt - we're all biased!
And remember my favorite saying:
"The plural of anecdote is NOT data."

If you are interested in a particular camera, get over to the above
mentioned websites, and look at the reviews. There is much less bias
over there..!
April 19, 2005 11:34:01 AM

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

In article <P92dnZeYN98B7vnfRVn-2g@rogers.com>, not@there.com says...
> I've been looking at a couple of Sony cameras which I quite like- newer
> ones that came out not long ago. They use AA batteries and one comes
> with a charger for AA batteries, but they told me in the store, you can
> use any any kind of AA chargeables. The memory stick is proprietary to
> Sony which I knew. I saw a message here that gave me the impression
> that a Sony may not be such a good idea because of proprietary memory
> sticks. I know they are more money than SD or CF, but I would probably
> only get a 128 MB memory stick, which is not much more money than the
> SD.
> As you go up to higher memory cards, there is more difference in money,
> but I doubt I would be going any higher than 128MB. What are peoples
> experiences or opinions here of Sony digital cameras?
>
> Cathy
>
>

I have used a Sony F-717 for several years, as well as a Sony V-1 and a Sony
F-828.

The only one of these that uses anything other than a memory stick is the
828. I have not found this to be a problem.

Here where I am (Northeast USA) memory sticks are available at the local Wal-
Mart for prices within pennies of the same size CF-card or SD-card, from
several manufacturers other than Sony. I have not had any problem with these
memory sticks, and I have a bunch of them (I think they are Lexar, but I dont
have them here to check).


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 19, 2005 4:05:23 PM

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

I've had the Sony DSC-F717 and liked it quite well. I sold it and bought
the Sony DSC-F828 and I like it fine. They do make a 256 Memory Stick which
I have. It requires one to change a switch position from the A to the B
position when "one side" fills up so, in effect, it is two 128s in the same
case.
"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
news:p 92dnZeYN98B7vnfRVn-2g@rogers.com...
> I've been looking at a couple of Sony cameras which I quite like- newer
> ones that came out not long ago. They use AA batteries and one comes
> with a charger for AA batteries, but they told me in the store, you can
> use any any kind of AA chargeables. The memory stick is proprietary to
> Sony which I knew. I saw a message here that gave me the impression
> that a Sony may not be such a good idea because of proprietary memory
> sticks. I know they are more money than SD or CF, but I would probably
> only get a 128 MB memory stick, which is not much more money than the
> SD.
> As you go up to higher memory cards, there is more difference in money,
> but I doubt I would be going any higher than 128MB. What are peoples
> experiences or opinions here of Sony digital cameras?
>
> Cathy
>
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 19, 2005 5:12:01 PM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:nu29e.2831$Gq6.2615@fe02.lga...
> Cathy wrote:
> > I've been looking at a couple of Sony cameras which I quite like-
newer
> > ones that came out not long ago. They use AA batteries and one comes
> > with a charger for AA batteries, but they told me in the store, you
can
> > use any any kind of AA chargeables. The memory stick is proprietary
to
> > Sony which I knew. I saw a message here that gave me the impression
> > that a Sony may not be such a good idea because of proprietary
memory
> > sticks. I know they are more money than SD or CF, but I would
probably
> > only get a 128 MB memory stick, which is not much more money than
the
> > SD.
> > As you go up to higher memory cards, there is more difference in
money,
> > but I doubt I would be going any higher than 128MB. What are peoples
> > experiences or opinions here of Sony digital cameras?
> >
> > Cathy
> >
> Sony products are usually more expensive than others, partly because
of
> the general policy toward proprietary everything in their products.
For
> that reason, avoid buying their products. I was vastly amused by my
> brother in law with his Sony 717 at the family christmas party,
changing
> his memory stick 'end' every few pictures, which I snapped happily
with
> my Kodak which gets 300 pictures on a 256meg card.

But if he had a 256 MB memory stick, wouldn't that take the same amount
of pics that your Kodak takes? I have looked at a few Kodaks, but almost
all, except the DX 7440 which is too bulky for me, are all 1.6" LCD
which is much too small for me.

> I believe some of his pictures are included on my webshots albums.
Just
> look for the ones with the overly intense reds with the orange tint.

You mean his camera didn't take good pictures? The Sony pictures I've
seen on review sites, have all been good. Maybe the newer Sony cameras
are better?

Cathy
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 19, 2005 6:35:50 PM

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

Cathy wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" <nospam@ourhouse.com> wrote in message
> news:1o2dnVSgEoFR4fnfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>
>>I have had a P200 for two months and am very pleased with it. It
>>doesn't use AA batteries but its lithium battery lasts for about 370
>>shots or 3.5 hours of viewing time on the LCD. I haven't come close
>
> to
>
>>draining a battery yet. The newer Sony's all seem to have very good
>>battery life.
>
>
> The girl in the camera shop today, said that the two Sony's I looked at,
> both used AA alkalines and AA rechargeables, and with one of the Sony's
> it came with a charger and 2 AA rechargeables. The other one just came
> with rechargeable batteries but you would have to buy a charger. It was
> cheaper than the one with the charger and rechargeables. The girl said
> that the newer Sony's are mostly coming out with AA batteries.
> I like that idea more than proprietary chargers and batteries. I was
> wondering about the memory stick and how it performs as compared to SD
> and CF. I checked the price of a 128MB memory stick, (not the Pro
> version) and it was not much more than the 128MB SD memory cards, as the
> MB's went up, so did the difference in price between memory stick and
> SD. Also, is there a big difference between memory stick and Pro
> version? which do you use?

I don't know if I would recommend putting too much emphasis on the types
of bateries a camera uses. The reason is that everything has a downside
and the AA verses proprietary battery comparison is no different. About
the only upside to AA's is that you can buy them about anywhere in a
pinch and the rechargables are cheap. The downside is they are larger,
heavier and can discharge a good amount if the camera sits for more than
a couple of weeks. The lithium bateries are lighter, smaller and hold a
charge for a long period af time. In addition, the Sony lithiums have
chips in them which allow the camera to tell you exactly how much time
is left in the battery charge. It is very accurate. Plus I can buy
spare batteries from ebay for $10-$20 each. Also, because of the great
battery life of the P200 (as it is on most of Sony's newer cameras) I
really don't worry about running the battery down. I can store 270
picture on my 1 gig Memory Stick Pro and since the battery is good for
370 shots I will run out of memory space well before the battery dies.
I carry the camera around will me all the time and have found that the
charge holds up quite well for weeks at a time.

As for going with the regular or Pro versions of MS, it really depends
on the camera you buy. On the newer Sony's you will need the Pro
version, or off-brand compatibles, to take video in the highest quality
setting (640x480 @ 30 fps). If you don't care about this then the
regular sticks will work just fine. I use the Pro version so I can use
the highest quality video option.

>>As for the picture quality, I have been very satisfied with the P200.
>>It's not on par with the photos from our Digital Rebel but they're
>>surprisingly good for a point and shoot camera.
>
>
> Have you taken any indoor pictures with a flash? and is red eye a
> problem with flash?

The indoor flash is good up to around 12-15'. This is about average for
these types of cameras. For the P200 red eye is not a problem. Its
design has the flash located away from the lense which almost eliminates
red eye. Some of the other Sony's do have problems with red eye, as do
most cameras in this class.

> I doubt you would be
>
>>disatisfied with most of the compact cameras available today. The
>
> hard
>
>>part is determing what features are most important to you and then
>>finding the camera that has them.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Cathy
>
>
>>Cathy wrote:
>>
>>>I've been looking at a couple of Sony cameras which I quite like-
>
> newer
>
>>>ones that came out not long ago. They use AA batteries and one comes
>>>with a charger for AA batteries, but they told me in the store, you
>
> can
>
>>>use any any kind of AA chargeables. The memory stick is proprietary
>
> to
>
>>>Sony which I knew. I saw a message here that gave me the impression
>>>that a Sony may not be such a good idea because of proprietary
>
> memory
>
>>>sticks. I know they are more money than SD or CF, but I would
>
> probably
>
>>>only get a 128 MB memory stick, which is not much more money than
>
> the
>
>>>SD.
>>>As you go up to higher memory cards, there is more difference in
>
> money,
>
>>>but I doubt I would be going any higher than 128MB. What are peoples
>>>experiences or opinions here of Sony digital cameras?
>>>
>>>Cathy
>>>
>
>
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 19, 2005 8:16:08 PM

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

Larry wrote:
> In article <P92dnZeYN98B7vnfRVn-2g@rogers.com>, not@there.com says...
>
>>I've been looking at a couple of Sony cameras which I quite like- newer
>>ones that came out not long ago. They use AA batteries and one comes
>>with a charger for AA batteries, but they told me in the store, you can
>>use any any kind of AA chargeables. The memory stick is proprietary to
>>Sony which I knew. I saw a message here that gave me the impression
>>that a Sony may not be such a good idea because of proprietary memory
>>sticks. I know they are more money than SD or CF, but I would probably
>>only get a 128 MB memory stick, which is not much more money than the
>>SD.
>>As you go up to higher memory cards, there is more difference in money,
>>but I doubt I would be going any higher than 128MB. What are peoples
>>experiences or opinions here of Sony digital cameras?
>>
>>Cathy
>>
>>
>
>
> I have used a Sony F-717 for several years, as well as a Sony V-1 and a Sony
> F-828.
>
> The only one of these that uses anything other than a memory stick is the
> 828. I have not found this to be a problem.
>
> Here where I am (Northeast USA) memory sticks are available at the local Wal-
> Mart for prices within pennies of the same size CF-card or SD-card, from
> several manufacturers other than Sony. I have not had any problem with these
> memory sticks, and I have a bunch of them (I think they are Lexar, but I dont
> have them here to check).
>
>
Oh? Wal-mart sells 1GB Memory Sticks? How much are they? Grin.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 19, 2005 8:22:06 PM

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

Cathy wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:nu29e.2831$Gq6.2615@fe02.lga...
>
>>Cathy wrote:
>>
>>>I've been looking at a couple of Sony cameras which I quite like-
>
> newer
>
>>>ones that came out not long ago. They use AA batteries and one comes
>>>with a charger for AA batteries, but they told me in the store, you
>
> can
>
>>>use any any kind of AA chargeables. The memory stick is proprietary
>
> to
>
>>>Sony which I knew. I saw a message here that gave me the impression
>>>that a Sony may not be such a good idea because of proprietary
>
> memory
>
>>>sticks. I know they are more money than SD or CF, but I would
>
> probably
>
>>>only get a 128 MB memory stick, which is not much more money than
>
> the
>
>>>SD.
>>>As you go up to higher memory cards, there is more difference in
>
> money,
>
>>>but I doubt I would be going any higher than 128MB. What are peoples
>>>experiences or opinions here of Sony digital cameras?
>>>
>>>Cathy
>>>
>>
>>Sony products are usually more expensive than others, partly because
>
> of
>
>>the general policy toward proprietary everything in their products.
>
> For
>
>>that reason, avoid buying their products. I was vastly amused by my
>>brother in law with his Sony 717 at the family christmas party,
>
> changing
>
>>his memory stick 'end' every few pictures, which I snapped happily
>
> with
>
>>my Kodak which gets 300 pictures on a 256meg card.
>
>
> But if he had a 256 MB memory stick, wouldn't that take the same amount
> of pics that your Kodak takes? I have looked at a few Kodaks, but almost
> all, except the DX 7440 which is too bulky for me, are all 1.6" LCD
> which is much too small for me.
>
>
>>I believe some of his pictures are included on my webshots albums.
>
> Just
>
>>look for the ones with the overly intense reds with the orange tint.
>
>
> You mean his camera didn't take good pictures? The Sony pictures I've
> seen on review sites, have all been good. Maybe the newer Sony cameras
> are better?
>
> Cathy
>
My DX6440 has a 1.8" LCD. Large enough, but I would rather have the 2"
one on the DX7440. The DX6440 produces files that are between 300k and
1.7Meg. The Sony 717 makes files that are several meg each in the mode
he was using, so he was filling his cards several times as fast I was,
and with the requirement to switch to the other 'half' of the card at
each 128 meg. It wasn't a pretty sight.
If I wanted, I could buy a 1GB card. The 256meg card will hold about
300 pictures. I can't imaging needing 1200 pictures on one card. I
would be worried about losing a whole vacation.
The pictures he took all seemed to have great resolution, but the color
was a bit 'off', especially on the red end. Perhaps he had the wrong
settings as he just got the camera.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 2:39:12 AM

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

"Michael Johnson, PE" <nospam@ourhouse.com> wrote in message
news:iu-dneb1MYYY0vjfRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
> Cathy wrote:
> > "Michael Johnson, PE" <nospam@ourhouse.com> wrote in message
> > news:1o2dnVSgEoFR4fnfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> >
> >>I have had a P200 for two months and am very pleased with it. It
> >>doesn't use AA batteries but its lithium battery lasts for about 370
> >>shots or 3.5 hours of viewing time on the LCD. I haven't come close
> >
> > to
> >
> >>draining a battery yet. The newer Sony's all seem to have very good
> >>battery life.
> >
> >
> > The girl in the camera shop today, said that the two Sony's I looked
at,
> > both used AA alkalines and AA rechargeables, and with one of the
Sony's
> > it came with a charger and 2 AA rechargeables. The other one just
came
> > with rechargeable batteries but you would have to buy a charger. It
was
> > cheaper than the one with the charger and rechargeables. The girl
said
> > that the newer Sony's are mostly coming out with AA batteries.
> > I like that idea more than proprietary chargers and batteries. I was
> > wondering about the memory stick and how it performs as compared to
SD
> > and CF. I checked the price of a 128MB memory stick, (not the Pro
> > version) and it was not much more than the 128MB SD memory cards, as
the
> > MB's went up, so did the difference in price between memory stick
and
> > SD. Also, is there a big difference between memory stick and Pro
> > version? which do you use?
>
> I don't know if I would recommend putting too much emphasis on the
types
> of bateries a camera uses. The reason is that everything has a
downside
> and the AA verses proprietary battery comparison is no different.
About
> the only upside to AA's is that you can buy them about anywhere in a
> pinch and the rechargables are cheap.

It would seem to me that AA rechargeables would be good to have if you
were going somewhere to take photos, or if you were overseas, and you
would be able to buy AA's anywhere. Seems more practical and you would
always have them on hand.

The downside is they are larger,
> heavier and can discharge a good amount if the camera sits for more
than
> a couple of weeks. The lithium bateries are lighter, smaller and hold
a
> charge for a long period af time. In addition, the Sony lithiums have
> chips in them which allow the camera to tell you exactly how much time
> is left in the battery charge. It is very accurate. Plus I can buy
> spare batteries from ebay for $10-$20 each.

The two latest Sony cameras I looked at both have AA batteries and
charger. Maybe Sony is using AA's more than they used to. If a camera
takes lithium batteries, I guess you could buy extras. I am pretty sure
that lithium recharables here, are a lot more money than AA's. I would
only feel I had to buy extra lithium rechargeables if I was going on
vacation or to some event, and I don't do these things too often, so it
may not matter what kind of batteries I get when I think of it.

Also, because of the great
> battery life of the P200 (as it is on most of Sony's newer cameras) I
> really don't worry about running the battery down. I can store 270
> picture on my 1 gig Memory Stick Pro and since the battery is good for
> 370 shots I will run out of memory space well before the battery dies.
> I carry the camera around will me all the time and have found that the
> charge holds up quite well for weeks at a time.

I would get a 128MB stick which would be fine for me. I wouldn't be
taking nearly as many photos as you do.

> As for going with the regular or Pro versions of MS, it really depends
> on the camera you buy. On the newer Sony's you will need the Pro
> version, or off-brand compatibles, to take video in the highest
quality
> setting (640x480 @ 30 fps). If you don't care about this then the
> regular sticks will work just fine. I use the Pro version so I can
use
> the highest quality video option.

You can still get videoo with the non Pro stick can't you?

> >>As for the picture quality, I have been very satisfied with the
P200.
> >>It's not on par with the photos from our Digital Rebel but they're
> >>surprisingly good for a point and shoot camera.
> >
> >
> > Have you taken any indoor pictures with a flash? and is red eye a
> > problem with flash?
>
> The indoor flash is good up to around 12-15'. This is about average
for
> these types of cameras. For the P200 red eye is not a problem. Its
> design has the flash located away from the lense which almost
eliminates
> red eye. Some of the other Sony's do have problems with red eye, as
do
> most cameras in this class.

I think the camera you have is the style with the lens at one end and
the flash nearer the other. Thats probably good for not having much red
eye. But the two new Sonys I looked at, are a different style than the
older style, and the lens and flash are closer than on the P200. I saw a
P100 Sony a few months ago. It was red. I liked it, but I was just
learning about digital cameras then.
We don't seem to get many colored cameras here, though I don't know why.
I quite like them.

Cathy
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 2:45:20 AM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3Ee9e.3590$f6.640@fe04.lga...
> Cathy wrote:
> > "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message

> > You mean his camera didn't take good pictures? The Sony pictures
I've
> > seen on review sites, have all been good. Maybe the newer Sony
cameras
> > are better?
> >
> > Cathy
> >
> My DX6440 has a 1.8" LCD. Large enough, but I would rather have the
2"
> one on the DX7440.

Yes, but the DX7440 is a bigger more bulky camera than the DX6440. Its
much the same as the DX 7640. I've seen the DX 7440 and DX 7640 here at
a couple of places, but not in many stores. I saw them in a store, but
never checked them more closely as they are not very compact. They look
like good cameras though.

The DX6440 produces files that are between 300k and
> 1.7Meg. The Sony 717 makes files that are several meg each in the
mode
> he was using, so he was filling his cards several times as fast I was,
> and with the requirement to switch to the other 'half' of the card at
> each 128 meg. It wasn't a pretty sight.

I can imagine.

> If I wanted, I could buy a 1GB card. The 256meg card will hold about
> 300 pictures. I can't imaging needing 1200 pictures on one card. I
> would be worried about losing a whole vacation.

Not only that, but you would spend your whole vacation doing nothing but
taking pictures.

Cathy
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 3:36:24 AM

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

Cathy wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" <nospam@ourhouse.com> wrote in message
> news:iu-dneb1MYYY0vjfRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
>
>>Cathy wrote:
>>
>>>"Michael Johnson, PE" <nospam@ourhouse.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1o2dnVSgEoFR4fnfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have had a P200 for two months and am very pleased with it. It
>>>>doesn't use AA batteries but its lithium battery lasts for about 370
>>>>shots or 3.5 hours of viewing time on the LCD. I haven't come close
>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>
>>>>draining a battery yet. The newer Sony's all seem to have very good
>>>>battery life.
>>>
>>>
>>>The girl in the camera shop today, said that the two Sony's I looked
>
> at,
>
>>>both used AA alkalines and AA rechargeables, and with one of the
>
> Sony's
>
>>>it came with a charger and 2 AA rechargeables. The other one just
>
> came
>
>>>with rechargeable batteries but you would have to buy a charger. It
>
> was
>
>>>cheaper than the one with the charger and rechargeables. The girl
>
> said
>
>>>that the newer Sony's are mostly coming out with AA batteries.
>>>I like that idea more than proprietary chargers and batteries. I was
>>>wondering about the memory stick and how it performs as compared to
>
> SD
>
>>>and CF. I checked the price of a 128MB memory stick, (not the Pro
>>>version) and it was not much more than the 128MB SD memory cards, as
>
> the
>
>>>MB's went up, so did the difference in price between memory stick
>
> and
>
>>>SD. Also, is there a big difference between memory stick and Pro
>>>version? which do you use?
>>
>>I don't know if I would recommend putting too much emphasis on the
>
> types
>
>>of bateries a camera uses. The reason is that everything has a
>
> downside
>
>>and the AA verses proprietary battery comparison is no different.
>
> About
>
>>the only upside to AA's is that you can buy them about anywhere in a
>>pinch and the rechargables are cheap.
>
>
> It would seem to me that AA rechargeables would be good to have if you
> were going somewhere to take photos, or if you were overseas, and you
> would be able to buy AA's anywhere. Seems more practical and you would
> always have them on hand.

Being able to buy AA's anywhere is a plus.

> The downside is they are larger,
>
>>heavier and can discharge a good amount if the camera sits for more
>
> than
>
>>a couple of weeks. The lithium bateries are lighter, smaller and hold
>
> a
>
>>charge for a long period af time. In addition, the Sony lithiums have
>>chips in them which allow the camera to tell you exactly how much time
>>is left in the battery charge. It is very accurate. Plus I can buy
>>spare batteries from ebay for $10-$20 each.
>
>
> The two latest Sony cameras I looked at both have AA batteries and
> charger. Maybe Sony is using AA's more than they used to. If a camera
> takes lithium batteries, I guess you could buy extras. I am pretty sure
> that lithium recharables here, are a lot more money than AA's. I would
> only feel I had to buy extra lithium rechargeables if I was going on
> vacation or to some event, and I don't do these things too often, so it
> may not matter what kind of batteries I get when I think of it.

The lithium batteries I referred to were the proprietary ones not the AA
lithiums. If you get a camera the takes AA's then I would recommend
NiMH rechargables. If you don't use the camera very much then regular
alkalines might work better for your situation as they won't discharge
like rechargables if it sits idle for a few weeks.

> Also, because of the great
>
>>battery life of the P200 (as it is on most of Sony's newer cameras) I
>>really don't worry about running the battery down. I can store 270
>>picture on my 1 gig Memory Stick Pro and since the battery is good for
>>370 shots I will run out of memory space well before the battery dies.
>>I carry the camera around will me all the time and have found that the
>>charge holds up quite well for weeks at a time.
>
>
> I would get a 128MB stick which would be fine for me. I wouldn't be
> taking nearly as many photos as you do.

I got the 1 gig stick so I could take longer video clips. Video eats up
memory space at a ferocious pace. The 1 gig card only holds 12 minutes
of video at the highest quality setting.

>>As for going with the regular or Pro versions of MS, it really depends
>>on the camera you buy. On the newer Sony's you will need the Pro
>>version, or off-brand compatibles, to take video in the highest
>
> quality
>
>>setting (640x480 @ 30 fps). If you don't care about this then the
>>regular sticks will work just fine. I use the Pro version so I can
>
> use
>
>>the highest quality video option.
>
>
> You can still get videoo with the non Pro stick can't you?

You can but I believe you might be limited to 640x480 @ 15 fps though.
It depends on the camera too. Do you know the model designations of the
cameras you are considering?

>>>>As for the picture quality, I have been very satisfied with the
>
> P200.
>
>>>>It's not on par with the photos from our Digital Rebel but they're
>>>>surprisingly good for a point and shoot camera.
>>>
>>>
>>>Have you taken any indoor pictures with a flash? and is red eye a
>>>problem with flash?
>>
>>The indoor flash is good up to around 12-15'. This is about average
>
> for
>
>>these types of cameras. For the P200 red eye is not a problem. Its
>>design has the flash located away from the lense which almost
>
> eliminates
>
>>red eye. Some of the other Sony's do have problems with red eye, as
>
> do
>
>>most cameras in this class.
>
>
> I think the camera you have is the style with the lens at one end and
> the flash nearer the other. Thats probably good for not having much red
> eye. But the two new Sonys I looked at, are a different style than the
> older style, and the lens and flash are closer than on the P200. I saw a
> P100 Sony a few months ago. It was red. I liked it, but I was just
> learning about digital cameras then.
> We don't seem to get many colored cameras here, though I don't know why.
> I quite like them.

The P200 looks very similar to the P100. They have multiple colors of
the P200 available now. It can be purchased online for around $340
which, IMO, is a great price for a 7mp camera with its features. Plus
its shape allows it to fit in a trouser pocket very easily. For me its
no more trouble to carry around than a cell phone.
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 4:14:34 AM

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

"Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in message
news:KcednaKtnqWyU_jfRVn-vw@comcast.com...
> Cathy wrote:

> > "Michael Johnson, PE" <nospam@ourhouse.com> wrote in message
> > It would seem to me that AA rechargeables would be good to have if
you
> > were going somewhere to take photos, or if you were overseas, and
you
> > would be able to buy AA's anywhere. Seems more practical and you
would
> > always have them on hand.
>
> Being able to buy AA's anywhere is a plus.

It would seem so to me.

> > The two latest Sony cameras I looked at both have AA batteries and
> > charger. Maybe Sony is using AA's more than they used to. If a
camera
> > takes lithium batteries, I guess you could buy extras. I am pretty
sure
> > that lithium recharables here, are a lot more money than AA's. I
would
> > only feel I had to buy extra lithium rechargeables if I was going on
> > vacation or to some event, and I don't do these things too often, so
it
> > may not matter what kind of batteries I get when I think of it.
>
> The lithium batteries I referred to were the proprietary ones not the
AA
> lithiums.

I didn't realize there were proprietary AA lithiums and AA lithiums. Do
some cameras take AA lithium batteries only and you can't use alkalines
instead?

> If you get a camera the takes AA's then I would recommend
> NiMH rechargables. If you don't use the camera very much then regular
> alkalines might work better for your situation as they won't discharge
> like rechargables if it sits idle for a few weeks.

The one Sony I liked includes a battery and charger and takes AA
batteries. Maybe they are AA lithium and not AA alkalines. The other
Sony didn't have a charger and took AA batteries and said you could buy
the NiMH rechargables you mention
But you also might be right that regular AA's might be bette for me when
I will probably not be using a camera as often as probably most people
on this NG do.

> > Also, because of the great
> >
> >>battery life of the P200 (as it is on most of Sony's newer cameras)
I
> >>really don't worry about running the battery down. I can store 270
> >>picture on my 1 gig Memory Stick Pro and since the battery is good
for
> >>370 shots I will run out of memory space well before the battery
dies.
> >>I carry the camera around will me all the time and have found that
the
> >>charge holds up quite well for weeks at a time.
> >
> >
> > I would get a 128MB stick which would be fine for me. I wouldn't be
> > taking nearly as many photos as you do.
>
> I got the 1 gig stick so I could take longer video clips. Video eats
up
> memory space at a ferocious pace. The 1 gig card only holds 12
minutes
> of video at the highest quality setting.

Wow! thats not manhy minutes for a 1 gig card. Do all digital cameras
only give you 12 minutes for a 1 gig card? I guess you need the Pro
memory stick for that. Does the Pro memory stick cost a lot more money
than the regular memory stick? At the higher amounts of memory, I notice
the memory stick is a lot more money than the SD and CF. at least it is
here in Toronto. But up to 128 MB, its not all that great difference.

> > You can still get video with the non Pro stick can't you?
>
> You can but I believe you might be limited to 640x480 @ 15 fps though.
> It depends on the camera too. Do you know the model designations of
the
> cameras you are considering?

Sony DSC-S60 and Sony DSC 90L (I think). The DSC 90L is more than I want
to pay, but the DSC-S60 is a bit less. But the 90L comes with a charger
and batteries and the S60 does not.

> > I think the camera you have is the style with the lens at one end
and
> > the flash nearer the other. Thats probably good for not having much
red
> > eye. But the two new Sonys I looked at, are a different style than
the
> > older style, and the lens and flash are closer than on the P200. I
saw a
> > P100 Sony a few months ago. It was red. I liked it, but I was just
> > learning about digital cameras then.
> > We don't seem to get many colored cameras here, though I don't know
why.
> > I quite like them.
>
> The P200 looks very similar to the P100. They have multiple colors of
> the P200 available now. It can be purchased online for around $340
> which, IMO, is a great price for a 7mp camera with its features. Plus
> its shape allows it to fit in a trouser pocket very easily. For me
its
> no more trouble to carry around than a cell phone.

Well, you have access to more cameras in the US than we do. I've only
see the silver P200 here and as I said, only the one store had a P100 in
red, so you have wide ranges of color choices, but we only have a few
color cameras such as Verve and the one Sony P100 I told you about.
Other than that, they are mostly silver and the SLR's are mostly black.
Not that its a big concern, but I am tired of seeing only silver, except
for a few black.. The P200 is quite expensive here. over my budget.

Cathy
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 4:49:22 AM

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

That would be `S-o-n-y`, one of the world's largest manufacturers of
professional television and video camera equipment, and who makes
extensive use of Carl Zeiss optics...? By the way, beta format was/is
still used extensively in studio environments, and VHS won in the
consumer marketplace because of better marketing, not superior
technology.
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 4:52:48 AM

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

My local supermarkets also sell Sandisk, and some other brand, MS cards
right next to the other types, and they are all, strangely, priced the
*same*. No, they don't sell 1 or 2 Gb cards of any type. Not much
demand I imagine. But 2Gb MS cards are readily available, eg:

http://www.retailaccess.com/sandisk/fp_mem_stick_PRO.ht...
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 5:02:59 AM

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

So you clearly had a bad run out of some Sony equipment - that's ok and
would probably have soured me too. I have the reverse experience.

Simply put, the numbers do not support your statement that MS is
`extraordinarily slow`.

But to claim a 2Mp Kodak DC3400 outperforms a 5Mp DSCP100????? I think
this is more about post-processing abilities, and expectations of
contrasty, 1hr lab images out of the box.
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 5:29:55 AM

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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:14:34 -0400, Cathy wrote:

> I didn't realize there were proprietary AA lithiums and AA lithiums.
> Do some cameras take AA lithium batteries only and you can't use
> alkalines instead?

There are rechargeable lithium batteries, and "primary" lithium,
non-rechargeable batteries. The primary lithium batteries are
similar to alkalines, both in their output voltage and that you
throw them away when they're depleted. I doubt that any of the
rechargeable lithium batteries have ever been designed to have the
same shape and size of AA batteries. It would be dangerous to do
so, as they are much higher voltage and could ruin many electronic
devices that weren't designed for such high voltages.

Any camera that has been designed for AA batteries should work
well with NiMH or lithium AA batteries. Alkaline AA batteries
should work in them as well, but depending on how old the camera is,
you may get terrible performance, such as being able to take less
than a dozen pictures per set of batteries. Newer cameras should be
able to take hundreds of pictures using alkaline AA batteries. As I
reported in another thread, my Fuji (which uses 4 AAs) took just
over 600 pictures using one set of alkalines. The first 200 were
about half with and half without using the flash. At that point the
batteries were too depleted to take more flash pictures, but were
able to take another 400 pictures without flash. From the spec's
I've seen on some of the other new compact cameras using only two
AAs, they should also be able to take about 200 pictures, also half
with and half w/o flash.


> The one Sony I liked includes a battery and charger and takes AA
> batteries. Maybe they are AA lithium and not AA alkalines.

No, if they take AAs, the charger is probably for NiMH batteries.
The only camera I know of that accepts AAs as well as a rechargeable
lithium battery is Ricoh's Caplio R1. While I haven't seen one, I
assume they designed it like one of my old PDAs. It took either
four AAA alkaline batteries or one lithium battery pack which was
shaped like a little brick, nothing like AA or AAA batteries.


> The other Sony didn't have a charger and took AA batteries and said
> you could buy the NiMH rechargables you mention
> But you also might be right that regular AA's might be bette for me
> when I will probably not be using a camera as often as probably most
> people on this NG do.

I think the odds are that if the camera you get uses AAs, it will
work very well with alkalines. One thing to keep in mind though if
you think you'll ever use the camera outdoors in really cold
weather, is that battery life using either alkalines or NiMH
batteries will be terrible. In that case, it would be wise to have
a backup set of lithium AAs on hand, since they work well when it's
frigid outside. They'll be more expensive, but they should also
last as long as several sets of alkalines, meaning probably 500 or
more pictures per set of lithiums. If you use them only when it's
really cold, that one set might be the only ones you'll ever need to
buy.
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 6:19:21 AM

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

Cathy wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" <nospam@ourhouse.com> wrote in message
> news:iu-dneb1MYYY0vjfRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
>
>>Cathy wrote:
>>
>>>"Michael Johnson, PE" <nospam@ourhouse.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1o2dnVSgEoFR4fnfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have had a P200 for two months and am very pleased with it. It
>>>>doesn't use AA batteries but its lithium battery lasts for about 370
>>>>shots or 3.5 hours of viewing time on the LCD. I haven't come close
>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>
>>>>draining a battery yet. The newer Sony's all seem to have very good
>>>>battery life.
>>>
>>>
>>>The girl in the camera shop today, said that the two Sony's I looked
>
> at,
>
>>>both used AA alkalines and AA rechargeables, and with one of the
>
> Sony's
>
>>>it came with a charger and 2 AA rechargeables. The other one just
>
> came
>
>>>with rechargeable batteries but you would have to buy a charger. It
>
> was
>
>>>cheaper than the one with the charger and rechargeables. The girl
>
> said
>
>>>that the newer Sony's are mostly coming out with AA batteries.
>>>I like that idea more than proprietary chargers and batteries. I was
>>>wondering about the memory stick and how it performs as compared to
>
> SD
>
>>>and CF. I checked the price of a 128MB memory stick, (not the Pro
>>>version) and it was not much more than the 128MB SD memory cards, as
>
> the
>
>>>MB's went up, so did the difference in price between memory stick
>
> and
>
>>>SD. Also, is there a big difference between memory stick and Pro
>>>version? which do you use?
>>
>>I don't know if I would recommend putting too much emphasis on the
>
> types
>
>>of bateries a camera uses. The reason is that everything has a
>
> downside
>
>>and the AA verses proprietary battery comparison is no different.
>
> About
>
>>the only upside to AA's is that you can buy them about anywhere in a
>>pinch and the rechargables are cheap.
>
>
> It would seem to me that AA rechargeables would be good to have if you
> were going somewhere to take photos, or if you were overseas, and you
> would be able to buy AA's anywhere. Seems more practical and you would
> always have them on hand.
>
> The downside is they are larger,
>
>>heavier and can discharge a good amount if the camera sits for more
>
> than
>
>>a couple of weeks. The lithium bateries are lighter, smaller and hold
>
> a
>
>>charge for a long period af time. In addition, the Sony lithiums have
>>chips in them which allow the camera to tell you exactly how much time
>>is left in the battery charge. It is very accurate. Plus I can buy
>>spare batteries from ebay for $10-$20 each.
>
>
> The two latest Sony cameras I looked at both have AA batteries and
> charger. Maybe Sony is using AA's more than they used to. If a camera
> takes lithium batteries, I guess you could buy extras. I am pretty sure
> that lithium recharables here, are a lot more money than AA's. I would
> only feel I had to buy extra lithium rechargeables if I was going on
> vacation or to some event, and I don't do these things too often, so it
> may not matter what kind of batteries I get when I think of it.
>
> Also, because of the great
>
>>battery life of the P200 (as it is on most of Sony's newer cameras) I
>>really don't worry about running the battery down. I can store 270
>>picture on my 1 gig Memory Stick Pro and since the battery is good for
>>370 shots I will run out of memory space well before the battery dies.
>>I carry the camera around will me all the time and have found that the
>>charge holds up quite well for weeks at a time.
>
>
> I would get a 128MB stick which would be fine for me. I wouldn't be
> taking nearly as many photos as you do.
>
>
>>As for going with the regular or Pro versions of MS, it really depends
>>on the camera you buy. On the newer Sony's you will need the Pro
>>version, or off-brand compatibles, to take video in the highest
>
> quality
>
>>setting (640x480 @ 30 fps). If you don't care about this then the
>>regular sticks will work just fine. I use the Pro version so I can
>
> use
>
>>the highest quality video option.
>
>
> You can still get videoo with the non Pro stick can't you?
>
>
>>>>As for the picture quality, I have been very satisfied with the
>
> P200.
>
>>>>It's not on par with the photos from our Digital Rebel but they're
>>>>surprisingly good for a point and shoot camera.
>>>
>>>
>>>Have you taken any indoor pictures with a flash? and is red eye a
>>>problem with flash?
>>
>>The indoor flash is good up to around 12-15'. This is about average
>
> for
>
>>these types of cameras. For the P200 red eye is not a problem. Its
>>design has the flash located away from the lense which almost
>
> eliminates
>
>>red eye. Some of the other Sony's do have problems with red eye, as
>
> do
>
>>most cameras in this class.
>
>
> I think the camera you have is the style with the lens at one end and
> the flash nearer the other. Thats probably good for not having much red
> eye. But the two new Sonys I looked at, are a different style than the
> older style, and the lens and flash are closer than on the P200. I saw a
> P100 Sony a few months ago. It was red. I liked it, but I was just
> learning about digital cameras then.
> We don't seem to get many colored cameras here, though I don't know why.
> I quite like them.
>
> Cathy
>
Yeah, colorful things like that appeal to the female mind. I was
looking at the new lines of cameras yesterday and found several that
were quite small, and easily would fit into pocket or purse. Of course
the smaller they get, the closer the flash gets to the lens.
You can't have everything.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 6:23:12 AM

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

Cathy wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:3Ee9e.3590$f6.640@fe04.lga...
>
>>Cathy wrote:
>>
>>>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>
>
>>>You mean his camera didn't take good pictures? The Sony pictures
>
> I've
>
>>>seen on review sites, have all been good. Maybe the newer Sony
>
> cameras
>
>>>are better?
>>>
>>>Cathy
>>>
>>
>>My DX6440 has a 1.8" LCD. Large enough, but I would rather have the
>
> 2"
>
>>one on the DX7440.
>
>
> Yes, but the DX7440 is a bigger more bulky camera than the DX6440. Its
> much the same as the DX 7640. I've seen the DX 7440 and DX 7640 here at
> a couple of places, but not in many stores. I saw them in a store, but
> never checked them more closely as they are not very compact. They look
> like good cameras though.
>
> The DX6440 produces files that are between 300k and
>
>>1.7Meg. The Sony 717 makes files that are several meg each in the
>
> mode
>
>>he was using, so he was filling his cards several times as fast I was,
>>and with the requirement to switch to the other 'half' of the card at
>>each 128 meg. It wasn't a pretty sight.
>
>
> I can imagine.
>
>
>>If I wanted, I could buy a 1GB card. The 256meg card will hold about
>>300 pictures. I can't imaging needing 1200 pictures on one card. I
>>would be worried about losing a whole vacation.
>
>
> Not only that, but you would spend your whole vacation doing nothing but
> taking pictures.
>
> Cathy
>
When I went on the Alaskan cruise (7 day), I took enough flash cards for
1200 pictures, and only took 470. I would probably have taken quite a
few more but the weather was overcast, or rainy, much of the time.
Also, during the most visually impressive part of the whole cruise, I
was below decks celebrating my 36th anniversary with my wife and her
parents.
Poor timing.
Even so, it generated more pictures than any other vacation, and was one
of the 2 or 3 best vacations of my life.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 6:27:16 AM

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

Cathy wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:3Ee9e.3590$f6.640@fe04.lga...
>
>>Cathy wrote:
>>
>>>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>
>
>>>You mean his camera didn't take good pictures? The Sony pictures
>
> I've
>
>>>seen on review sites, have all been good. Maybe the newer Sony
>
> cameras
>
>>>are better?
>>>
>>>Cathy
>>>
>>
>>My DX6440 has a 1.8" LCD. Large enough, but I would rather have the
>
> 2"
>
>>one on the DX7440.
>
>
> Yes, but the DX7440 is a bigger more bulky camera than the DX6440. Its
> much the same as the DX 7640. I've seen the DX 7440 and DX 7640 here at
> a couple of places, but not in many stores. I saw them in a store, but
> never checked them more closely as they are not very compact. They look
> like good cameras though.
>
> The DX6440 produces files that are between 300k and
>
>>1.7Meg. The Sony 717 makes files that are several meg each in the
>
> mode
>
>>he was using, so he was filling his cards several times as fast I was,
>>and with the requirement to switch to the other 'half' of the card at
>>each 128 meg. It wasn't a pretty sight.
>
>
> I can imagine.
>
>
>>If I wanted, I could buy a 1GB card. The 256meg card will hold about
>>300 pictures. I can't imaging needing 1200 pictures on one card. I
>>would be worried about losing a whole vacation.
>
>
> Not only that, but you would spend your whole vacation doing nothing but
> taking pictures.
>
> Cathy
>
The DX7440 is only a little thicker than the 6440, although it looks
bulkier. It seems to have the same body as the 7630. By comparison the
DX7590 and the Z7xx series seem to have a lot more size, although they
are all quite light (by DSLR standards, at least).
From a size standpoint, I find the DX6440 to be just about a perfect
compromise for my purposes.
Smaller cameras are certainly available.
Casio has some really small, and thin ones.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 6:33:55 AM

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

Cathy wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:KcednaKtnqWyU_jfRVn-vw@comcast.com...
>
>>Cathy wrote:
>
>
>>>"Michael Johnson, PE" <nospam@ourhouse.com> wrote in message
>>>It would seem to me that AA rechargeables would be good to have if
>
> you
>
>>>were going somewhere to take photos, or if you were overseas, and
>
> you
>
>>>would be able to buy AA's anywhere. Seems more practical and you
>
> would
>
>>>always have them on hand.
>>
>>Being able to buy AA's anywhere is a plus.
>
>
> It would seem so to me.
>
>
>>>The two latest Sony cameras I looked at both have AA batteries and
>>>charger. Maybe Sony is using AA's more than they used to. If a
>
> camera
>
>>>takes lithium batteries, I guess you could buy extras. I am pretty
>
> sure
>
>>>that lithium recharables here, are a lot more money than AA's. I
>
> would
>
>>>only feel I had to buy extra lithium rechargeables if I was going on
>>>vacation or to some event, and I don't do these things too often, so
>
> it
>
>>>may not matter what kind of batteries I get when I think of it.
>>
>>The lithium batteries I referred to were the proprietary ones not the
>
> AA
>
>>lithiums.
>
>
> I didn't realize there were proprietary AA lithiums and AA lithiums. Do
> some cameras take AA lithium batteries only and you can't use alkalines
> instead?
>
>
>>If you get a camera the takes AA's then I would recommend
>>NiMH rechargables. If you don't use the camera very much then regular
>>alkalines might work better for your situation as they won't discharge
>>like rechargables if it sits idle for a few weeks.
>
>
> The one Sony I liked includes a battery and charger and takes AA
> batteries. Maybe they are AA lithium and not AA alkalines. The other
> Sony didn't have a charger and took AA batteries and said you could buy
> the NiMH rechargables you mention
> But you also might be right that regular AA's might be bette for me when
> I will probably not be using a camera as often as probably most people
> on this NG do.
>
>
>>> Also, because of the great
>>>
>>>
>>>>battery life of the P200 (as it is on most of Sony's newer cameras)
>
> I
>
>>>>really don't worry about running the battery down. I can store 270
>>>>picture on my 1 gig Memory Stick Pro and since the battery is good
>
> for
>
>>>>370 shots I will run out of memory space well before the battery
>
> dies.
>
>>>>I carry the camera around will me all the time and have found that
>
> the
>
>>>>charge holds up quite well for weeks at a time.
>>>
>>>
>>>I would get a 128MB stick which would be fine for me. I wouldn't be
>>>taking nearly as many photos as you do.
>>
>>I got the 1 gig stick so I could take longer video clips. Video eats
>
> up
>
>>memory space at a ferocious pace. The 1 gig card only holds 12
>
> minutes
>
>>of video at the highest quality setting.
>
>
> Wow! thats not manhy minutes for a 1 gig card. Do all digital cameras
> only give you 12 minutes for a 1 gig card? I guess you need the Pro
> memory stick for that. Does the Pro memory stick cost a lot more money
> than the regular memory stick? At the higher amounts of memory, I notice
> the memory stick is a lot more money than the SD and CF. at least it is
> here in Toronto. But up to 128 MB, its not all that great difference.
>
>
>>>You can still get video with the non Pro stick can't you?
>>
>>You can but I believe you might be limited to 640x480 @ 15 fps though.
>>It depends on the camera too. Do you know the model designations of
>
> the
>
>>cameras you are considering?
>
>
> Sony DSC-S60 and Sony DSC 90L (I think). The DSC 90L is more than I want
> to pay, but the DSC-S60 is a bit less. But the 90L comes with a charger
> and batteries and the S60 does not.
>
>
>>>I think the camera you have is the style with the lens at one end
>
> and
>
>>>the flash nearer the other. Thats probably good for not having much
>
> red
>
>>>eye. But the two new Sonys I looked at, are a different style than
>
> the
>
>>>older style, and the lens and flash are closer than on the P200. I
>
> saw a
>
>>>P100 Sony a few months ago. It was red. I liked it, but I was just
>>>learning about digital cameras then.
>>>We don't seem to get many colored cameras here, though I don't know
>
> why.
>
>>>I quite like them.
>>
>>The P200 looks very similar to the P100. They have multiple colors of
>>the P200 available now. It can be purchased online for around $340
>>which, IMO, is a great price for a 7mp camera with its features. Plus
>>its shape allows it to fit in a trouser pocket very easily. For me
>
> its
>
>>no more trouble to carry around than a cell phone.
>
>
> Well, you have access to more cameras in the US than we do. I've only
> see the silver P200 here and as I said, only the one store had a P100 in
> red, so you have wide ranges of color choices, but we only have a few
> color cameras such as Verve and the one Sony P100 I told you about.
> Other than that, they are mostly silver and the SLR's are mostly black.
> Not that its a big concern, but I am tired of seeing only silver, except
> for a few black.. The P200 is quite expensive here. over my budget.
>
> Cathy
>
I saw the Verve (Olympus) yesterday. It is certainly small, and
attractively styled, and 5 mp is great, but the limited zoom (2X), and
the very small lens are real showstoppers for me.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 6:38:17 AM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:14:34 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
>
>>I didn't realize there were proprietary AA lithiums and AA lithiums.
>>Do some cameras take AA lithium batteries only and you can't use
>>alkalines instead?
>
>
> There are rechargeable lithium batteries, and "primary" lithium,
> non-rechargeable batteries. The primary lithium batteries are
> similar to alkalines, both in their output voltage and that you
> throw them away when they're depleted. I doubt that any of the
> rechargeable lithium batteries have ever been designed to have the
> same shape and size of AA batteries. It would be dangerous to do
> so, as they are much higher voltage and could ruin many electronic
> devices that weren't designed for such high voltages.
>
> Any camera that has been designed for AA batteries should work
> well with NiMH or lithium AA batteries. Alkaline AA batteries
> should work in them as well, but depending on how old the camera is,
> you may get terrible performance, such as being able to take less
> than a dozen pictures per set of batteries. Newer cameras should be
> able to take hundreds of pictures using alkaline AA batteries. As I
> reported in another thread, my Fuji (which uses 4 AAs) took just
> over 600 pictures using one set of alkalines. The first 200 were
> about half with and half without using the flash. At that point the
> batteries were too depleted to take more flash pictures, but were
> able to take another 400 pictures without flash. From the spec's
> I've seen on some of the other new compact cameras using only two
> AAs, they should also be able to take about 200 pictures, also half
> with and half w/o flash.
>
>
>
>>The one Sony I liked includes a battery and charger and takes AA
>>batteries. Maybe they are AA lithium and not AA alkalines.
>
>
> No, if they take AAs, the charger is probably for NiMH batteries.
> The only camera I know of that accepts AAs as well as a rechargeable
> lithium battery is Ricoh's Caplio R1. While I haven't seen one, I
> assume they designed it like one of my old PDAs. It took either
> four AAA alkaline batteries or one lithium battery pack which was
> shaped like a little brick, nothing like AA or AAA batteries.
>
>
>
>>The other Sony didn't have a charger and took AA batteries and said
>>you could buy the NiMH rechargables you mention
>>But you also might be right that regular AA's might be bette for me
>>when I will probably not be using a camera as often as probably most
>>people on this NG do.
>
>
> I think the odds are that if the camera you get uses AAs, it will
> work very well with alkalines. One thing to keep in mind though if
> you think you'll ever use the camera outdoors in really cold
> weather, is that battery life using either alkalines or NiMH
> batteries will be terrible. In that case, it would be wise to have
> a backup set of lithium AAs on hand, since they work well when it's
> frigid outside. They'll be more expensive, but they should also
> last as long as several sets of alkalines, meaning probably 500 or
> more pictures per set of lithiums. If you use them only when it's
> really cold, that one set might be the only ones you'll ever need to
> buy.
>
I can use AA NIMH batteries (my preference), 1 CRV3 (or RCRV3), or two
lithium (primary) AA batteries. I believe there are now rechargeable
lithium AA batteries as well, although I haven't explored this
alternative as yet. It seems that the Energizer AA lithiums are quite a
bit cheaper than the CRV3 'bricks'. I may explore their use in the
future as they seem like good batteries for those who don't use their
cameras often and want them to be 'ready to go' at any time (great shelf
life). They also have the benefit of considerably lighter weight (as
compared to NIMH or alkaline).


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 7:52:42 AM

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

Cathy wrote:

>I've been looking at a couple of Sony cameras which I quite like- newer
>ones that came out not long ago. They use AA batteries and one comes
>with a charger for AA batteries, but they told me in the store, you can
>use any any kind of AA chargeables. The memory stick is proprietary to
>Sony which I knew. I saw a message here that gave me the impression
>that a Sony may not be such a good idea because of proprietary memory
>sticks. I know they are more money than SD or CF, but I would probably
>only get a 128 MB memory stick, which is not much more money than the
>SD.
>As you go up to higher memory cards, there is more difference in money,
>but I doubt I would be going any higher than 128MB. What are peoples
>experiences or opinions here of Sony digital cameras?
>
>Cathy
>
>
>
Hmmm,
Here we go again. Done with Canon and now onto Sony.
Sony makes lots of sensors for one.
Tony
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 7:52:43 AM

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

"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:emk9e.1074702$Xk.246557@pd7tw3no...
> Cathy wrote:
>
> >I've been looking at a couple of Sony cameras which I quite like-
newer
> >ones that came out not long ago. They use AA batteries and one comes
> >with a charger for AA batteries, but they told me in the store, you
can
> >use any any kind of AA chargeables. The memory stick is proprietary
to
> >Sony which I knew. I saw a message here that gave me the impression
> >that a Sony may not be such a good idea because of proprietary memory
> >sticks. I know they are more money than SD or CF, but I would
probably
> >only get a 128 MB memory stick, which is not much more money than the
> >SD.
> >As you go up to higher memory cards, there is more difference in
money,
> >but I doubt I would be going any higher than 128MB. What are peoples
> >experiences or opinions here of Sony digital cameras?
> >
> >Cathy
> >
> >
> >
> Hmmm,
> Here we go again. Done with Canon and now onto Sony.
> Sony makes lots of sensors for one.

Well, I am doing my homework and whats wrong with finding out as much as
I can?.Also, I didn't have the money to buy one before. We don't all
have a lot of money like you Tony :)  There are different cameras and
makes I like. What do you mean by "Sony makes a lot of sensors for one?

Cathy
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 8:15:57 AM

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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 02:38:17 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> It seems that the Energizer AA lithiums are quite a
> bit cheaper than the CRV3 'bricks'.

Unless I'm mistaken, they are a bit different chemically, and the
CRV3s don't perform as well at low temperatures as the Energizer
AAs, so that's another point in their favor.
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 3:00:23 PM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 02:38:17 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>It seems that the Energizer AA lithiums are quite a
>>bit cheaper than the CRV3 'bricks'.
>
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, they are a bit different chemically, and the
> CRV3s don't perform as well at low temperatures as the Energizer
> AAs, so that's another point in their favor.
>
Low temperatures really aren't a problem here (Texas). Grin.
Now resistance to the 160F temps in a closed car in a parking lot, IS
important here.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 3:03:07 PM

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

chrlz@go.com wrote:
> That would be `S-o-n-y`, one of the world's largest manufacturers of
> professional television and video camera equipment, and who makes
> extensive use of Carl Zeiss optics...? By the way, beta format was/is
> still used extensively in studio environments, and VHS won in the
> consumer marketplace because of better marketing, not superior
> technology.
>
There were two factors that doomed Betamax in the consumer market.
First, the unwillingness of Sony to share the income with anyone, and
second, the rather poor physical packaging of the tape which required it
to wind back onto the outside of a single reel, and out from the center,
making rewinding impossible. BAD design. The recording method was
clearly superior.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 3:26:19 PM

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

Cathy wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:KcednaKtnqWyU_jfRVn-vw@comcast.com...
>
>>Cathy wrote:
>
>
>>>"Michael Johnson, PE" <nospam@ourhouse.com> wrote in message
>>>It would seem to me that AA rechargeables would be good to have if
>
> you
>
>>>were going somewhere to take photos, or if you were overseas, and
>
> you
>
>>>would be able to buy AA's anywhere. Seems more practical and you
>
> would
>
>>>always have them on hand.
>>
>>Being able to buy AA's anywhere is a plus.
>
>
> It would seem so to me.
>
>
>>>The two latest Sony cameras I looked at both have AA batteries and
>>>charger. Maybe Sony is using AA's more than they used to. If a
>
> camera
>
>>>takes lithium batteries, I guess you could buy extras. I am pretty
>
> sure
>
>>>that lithium recharables here, are a lot more money than AA's. I
>
> would
>
>>>only feel I had to buy extra lithium rechargeables if I was going on
>>>vacation or to some event, and I don't do these things too often, so
>
> it
>
>>>may not matter what kind of batteries I get when I think of it.
>>
>>The lithium batteries I referred to were the proprietary ones not the
>
> AA
>
>>lithiums.
>
>
> I didn't realize there were proprietary AA lithiums and AA lithiums. Do
> some cameras take AA lithium batteries only and you can't use alkalines
> instead?

When I use the proprietary it refers to batteries that have a unique
shape and will usually fit in one brand of camera. An example is the
battery in the P200. It will fit in a few of Sony's other cameras but
that is all. The fact that AA batteries are standardized and used in
many, many devices makes them non-proprietary. Devices that use AA
batteries usually can make use of all types of AA's like alkaline, NiMH
and lithium.

>>If you get a camera the takes AA's then I would recommend
>>NiMH rechargables. If you don't use the camera very much then regular
>>alkalines might work better for your situation as they won't discharge
>>like rechargables if it sits idle for a few weeks.
>
>
> The one Sony I liked includes a battery and charger and takes AA
> batteries. Maybe they are AA lithium and not AA alkalines. The other
> Sony didn't have a charger and took AA batteries and said you could buy
> the NiMH rechargables you mention
> But you also might be right that regular AA's might be bette for me when
> I will probably not be using a camera as often as probably most people
> on this NG do.

It looks like Sony recommends NiMH batteries for the two cameras you are
considering and they can be charged in the camera so you shouldn't need
an external charger unless you feel you need one. Personally, I would
use NiMH because, IMO, they offer the best performance at the lowest
price and they can be recharged in the camera.

>>> Also, because of the great
>>>
>>>
>>>>battery life of the P200 (as it is on most of Sony's newer cameras)
>
> I
>
>>>>really don't worry about running the battery down. I can store 270
>>>>picture on my 1 gig Memory Stick Pro and since the battery is good
>
> for
>
>>>>370 shots I will run out of memory space well before the battery
>
> dies.
>
>>>>I carry the camera around will me all the time and have found that
>
> the
>
>>>>charge holds up quite well for weeks at a time.
>>>
>>>
>>>I would get a 128MB stick which would be fine for me. I wouldn't be
>>>taking nearly as many photos as you do.
>>
>>I got the 1 gig stick so I could take longer video clips. Video eats
>
> up
>
>>memory space at a ferocious pace. The 1 gig card only holds 12
>
> minutes
>
>>of video at the highest quality setting.
>
>
> Wow! thats not manhy minutes for a 1 gig card. Do all digital cameras
> only give you 12 minutes for a 1 gig card? I guess you need the Pro
> memory stick for that. Does the Pro memory stick cost a lot more money
> than the regular memory stick? At the higher amounts of memory, I notice
> the memory stick is a lot more money than the SD and CF. at least it is
> here in Toronto. But up to 128 MB, its not all that great difference.

I haven't seen a big difference in memory prices here. The MS is
slightly higher the SD but not by much. I couldn't tell if you need the
Memory Stick Pro cards to take high quality video. I did see where the
cameras you are considering are capable of 640x480 @ 30 fps so it might
be a requirement.

>>>You can still get video with the non Pro stick can't you?
>>
>>You can but I believe you might be limited to 640x480 @ 15 fps though.
>>It depends on the camera too. Do you know the model designations of
>
> the
>
>>cameras you are considering?
>
>
> Sony DSC-S60 and Sony DSC 90L (I think). The DSC 90L is more than I want
> to pay, but the DSC-S60 is a bit less. But the 90L comes with a charger
> and batteries and the S60 does not.

>>>I think the camera you have is the style with the lens at one end
>
> and
>
>>>the flash nearer the other. Thats probably good for not having much
>
> red
>
>>>eye. But the two new Sonys I looked at, are a different style than
>
> the
>
>>>older style, and the lens and flash are closer than on the P200. I
>
> saw a
>
>>>P100 Sony a few months ago. It was red. I liked it, but I was just
>>>learning about digital cameras then.
>>>We don't seem to get many colored cameras here, though I don't know
>
> why.
>
>>>I quite like them.
>>
>>The P200 looks very similar to the P100. They have multiple colors of
>>the P200 available now. It can be purchased online for around $340
>>which, IMO, is a great price for a 7mp camera with its features. Plus
>>its shape allows it to fit in a trouser pocket very easily. For me
>
> its
>
>>no more trouble to carry around than a cell phone.
>
>
> Well, you have access to more cameras in the US than we do. I've only
> see the silver P200 here and as I said, only the one store had a P100 in
> red, so you have wide ranges of color choices, but we only have a few
> color cameras such as Verve and the one Sony P100 I told you about.
> Other than that, they are mostly silver and the SLR's are mostly black.
> Not that its a big concern, but I am tired of seeing only silver, except
> for a few black.. The P200 is quite expensive here. over my budget.

The nice thing is that nearly all the name brand digital cameras will
take decent pictures and work just fine for most people. Unless you buy
an off-brand camera my guess is you will happy with whatever one you
choose.
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 4:42:08 PM

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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:00:23 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

>> Unless I'm mistaken, they are a bit different chemically, and the
>> CRV3s don't perform as well at low temperatures as the Energizer
>> AAs, so that's another point in their favor.
>
> Low temperatures really aren't a problem here (Texas). Grin.
> Now resistance to the 160F temps in a closed car in a parking lot, IS
> important here.

I'd suggest saving the the lithiums for Canadian vacations. I'd
much rather spend time there than the inside a closed car baking in
the sun, even if it happens to be in one of Dallas' exclusive
upscale parking lots, complete with obsequious uniformed valets. Of
course those getting to the age where they can no longer remember
where they parked the oven may see things differently.
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 4:50:37 PM

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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:03:07 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> There were two factors that doomed Betamax in the consumer market.
> First, the unwillingness of Sony to share the income with anyone, and
> second, the rather poor physical packaging of the tape which required it
> to wind back onto the outside of a single reel, and out from the center,
> making rewinding impossible. BAD design. The recording method was
> clearly superior.

I'm not familiar with the higher quality commerially used beta
whatevers (don't recall the slightly different name), but the betas
sold to consumers were not designed that way at all. They had two
spools and worked just like VHS tapes. Otherwise there might have
been problems with FF and REW. You're probably thinking of the
bulky 8 track audio tape cartridges that used a single reel.
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 5:18:12 PM

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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:56:14 +0200, "PLONK!" <h@isnep.com> wrote:

>I would never consider a Sony camera even if it's great just because of the
>memory stick. It's propriety format can't be used in other appliences e.g.
>pda or cellphone. If you buy a camera now, buy one with sd card, they are
>getting more and more the standard.

But the PSP uses them!

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 5:20:09 PM

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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:03:07 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>chrlz@go.com wrote:
>> That would be `S-o-n-y`, one of the world's largest manufacturers of
>> professional television and video camera equipment, and who makes
>> extensive use of Carl Zeiss optics...? By the way, beta format was/is
>> still used extensively in studio environments, and VHS won in the
>> consumer marketplace because of better marketing, not superior
>> technology.
>>
>There were two factors that doomed Betamax in the consumer market.
>First, the unwillingness of Sony to share the income with anyone, and
>second, the rather poor physical packaging of the tape which required it
>to wind back onto the outside of a single reel, and out from the center,
>making rewinding impossible. BAD design. The recording method was
>clearly superior.

As I remember it, there wasn't anything keeping the Betamax from
re-winding like a VHS tape.
The biggest problem was that Sony refused to match the extended record
times of VHS.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 7:27:27 PM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:03:07 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>There were two factors that doomed Betamax in the consumer market.
>>First, the unwillingness of Sony to share the income with anyone, and
>>second, the rather poor physical packaging of the tape which required it
>>to wind back onto the outside of a single reel, and out from the center,
>>making rewinding impossible. BAD design. The recording method was
>>clearly superior.
>
>
> I'm not familiar with the higher quality commerially used beta
> whatevers (don't recall the slightly different name), but the betas
> sold to consumers were not designed that way at all. They had two
> spools and worked just like VHS tapes. Otherwise there might have
> been problems with FF and REW. You're probably thinking of the
> bulky 8 track audio tape cartridges that used a single reel.
>
Both used the same rather strange method of moving tape.
This may have changed after the initial release, but that is my memory
of the ones I saw. Their determination to keep everything proprietary
finished off the format.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 7:31:21 PM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:00:23 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>
>>> Unless I'm mistaken, they are a bit different chemically, and the
>>>CRV3s don't perform as well at low temperatures as the Energizer
>>>AAs, so that's another point in their favor.
>>
>>Low temperatures really aren't a problem here (Texas). Grin.
>>Now resistance to the 160F temps in a closed car in a parking lot, IS
>>important here.
>
>
> I'd suggest saving the the lithiums for Canadian vacations. I'd
> much rather spend time there than the inside a closed car baking in
> the sun, even if it happens to be in one of Dallas' exclusive
> upscale parking lots, complete with obsequious uniformed valets. Of
> course those getting to the age where they can no longer remember
> where they parked the oven may see things differently.
>

I think I will reserve my Canadian excursions for spring and summer,
when temps here (I DON'T live in Dallas, and rarely go there) are very
uncomfortable. No sense trading one extreme for another. I only do
valet parking if I am RENTING a car. NO ONE is getting my keys, and my
car, and taking it I know not where. Well, no one but my wife, at
least. Grin.




--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 8:29:16 PM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:4cob619564k1td6nrt9ktbrlu98uj3do3m@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:14:34 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
> > I didn't realize there were proprietary AA lithiums and AA lithiums.
> > Do some cameras take AA lithium batteries only and you can't use
> > alkalines instead?
>
> There are rechargeable lithium batteries, and "primary" lithium,
> non-rechargeable batteries. The primary lithium batteries are
> similar to alkalines, both in their output voltage and that you
> throw them away when they're depleted. I doubt that any of the
> rechargeable lithium batteries have ever been designed to have the
> same shape and size of AA batteries. It would be dangerous to do
> so, as they are much higher voltage and could ruin many electronic
> devices that weren't designed for such high voltages.

In other words, you could use regular lithium batteries in a camera
which takes AA batteries, but not the rechargable lithiums? Does a
camera which uses AAa batteries, use any kind of batteries, such as
alkaline or not alkaline?

> Any camera that has been designed for AA batteries should work
> well with NiMH or lithium AA batteries. Alkaline AA batteries
> should work in them as well, but depending on how old the camera is,
> you may get terrible performance, such as being able to take less
> than a dozen pictures per set of batteries. Newer cameras should be
> able to take hundreds of pictures using alkaline AA batteries. As I
> reported in another thread, my Fuji (which uses 4 AAs) took just
> over 600 pictures using one set of alkalines.

> The first 200 were
> about half with and half without using the flash. At that point the
> batteries were too depleted to take more flash pictures, but were
> able to take another 400 pictures without flash. From the spec's
> I've seen on some of the other new compact cameras using only two
> AAs, they should also be able to take about 200 pictures, also half
> with and half w/o flash.

200 pictures is a lot for just 4 alkalines. would it be less pics with 2
alkalines?.

> > The other Sony didn't have a charger and took AA batteries and said
> > you could buy the NiMH rechargables you mention
> > But you also might be right that regular AA's might be bette for me
> > when I will probably not be using a camera as often as probably most
> > people on this NG do.
>
> I think the odds are that if the camera you get uses AAs, it will
> work very well with alkalines. One thing to keep in mind though if
> you think you'll ever use the camera outdoors in really cold
> weather, is that battery life using either alkalines or NiMH
> batteries will be terrible. In that case, it would be wise to have
> a backup set of lithium AAs on hand, since they work well when it's
> frigid outside.

Well, it could happen that I would take pics after snowfalls when you
can get some beautiful pictures. I occasionally do that in the winter
when there is icicles on the trees and it looks so clean and pretty. So
thats a good tip about lithiums being able to tolerate the cold better.

They'll be more expensive, but they should also
> last as long as several sets of alkalines, meaning probably 500 or
> more pictures per set of lithiums. If you use them only when it's
> really cold, that one set might be the only ones you'll ever need to
> buy.

You mean regular lithiums, right?
You sure know a lot about batteries :) 
Thanks.

Cathy
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 8:35:05 PM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Znn9e.3582$Gq6.484@fe02.lga...
> Cathy wrote:

<snip>

> > I think the camera you have is the style with the lens at one end
and
> > the flash nearer the other. Thats probably good for not having much
red
> > eye. But the two new Sonys I looked at, are a different style than
the
> > older style, and the lens and flash are closer than on the P200. I
saw a
> > P100 Sony a few months ago. It was red. I liked it, but I was just
> > learning about digital cameras then.
> > We don't seem to get many colored cameras here, though I don't know
why.
> > I quite like them.
> >
> > Cathy
> >
> Yeah, colorful things like that appeal to the female mind. I was
> looking at the new lines of cameras yesterday and found several that
> were quite small, and easily would fit into pocket or purse. Of
course
> the smaller they get, the closer the flash gets to the lens.
> You can't have everything.

Well, maybe I liked the red one because it was different, and there
doesn't seem to be many color cameras. They are mostly all silver,
except one blue Sony I saw recently which I like. I have no idea if
other females like color cameras or not. My car is red though. I want to
be seen on the road by the nut cases driving around :) 

Cathy
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 8:44:06 PM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message

> The DX7440 is only a little thicker than the 6440, although it looks
> bulkier. It seems to have the same body as the 7630. By comparison
the
> DX7590 and the Z7xx series seem to have a lot more size, although they
> are all quite light (by DSLR standards, at least).
> From a size standpoint, I find the DX6440 to be just about a perfect
> compromise for my purposes.

What I was thinking about the DX 7440 and the DX 7630 (think thats the
model number and they both look much the same if I have the model
numbers right), is that they are are a different design than say the CX
6330, 7530 etc. Those are silver and more compact than the 7440 and 7630

> Smaller cameras are certainly available.
> Casio has some really small, and thin ones.

I've seen them in the store, but I think they are two small and I can't
see how they would have a very strong flash for indoors. Sort of like
the SD 200/SD300 etc.
The girl in the store who was about 22 years old like the SD300 as it
was very small and said all her friends like those small cameras because
they can carry them around easily and also because they are "trendy"
with the young crowd I suppose.

Cathy
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 8:48:27 PM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message news:D Bn9e.3585

Cathy wrote:

> > Well, you have access to more cameras in the US than we do. I've
only
> > see the silver P200 here and as I said, only the one store had a
P100 in
> > red, so you have wide ranges of color choices, but we only have a
few
> > color cameras such as Verve and the one Sony P100 I told you about.
> > Other than that, they are mostly silver and the SLR's are mostly
black.
> > Not that its a big concern, but I am tired of seeing only silver,
except
> > for a few black.. The P200 is quite expensive here. over my budget.
> >
> > Cathy
> >
> I saw the Verve (Olympus) yesterday. It is certainly small, and
> attractively styled, and 5 mp is great, but the limited zoom (2X), and
> the very small lens are real showstoppers for me.

And they have different colors. I like the turquoise one :)  Thats about
the only cameras I've seen here that are colored, besides the one red
Sony P100 I saw a few months ago. I wouldn't buy a colored camera if it
didnt take good photos, but I read the Verve takes quite good photos.
But its more money here than other cameras in its class - Maybe because
of the colors. Not many camera stores here carry it. At least not the
ones I've been to.

Cathy
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 8:53:26 PM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:KFn9e.3586$Gq6.2700@fe02.lga...

> I can use AA NIMH batteries (my preference), 1 CRV3 (or RCRV3), or two
> lithium (primary) AA batteries. I believe there are now rechargeable
> lithium AA batteries as well, although I haven't explored this
> alternative as yet.

I think I saw lithium charger set with rechargeable AA batteries at Best
Buy last time I was there
when I was passing the battery area. If they have them here, where we
sometimes lag behind you in certain products, you would certainly have
them where you are. Didn't they have them before?

Cathy
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 9:03:54 PM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:vo0d61h9g61m5omg78p8nt3ar6qpdrvp7k@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 11:00:23 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> >> Unless I'm mistaken, they are a bit different chemically, and the
> >> CRV3s don't perform as well at low temperatures as the Energizer
> >> AAs, so that's another point in their favor.
> >
> > Low temperatures really aren't a problem here (Texas). Grin.
> > Now resistance to the 160F temps in a closed car in a parking lot,
IS
> > important here.
>
> I'd suggest saving the the lithiums for Canadian vacations.

Well, if you want to come to Toronto from June to September, when its
often 90 or 95 or more and very humid, you wouldn't want to use the
lithiums since you said they were for lower temperatures. In the winter
would be ok, but the summer is very different. We have extreme
temperatures in our climate in southern Ontario at least. We have
similar weather to New York city and Chicago, and most US border cities.
I hate the climate here in summer. Its way too hot for me. I nearly
faint when I have to get back in the car its parked outside for a couple
of hours. I can't get the air conditioner turned on and working, quick
enough. Some dogs and occasionally small children have died when parked
in cars here. The police have a legal right to break car windows open if
a dog or small child is in a parked car and no one attending to them and
the person is charged.

> I'd
> much rather spend time there than the inside a closed car baking in
> the sun, even if it happens to be in one of Dallas' exclusive
> upscale parking lots, complete with obsequious uniformed valets. Of
> course those getting to the age where they can no longer remember
> where they parked the oven may see things differently.

Very occasionally I can't find my car if its a big mall parking lot with
hundreds of cars.

Cathy
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 9:11:26 PM

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

The Zeiss lens thing is a bit of a distraction. Zeiss make lenses that
range from superb (like the wonderful 38-190 on the F717), to good
(like the 38-114 (?) that goes on a lot of Sony's compacts), to good
but flawed (like the 28-200 on the F828 - briliant lens except for a
purple fringing issue - although that may be more to do with the
lens/sensor interaction). As with most camera ranges, some lenses are
good, some not so good, which is why we suggest reading reviews before
final decisions.

I have not heard of any compatibility problems with Sony jpegs or
mpegs. Justin, do you have any links supporting your claim? I'm
genuinely interested, but a search on "sony jpeg problem" turned up
nothing like what you were describing, and I would have thought others
would be screaming loudly - whether you like them or not, Sony cameras
are very common... And your local stores pricing on media seems pretty
weird, and out-of-line with not only my experience, but what is
available on the web. Is this Sony media only, perhaps, which I agree
is over-priced? I always buy third party media, being a cheap s-o-b.

By the way, Olympus cameras, including my C8080, use the bl@#dy MOV
format for videos - now that IS annoying!
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 9:18:44 PM

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

"Michael Johnson, PE" <nospam@ourhouse.com> wrote in message
news:D YidnUspz7cE6fvfRVn-gw@comcast.com...
> Cathy wrote:
> > I didn't realize there were proprietary AA lithiums and AA lithiums.
Do
> > some cameras take AA lithium batteries only and you can't use
alkalines
> > instead?
>
> When I use the proprietary it refers to batteries that have a unique
> shape and will usually fit in one brand of camera. An example is the
> battery in the P200. It will fit in a few of Sony's other cameras but
> that is all. The fact that AA batteries are standardized and used in
> many, many devices makes them non-proprietary. Devices that use AA
> batteries usually can make use of all types of AA's like alkaline,
NiMH
> and lithium.

Well, the two Sony's I spoke about are non proprietary as far as
batteries are concerned I guess.

> >>If you get a camera the takes AA's then I would recommend
> >>NiMH rechargables. If you don't use the camera very much then
regular
> >>alkalines might work better for your situation as they won't
discharge
> >>like rechargables if it sits idle for a few weeks.
> >
> >
> > The one Sony I liked includes a battery and charger and takes AA
> > batteries. Maybe they are AA lithium and not AA alkalines. The other
> > Sony didn't have a charger and took AA batteries and said you could
buy
> > the NiMH rechargables you mention
> > But you also might be right that regular AA's might be bette for me
when
> > I will probably not be using a camera as often as probably most
people
> > on this NG do.
>
> It looks like Sony recommends NiMH batteries for the two cameras you
are
> considering and they can be charged in the camera so you shouldn't
need
> an external charger unless you feel you need one. Personally, I would
> use NiMH because, IMO, they offer the best performance at the lowest
> price and they can be recharged in the camera.

I don't know about that. The one camera does not come with a charger,
but the higher priced one did. Both used AA batteries though. Maybe the
one that did not have a charger had chargable battieres. I didn't really
notice. And the girl at the store seemed to think that the one with no
charger would need a charger. But now you are making me wonder. But even
if a camera charges batteries in a camera, would it be better to have a
separate charger as well? or maybe not if you don't take many pictures,
you could just use regular AA's.

> >>memory space at a ferocious pace. The 1 gig card only holds 12
> >
> > minutes
> >
> >>of video at the highest quality setting.
> >
> >
> > Wow! thats not manhy minutes for a 1 gig card. Do all digital
cameras
> > only give you 12 minutes for a 1 gig card? I guess you need the Pro
> > memory stick for that. Does the Pro memory stick cost a lot more
money
> > than the regular memory stick? At the higher amounts of memory, I
notice
> > the memory stick is a lot more money than the SD and CF. at least it
is
> > here in Toronto. But up to 128 MB, its not all that great
difference.
>
> I haven't seen a big difference in memory prices here. The MS is
> slightly higher the SD but not by much. I couldn't tell if you need
the
> Memory Stick Pro cards to take high quality video. I did see where
the
> cameras you are considering are capable of 640x480 @ 30 fps so it
might
> be a requirement.

I looked up some store online sites for prices of memory cards earlier,
and posted some of them in a message to Justin. I haven't had occasion
to look before and I was curious about the difference in memory card
prices. I find that not many stores seem to carry the regular memory
card as much as before,but have switched more to memory stick pro, which
is much the same price as SD. Olympus and Fuji are a little more. The
price as SD CF flash is the cheapest it looks like.

> > Well, you have access to more cameras in the US than we do. I've
only
> > see the silver P200 here and as I said, only the one store had a
P100 in
> > red, so you have wide ranges of color choices, but we only have a
few
> > color cameras such as Verve and the one Sony P100 I told you about.
> > Other than that, they are mostly silver and the SLR's are mostly
black.
> > Not that its a big concern, but I am tired of seeing only silver,
except
> > for a few black.. The P200 is quite expensive here. over my budget.
>
> The nice thing is that nearly all the name brand digital cameras will
> take decent pictures and work just fine for most people. Unless you
buy
> an off-brand camera my guess is you will happy with whatever one you
> choose.

I agree.
Thanks Michael.

Cathy
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 9:27:36 PM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:F1z9e.14914$Ow2.12643@fe06.lga...
> Cathy wrote:

> > Well, a proprietary JPG format where you need Sony software to
create
> > might bother me.
> > Most videos on point and shoot cameras seem to run with Avi, Media
> > player, Quick time or jpgs.
> > With the two Sonys I looked at, the both say on the description on
the
> > net, that they do jpgs with stills and Mpeg with video, so I guess
they
> > mean audio and video is Mpeg. I don't know much about mpeg. I know
its
> > used for audio files, but I never download music files, so don't
know if
> > I have it on my computer or not or if it would cause inconvenience
if it
> > is proprietary software used only by Sony.
> >
> > Cathy
> >
> Uhhh, have you ever watched a DVD movie? Mpeg.

Only on my DVD player going to my TV. I have Quicktime, Media player,
avi, wav on my computer. I don't watch DVD movies on my computer. If I
had to use Mpeg from a camera video, how would I do that unless with the
Sony software which was mentioned. If that is the only way it can be
viewed of course..

Cathy
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 11:32:12 PM

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

Zeiss have always had a pretty justifiable reputation for excellent
lenses, and they have 'grades' - eg the Zeiss `T*` lenses are supposed
to be top-of-the-line. However, the 28-200 (equiv) lens on the Sony
828 is a T*... and it is generally not regarded well because of the
purple fringe problem I mentioned! (In fact it is a fine lens, but
there seems to be a sensor/lens interaction problem on the 828 camera.)
Anyway, that's not really relevant to you, but suffice to say that the
Zeiss label helps, but does not guarantee, your chances of getting a
good lens.

Neither Jpegs or Mpegs should cause a problem. In order of
'common-ness' of movie formats, it's probably MPG, then AVI, then MOV
(Quicktime). (Audio files are usually MP3's - it is a related standard
format.)

It's actually me who is in Oz! - I think Justin is in Canada. I think
we both suffer the same fate with higher prices, although it depends on
what the exchange rate is doing. There is often a lag before exchange
differences get to market, so we need to play our cards carefully!

There's nothing that wrong with the MOV format, but the less players I
have on my computer the better. AVI and MPG players come with the
operating system..
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 20, 2005 11:56:33 PM

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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 16:29:16 -0400, Cathy wrote:

> In other words, you could use regular lithium batteries in a camera
> which takes AA batteries, but not the rechargable lithiums? Does a
> camera which uses AAa batteries, use any kind of batteries, such as
> alkaline or not alkaline?

I'd say 99% of the time you could use any type of AA batteries.
Most of the exceptions would be when the camera requires more
current than the AA batteries can supply. This would be the case
with alkaline batteries used in some of the cameras made several
years ago. Also, you wouldn't want to use those really cheap AAs
that are often labeled "Heavy Duty". They're an older battery type
that has been around longer than alkalines, and are "heavier duty"
than some of their carbon/zinc cousins, but they shouldn't be used
in cameras. A smaller number of exceptions would be weirdly
designed cameras such as one of Ron's older Kodaks that couldn't
tolerate the full 1.5 volts per cell that fresh alkalines provide.
It doesn't matter that their voltage keeps dropping so that by the
time they're used up they're only providing about 1.0 volts per
cell. NiCad and NiMH batteries when fully charged provide a lower
voltage, about 1.25 volts/cell. So a camera using 4 of them would
see 5.0 volts when fully charged vs. 6.0 volts from a set of
alkalines. Not usually a problem except in rare circumstances.


> 200 pictures is a lot for just 4 alkalines. would it be less pics with 2
> alkalines?.

Yes, much less. The camera only operates with 4 batteries. :) 
It's the Fuji S5100, BTW. While it's quite compact itself
considering its design, it's not pocketable like most of Fuji's
compact cameras, which require only 2 AAs. They probably take about
the same number of pictures using 2 batteries as mine does with 4.


> Well, it could happen that I would take pics after snowfalls when you
> can get some beautiful pictures. I occasionally do that in the winter
> when there is icicles on the trees and it looks so clean and pretty. So
> thats a good tip about lithiums being able to tolerate the cold better.
> . . .
>
> You mean regular lithiums, right?

Right, it should say 'lithium' somewhere on the package as well as
on the batteries. It also says E2 on the package, but that's
probably just an Eveready trademark meant to make their batteries a
bit more exclusive because the word "lithium" couldn't be protected.
BTW, there's little to prevent you from taking a small number of
pictures using either alkalines or NiMH batteries in really cold
weather. It's just that the battery capacities drop drastically
when they're cold. If you manage to take 5 or a dozen pictures
before they die, that's fine. The batteries aren't really dead.
Warm them up and they'll continue where they left off. You'd want
the lithiums though if the camera would be out in the cold for
extended periods or when temperatures drop below zero F. In other
words, they're not needed if the temperature is as warm as your
refrigerator, but should be used when it's as cold as or colder than
your freezer.


> You sure know a lot about batteries :) 

It ain't no fun Cathy. It's driven me batty, I tell ya, batty!


> Thanks.

You're welcome.
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 21, 2005 12:14:55 AM

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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:27:27 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Both used the same rather strange method of moving tape.
> This may have changed after the initial release, but that is my memory
> of the ones I saw.

Maybe something used in a lab somewhere, but you said the single
spool was one off the "two factors that doomed Betamax in the
consumer market". In all of the years that the beta machines were
sold, and prerecorded beta videos were available to the public, they
were all the same, having two reels. I think your memory is faulty
here. Beta was always acknowledged to be technically superior to
VHS, but that never would have been the case if it worked by pulling
the tape out of the center of a single spool of tape.


>> Their determination to keep everything proprietary
>> finished off the format.

That's long been one of Sony's faults. It's hurt them enough in
other areas that they seem to be changing somewhat. For instance,
their technically superior minidiscs (compared to audio cassettes)
until very recently allowed only their own proprietary ATRAC format.
The new models just released are the first ones to work with mp3
files. It didn't matter that ATRAC was probably superior to mp3,
Sony also made it difficult to impossible to make copies not just of
prerecorded material, but your own recordings as well. That's
changing too, and it's about time.
April 21, 2005 12:46:02 AM

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

In article <jbrd6190jsvr72ir50i9r0up03s7406uob@4ax.com>, caught@22.com
says...
> > Both used the same rather strange method of moving tape.
> > This may have changed after the initial release, but that is my memory
> > of the ones I saw.
>
>

The single spool videotape system was called "Cartrivision" and it was sold
as a part of a large console model television. Sears sold them.

They pre-dated Betamax by a couple of years.



--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
a b } Memory
April 21, 2005 1:39:47 AM

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

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:46:02 -0400, Larry wrote:

> The single spool videotape system was called "Cartrivision" and it was
> sold as a part of a large console model television. Sears sold them.

Wow. A product that was both ahead of its time and behind, and all
at the same time! :) 
!