Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

At long last... Canon S2 IS announced!!

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 4:40:20 PM

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

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp

5 MP DiGiC II, *12x* stabilized optical zoom, 1.8" tilt/swivel LCD,
640x480 30fps DV quality video, AF assist lamp, shoot stills while
recording movies...

Sample pics & video:
http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/pss2is/sample-e.html

Ya-hoo-hoo. I'm requesting the first US model off the line.


DIZZLE
(wipes drool from chin and hits "Send")

More about : long canon announced

Anonymous
April 22, 2005 4:40:21 PM

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

"Dizzledorf" <flunky@dizzle.com> wrote in message
news:f2ai61ds0h3fsdi04liraljgpn5p15ssgl@4ax.com...
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp
>
> 5 MP DiGiC II, *12x* stabilized optical zoom, 1.8" tilt/swivel LCD,
> 640x480 30fps DV quality video, AF assist lamp, shoot stills while
> recording movies...
>
> Sample pics & video:
> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/pss2is/sample-e.html
>
> Ya-hoo-hoo. I'm requesting the first US model off the line.

Well, for one thing, it's not "DV quality video," which, for NTSC, is 720 x
480 pixels.

>
>
> DIZZLE
> (wipes drool from chin and hits "Send")
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 12:36:40 AM

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

"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:3ct257F6mm1mgU1@individual.net...
>
> "Dizzledorf" <flunky@dizzle.com> wrote in message
> news:f2ai61ds0h3fsdi04liraljgpn5p15ssgl@4ax.com...
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp
>>
>> 5 MP DiGiC II, *12x* stabilized optical zoom, 1.8" tilt/swivel LCD,
>> 640x480 30fps DV quality video, AF assist lamp, shoot stills while
>> recording movies...
>>
>> Sample pics & video:
>> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/pss2is/sample-e.html
>>
>> Ya-hoo-hoo. I'm requesting the first US model off the line.
>
> Well, for one thing, it's not "DV quality video," which, for NTSC, is 720
> x
> 480 pixels.

I downloaded the 22MB video clip... and I must say it is by FAR the best
looking digicam-produced video I've yet seen.
-Easily good enough for p resentation on a television.

The fact that you can shoot a full resolution still image in the middle of
shooting video is VERY cool.
This would make a great teaching tool for photography skills!
Not only could you describe what you're doing while letting the viewer see
through your viewfinder, but they can see exactly when you shoot the image
itself. I think this could be used to GREAT effect as a photography
teaching tool.
Related resources
April 23, 2005 1:43:14 AM

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

"Dizzledorf" <flunky@dizzle.com> wrote in message
news:f2ai61ds0h3fsdi04liraljgpn5p15ssgl@4ax.com...
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp
>
> 5 MP DiGiC II, *12x* stabilized optical zoom, 1.8" tilt/swivel LCD,
> 640x480 30fps DV quality video, AF assist lamp, shoot stills while
> recording movies...
>
> Sample pics & video:
> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/pss2is/sample-e.html
>
> Ya-hoo-hoo. I'm requesting the first US model off the line.
>
>
> DIZZLE
> (wipes drool from chin and hits "Send")


I read the review and though it's too new to say for certain, this looks
like one I'd want, too. :-)

Too bad the camera manufacturers don't have a trade-in, upgrade program for
repeat buyers like there is with some brands of computers. As far as Ebay or
the classified ads go, there's probably not much of a market for used S1s
seeing how a brand new one is so reasonably priced. Looks like I'll have to
stick with my current model for the next few years. By then there'll be
something else that's come along. Oh well

Renee
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 1:43:15 AM

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

Renee wrote:
> "Dizzledorf" <flunky@dizzle.com> wrote in message
> news:f2ai61ds0h3fsdi04liraljgpn5p15ssgl@4ax.com...
>
>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp
>>
>>5 MP DiGiC II, *12x* stabilized optical zoom, 1.8" tilt/swivel LCD,
>>640x480 30fps DV quality video, AF assist lamp, shoot stills while
>>recording movies...
>>
>>Sample pics & video:
>>http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/pss2is/sample-e.html
>>
>>Ya-hoo-hoo. I'm requesting the first US model off the line.
>>
>>
>>DIZZLE
>>(wipes drool from chin and hits "Send")
>
>
>
> I read the review and though it's too new to say for certain, this looks
> like one I'd want, too. :-)
>
> Too bad the camera manufacturers don't have a trade-in, upgrade program for
> repeat buyers like there is with some brands of computers. As far as Ebay or
> the classified ads go, there's probably not much of a market for used S1s
> seeing how a brand new one is so reasonably priced. Looks like I'll have to
> stick with my current model for the next few years. By then there'll be
> something else that's come along. Oh well
>
> Renee
>
>
I wasn't impressed with the depth of field in the macro mode, but then
most cameras don't have a lot of DOF in macro. No sign of Chromatic
aberration. That's nice. No illustration of the IS module action, or
the 12x zoom. All in all, not a great review.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
April 23, 2005 2:10:32 AM

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

Oh never mind, my mistake. This one uses SD flash memory. Not something I'd
care to consider with my investment in 4 CF cards at the moment. It'd be a
different story for someone starting out where it made no difference to
them.

--
Renee
"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:Sdeae.9620$716.5149@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Dizzledorf" <flunky@dizzle.com> wrote in message
> news:f2ai61ds0h3fsdi04liraljgpn5p15ssgl@4ax.com...
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp
>>
>> 5 MP DiGiC II, *12x* stabilized optical zoom, 1.8" tilt/swivel LCD,
>> 640x480 30fps DV quality video, AF assist lamp, shoot stills while
>> recording movies...
>>
>> Sample pics & video:
>> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/pss2is/sample-e.html
>>
>> Ya-hoo-hoo. I'm requesting the first US model off the line.
>>
>>
>> DIZZLE
>> (wipes drool from chin and hits "Send")
>
>
> I read the review and though it's too new to say for certain, this looks
> like one I'd want, too. :-)
>
> Too bad the camera manufacturers don't have a trade-in, upgrade program
> for repeat buyers like there is with some brands of computers. As far as
> Ebay or the classified ads go, there's probably not much of a market for
> used S1s seeing how a brand new one is so reasonably priced. Looks like
> I'll have to stick with my current model for the next few years. By then
> there'll be something else that's come along. Oh well
>
> Renee
>
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 2:28:44 AM

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

Dizzledorf wrote:
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp

Thanks for that - Canon about one year behind the competition. Looks
nice, although it's a shame about the AA batteries (single cells are much
easier to change in the field) and the colour (silver). I'll wait and see
the actual image performance at higher ISOs before commenting further,
though.

David
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 2:28:45 AM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Dizzledorf wrote:
>
>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp
>
>
> Thanks for that - Canon about one year behind the competition. Looks
> nice, although it's a shame about the AA batteries (single cells are much
> easier to change in the field) and the colour (silver). I'll wait and see
> the actual image performance at higher ISOs before commenting further,
> though.
>
> David
>
>
I am sure the color will adversely affect the quality of the pictures...
And most people would consider AA batteries an advantage.

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 2:35:17 AM

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

"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:3ct257F6mm1mgU1@individual.net...
>
> "Dizzledorf" <flunky@dizzle.com> wrote in message
> news:f2ai61ds0h3fsdi04liraljgpn5p15ssgl@4ax.com...
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp
>>
>> 5 MP DiGiC II, *12x* stabilized optical zoom, 1.8" tilt/swivel LCD,
>> 640x480 30fps DV quality video, AF assist lamp, shoot stills while
>> recording movies...
>>
>> Sample pics & video:
>> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/pss2is/sample-e.html
>>
>> Ya-hoo-hoo. I'm requesting the first US model off the line.
>
> Well, for one thing, it's not "DV quality video," which, for NTSC, is 720
> x
> 480 pixels.
>

So what - are there *any* point 'n shoot digicams that have DV video?

Mark
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 3:29:28 AM

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

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:

> I wasn't impressed with the depth of field in the macro mode, but then
> most cameras don't have a lot of DOF in macro.

That's basic optical physics; nothing the manufacturer can do anything
about. Except for using a smaller sensor, which has noise
consequences. (The focal length of the lens plus the enlargement
planned of the image plus the circle of confusion you're willing to
accept as "sharp" between them determine the depth of field.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 5:51:04 AM

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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> writes:
>
>
>>I wasn't impressed with the depth of field in the macro mode, but then
>>most cameras don't have a lot of DOF in macro.
>
>
> That's basic optical physics; nothing the manufacturer can do anything
> about. Except for using a smaller sensor, which has noise
> consequences. (The focal length of the lens plus the enlargement
> planned of the image plus the circle of confusion you're willing to
> accept as "sharp" between them determine the depth of field.)

On that particular subject, it made the picture appear blotchy. Too
much depth in the subject for a good macro picture....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
April 23, 2005 8:46:48 AM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:V9gae.18493$Ow2.9394@fe06.lga...
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Dizzledorf wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp
>>
>>
>> Thanks for that - Canon about one year behind the competition. Looks
>> nice, although it's a shame about the AA batteries (single cells are much
>> easier to change in the field) and the colour (silver). I'll wait and
>> see the actual image performance at higher ISOs before commenting
>> further, though.
>>
>> David
> I am sure the color will adversely affect the quality of the pictures...
> And most people would consider AA batteries an advantage.
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

A bit trivial. Not sure it's worth replying to. But here goes . . .

I like AAs. Right now I wouldn't consider a camera without it. Living in the
South, I don't have to worry about the effect that prolonged freezing
temperatures have on my batteries. Rechargeable AAs are so inexpensive that
it's easy to justify purchasing one or *two* *spare* sets. And when you're
in a jam, it's nice that there's always some alkalines around somewhere. I
also don't like the idea of having to purchase expensive proprietary spare
batteries. It's just one more thing that adds to the Total Cost of Ownership
when you're starting out with a new digicam. I'll probably wind up being the
last hold-out for AAs on the planet. :-}

My NiMHs take an amazing amount of pictures on one charge. I use the
viewfinder for just about all my picture taking and rarely review them right
away. One time I was out shooting pictures at a theme park from early
morning to the last parade at night. I eventually had to switch over to a
fresh set of batteries that evening. That's because practically all my shots
were AE bracketed (3 for every 1 shot). Also changed my card that day, too.
The point is, exchanging 4 batteries and cards "out in the field" was not a
big deal. I was even able to keep standing while I did it -- on one foot --
and while whistling Dixie. :-) Simple stuff to do if you have the
slightest bit of coordination. Granted, maybe not with a pair of gloves on
but that's not a problem for me either.

I like silver cameras, as many people do. The color would have to be pretty
extreme to be a deal breaker for me -- Green, Red, Orange, Yellow are all
out -- all remind me of children's toy. I might say "it's a shame about the
colour" if they had *all those* colors *except* for silver or black. But I
think (hope) most marketing execs are a bit too savvy to make that kind of
mistake.

If a silver color winds up as a deal breaker for someone on a camera they
like, it just goes to show how trivial life can get these days.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 8:46:49 AM

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

Renee wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:V9gae.18493$Ow2.9394@fe06.lga...
>
>>David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>>>Dizzledorf wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks for that - Canon about one year behind the competition. Looks
>>>nice, although it's a shame about the AA batteries (single cells are much
>>>easier to change in the field) and the colour (silver). I'll wait and
>>>see the actual image performance at higher ISOs before commenting
>>>further, though.
>>>
>>>David
>>
>>I am sure the color will adversely affect the quality of the pictures...
>>And most people would consider AA batteries an advantage.
>>
>>--
>>Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>
>
> A bit trivial. Not sure it's worth replying to. But here goes . . .
>
> I like AAs. Right now I wouldn't consider a camera without it. Living in the
> South, I don't have to worry about the effect that prolonged freezing
> temperatures have on my batteries. Rechargeable AAs are so inexpensive that
> it's easy to justify purchasing one or *two* *spare* sets. And when you're
> in a jam, it's nice that there's always some alkalines around somewhere. I
> also don't like the idea of having to purchase expensive proprietary spare
> batteries. It's just one more thing that adds to the Total Cost of Ownership
> when you're starting out with a new digicam. I'll probably wind up being the
> last hold-out for AAs on the planet. :-}
>
> My NiMHs take an amazing amount of pictures on one charge. I use the
> viewfinder for just about all my picture taking and rarely review them right
> away. One time I was out shooting pictures at a theme park from early
> morning to the last parade at night. I eventually had to switch over to a
> fresh set of batteries that evening. That's because practically all my shots
> were AE bracketed (3 for every 1 shot). Also changed my card that day, too.
> The point is, exchanging 4 batteries and cards "out in the field" was not a
> big deal. I was even able to keep standing while I did it -- on one foot --
> and while whistling Dixie. :-) Simple stuff to do if you have the
> slightest bit of coordination. Granted, maybe not with a pair of gloves on
> but that's not a problem for me either.
>
> I like silver cameras, as many people do. The color would have to be pretty
> extreme to be a deal breaker for me -- Green, Red, Orange, Yellow are all
> out -- all remind me of children's toy. I might say "it's a shame about the
> colour" if they had *all those* colors *except* for silver or black. But I
> think (hope) most marketing execs are a bit too savvy to make that kind of
> mistake.
>
> If a silver color winds up as a deal breaker for someone on a camera they
> like, it just goes to show how trivial life can get these days.
>
>
In some climates, a reflective color on a camera is a positive thing.
The sun can render a black camera too hot to hold in just a short time
in this climate.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 8:46:50 AM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:D imae.13554$c42.9917@fe07.lga...
> Renee wrote:
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:V9gae.18493$Ow2.9394@fe06.lga...
>>
>>>David J Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dizzledorf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for that - Canon about one year behind the competition. Looks
>>>>nice, although it's a shame about the AA batteries (single cells are
>>>>much easier to change in the field) and the colour (silver). I'll wait
>>>>and see the actual image performance at higher ISOs before commenting
>>>>further, though.
>>>>
>>>>David
>>>
>>>I am sure the color will adversely affect the quality of the pictures...
>>>And most people would consider AA batteries an advantage.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>>
>>
>> A bit trivial. Not sure it's worth replying to. But here goes . . .
>>
>> I like AAs. Right now I wouldn't consider a camera without it. Living in
>> the South, I don't have to worry about the effect that prolonged freezing
>> temperatures have on my batteries. Rechargeable AAs are so inexpensive
>> that it's easy to justify purchasing one or *two* *spare* sets. And when
>> you're in a jam, it's nice that there's always some alkalines around
>> somewhere. I also don't like the idea of having to purchase expensive
>> proprietary spare batteries. It's just one more thing that adds to the
>> Total Cost of Ownership when you're starting out with a new digicam. I'll
>> probably wind up being the last hold-out for AAs on the planet. :-}
>>
>> My NiMHs take an amazing amount of pictures on one charge. I use the
>> viewfinder for just about all my picture taking and rarely review them
>> right away. One time I was out shooting pictures at a theme park from
>> early morning to the last parade at night. I eventually had to switch
>> over to a fresh set of batteries that evening. That's because practically
>> all my shots were AE bracketed (3 for every 1 shot). Also changed my card
>> that day, too. The point is, exchanging 4 batteries and cards "out in the
>> field" was not a big deal. I was even able to keep standing while I did
>> it -- on one foot -- and while whistling Dixie. :-) Simple stuff to do
>> if you have the slightest bit of coordination. Granted, maybe not with a
>> pair of gloves on but that's not a problem for me either.
>>
>> I like silver cameras, as many people do. The color would have to be
>> pretty extreme to be a deal breaker for me -- Green, Red, Orange, Yellow
>> are all out -- all remind me of children's toy. I might say "it's a shame
>> about the colour" if they had *all those* colors *except* for silver or
>> black. But I think (hope) most marketing execs are a bit too savvy to
>> make that kind of mistake.
>>
>> If a silver color winds up as a deal breaker for someone on a camera they
>> like, it just goes to show how trivial life can get these days.
> In some climates, a reflective color on a camera is a positive thing. The
> sun can render a black camera too hot to hold in just a short time in this
> climate.

Along those same lines...a more reflective camera can mean your pupil
shrinks just as you stick your eye up to the viewfinder...due to bright
reflection. I prefer black to anything remotely shiny for this reason
alone.
But really... It's not a HUGE deal either way in most circumstances. If
it's REALLY that hot due to sunlight...it's rarely good light to be
shooting in anyway, which means you're not likely to be standing there with
your camera forever unless you're shooting sports (sidelines, etc.), and if
you ARE shooting sports, your hands are on your camera constantly, meaning
your hand has a greater influence over the temperature of your camera body
than the sun does.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 12:01:56 PM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:
[]
> I wasn't impressed with the depth of field in the macro mode, but then
> most cameras don't have a lot of DOF in macro. No sign of Chromatic
> aberration. That's nice. No illustration of the IS module action, or
> the 12x zoom. All in all, not a great review.

It's not a review, but an announcement.

David
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 12:07:21 PM

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

Ron Hunter wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
[]
>> Thanks for that - Canon about one year behind the competition. Looks
>> nice, although it's a shame about the AA batteries (single cells are
>> much easier to change in the field) and the colour (silver). I'll
>> wait and see the actual image performance at higher ISOs before
>> commenting further, though.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
> I am sure the color will adversely affect the quality of the
> pictures... And most people would consider AA batteries an advantage.

I am surprised that Canon are not offering the camera in black and
silver - a black camera can be less visible and allow more candid shots.
I used to think AA batteries were an advantage, until I found how easy
changing single-cell Li-ion batteries was compared to the palaval of
dealing with 8 AA cells rolling about all other the place. I really
wouldn't want to go back now.

However, as I said, I'm waiting to see the image quality (particularly at
higher ISOs) compared to competitors like the KM and Panasonic FZ5/FZ20.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 2:14:28 PM

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

Mark² wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:D imae.13554$c42.9917@fe07.lga...
>
>>Renee wrote:
>>
>>>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:V9gae.18493$Ow2.9394@fe06.lga...
>>>
>>>
>>>>David J Taylor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dizzledorf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for that - Canon about one year behind the competition. Looks
>>>>>nice, although it's a shame about the AA batteries (single cells are
>>>>>much easier to change in the field) and the colour (silver). I'll wait
>>>>>and see the actual image performance at higher ISOs before commenting
>>>>>further, though.
>>>>>
>>>>>David
>>>>
>>>>I am sure the color will adversely affect the quality of the pictures...
>>>>And most people would consider AA batteries an advantage.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>>>
>>>
>>>A bit trivial. Not sure it's worth replying to. But here goes . . .
>>>
>>>I like AAs. Right now I wouldn't consider a camera without it. Living in
>>>the South, I don't have to worry about the effect that prolonged freezing
>>>temperatures have on my batteries. Rechargeable AAs are so inexpensive
>>>that it's easy to justify purchasing one or *two* *spare* sets. And when
>>>you're in a jam, it's nice that there's always some alkalines around
>>>somewhere. I also don't like the idea of having to purchase expensive
>>>proprietary spare batteries. It's just one more thing that adds to the
>>>Total Cost of Ownership when you're starting out with a new digicam. I'll
>>>probably wind up being the last hold-out for AAs on the planet. :-}
>>>
>>>My NiMHs take an amazing amount of pictures on one charge. I use the
>>>viewfinder for just about all my picture taking and rarely review them
>>>right away. One time I was out shooting pictures at a theme park from
>>>early morning to the last parade at night. I eventually had to switch
>>>over to a fresh set of batteries that evening. That's because practically
>>>all my shots were AE bracketed (3 for every 1 shot). Also changed my card
>>>that day, too. The point is, exchanging 4 batteries and cards "out in the
>>>field" was not a big deal. I was even able to keep standing while I did
>>>it -- on one foot -- and while whistling Dixie. :-) Simple stuff to do
>>>if you have the slightest bit of coordination. Granted, maybe not with a
>>>pair of gloves on but that's not a problem for me either.
>>>
>>>I like silver cameras, as many people do. The color would have to be
>>>pretty extreme to be a deal breaker for me -- Green, Red, Orange, Yellow
>>>are all out -- all remind me of children's toy. I might say "it's a shame
>>>about the colour" if they had *all those* colors *except* for silver or
>>>black. But I think (hope) most marketing execs are a bit too savvy to
>>>make that kind of mistake.
>>>
>>>If a silver color winds up as a deal breaker for someone on a camera they
>>>like, it just goes to show how trivial life can get these days.
>>
>>In some climates, a reflective color on a camera is a positive thing. The
>>sun can render a black camera too hot to hold in just a short time in this
>>climate.
>
>
> Along those same lines...a more reflective camera can mean your pupil
> shrinks just as you stick your eye up to the viewfinder...due to bright
> reflection. I prefer black to anything remotely shiny for this reason
> alone.
> But really... It's not a HUGE deal either way in most circumstances. If
> it's REALLY that hot due to sunlight...it's rarely good light to be
> shooting in anyway, which means you're not likely to be standing there with
> your camera forever unless you're shooting sports (sidelines, etc.), and if
> you ARE shooting sports, your hands are on your camera constantly, meaning
> your hand has a greater influence over the temperature of your camera body
> than the sun does.
>
>
Unless you set it down on a bench to use another camera, change
batteries, etc. In the US southwest, the sun can REALLY make black
things hot in a HURRY.
Living in the higher latitudes this isn't so much of a factor. If you
want to know if this is a factor in your area, just count the number of
black cars. Hint, the color isn't popular in Phoenix, or Tucson.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 2:15:13 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
> []
>
>>I wasn't impressed with the depth of field in the macro mode, but then
>>most cameras don't have a lot of DOF in macro. No sign of Chromatic
>>aberration. That's nice. No illustration of the IS module action, or
>>the 12x zoom. All in all, not a great review.
>
>
> It's not a review, but an announcement.
>
> David
>
>
Ok, it is a pretty good announcement, then. Will await a good review,
with lots of example pictures.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 2:51:58 PM

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

Mark B. wrote:
> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:3ct257F6mm1mgU1@individual.net...
> >
> > "Dizzledorf" <flunky@dizzle.com> wrote in message
> > news:f2ai61ds0h3fsdi04liraljgpn5p15ssgl@4ax.com...
> >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp
> >>
> >> 5 MP DiGiC II, *12x* stabilized optical zoom, 1.8" tilt/swivel
LCD,
> >> 640x480 30fps DV quality video, AF assist lamp, shoot stills while
> >> recording movies...
> >>
> >> Sample pics & video:
> >> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/pss2is/sample-e.html
> >>
> >> Ya-hoo-hoo. I'm requesting the first US model off the line.
> >
> > Well, for one thing, it's not "DV quality video," which, for NTSC,
is 720
> > x
> > 480 pixels.
> >
>
> So what - are there *any* point 'n shoot digicams that have DV video?
>
> Mark

As far as I know, there are not. Anyone who wants to shoot digital
video should get a digital camcorder, just as anyone who wants to take
digital stills should get a still camera. No still camera does a good
job at video, and no video camera does a good job at stills.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 3:04:49 PM

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

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:3ct257F6mm1mgU1@individual.net...
> >
> > "Dizzledorf" <flunky@dizzle.com> wrote in message
> > news:f2ai61ds0h3fsdi04liraljgpn5p15ssgl@4ax.com...
> >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp
> >>
> >> 5 MP DiGiC II, *12x* stabilized optical zoom, 1.8" tilt/swivel
LCD,
> >> 640x480 30fps DV quality video, AF assist lamp, shoot stills while
> >> recording movies...
> >>
> >> Sample pics & video:
> >> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/pss2is/sample-e.html
> >>
> >> Ya-hoo-hoo. I'm requesting the first US model off the line.
> >
> > Well, for one thing, it's not "DV quality video," which, for NTSC,
is 720
> > x
> > 480 pixels.
>
> I downloaded the 22MB video clip... and I must say it is by FAR the
best
> looking digicam-produced video I've yet seen.
> -Easily good enough for p resentation on a television.

I downloaded it, too, and it doesn't even come close. The compression
algorithms used by the camera are pretty bad -- motion is jerky.

>
> The fact that you can shoot a full resolution still image in the
middle of
> shooting video is VERY cool.

It's not a full resol;ution image.


> This would make a great teaching tool for photography skills!
> Not only could you describe what you're doing while letting the
viewer see
> through your viewfinder, but they can see exactly when you shoot the
image
> itself. I think this could be used to GREAT effect as a photography
> teaching tool.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 4:30:20 PM

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

"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:1114279489.637846.201380@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Mark² (lowest even number here) wrote:
> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:3ct257F6mm1mgU1@individual.net...
> >
> > "Dizzledorf" <flunky@dizzle.com> wrote in message
> > news:f2ai61ds0h3fsdi04liraljgpn5p15ssgl@4ax.com...
> >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp
> >>
> >> 5 MP DiGiC II, *12x* stabilized optical zoom, 1.8" tilt/swivel
LCD,
> >> 640x480 30fps DV quality video, AF assist lamp, shoot stills while
> >> recording movies...
> >>
> >> Sample pics & video:
> >> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/pss2is/sample-e.html
> >>
> >> Ya-hoo-hoo. I'm requesting the first US model off the line.
> >
> > Well, for one thing, it's not "DV quality video," which, for NTSC,
is 720
> > x
> > 480 pixels.
>
> I downloaded the 22MB video clip... and I must say it is by FAR the
best
> looking digicam-produced video I've yet seen.
> -Easily good enough for p resentation on a television.

You:
I downloaded it, too, and it doesn't even come close. The compression
algorithms used by the camera are pretty bad -- motion is jerky.
---------------------------
Doesn't come close...to what?
I'm not talking about digital VIDEO cameras.
I'm simply noting that compared to other video captures via digital still
cameras point to this being high quality among those devices.

>
> The fact that you can shoot a full resolution still image in the
middle of
> shooting video is VERY cool.

You:
It's not a full resol;ution image.
-----------------
I agree that what you see snapped in the video clip does not appear to be
full resolution, but according to the release notes, it does indeed take a
full resolution image...not just a video still.

PS... How about setting your newsreader to not use html or other
formatting. -It makes for confusing response/quote formatting.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 4:36:01 PM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:p Dtae.9108$Gq6.2222@fe02.lga...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:D imae.13554$c42.9917@fe07.lga...
>>
>>>Renee wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:V9gae.18493$Ow2.9394@fe06.lga...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>David J Taylor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dizzledorf wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks for that - Canon about one year behind the competition. Looks
>>>>>>nice, although it's a shame about the AA batteries (single cells are
>>>>>>much easier to change in the field) and the colour (silver). I'll
>>>>>>wait and see the actual image performance at higher ISOs before
>>>>>>commenting further, though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>David
>>>>>
>>>>>I am sure the color will adversely affect the quality of the
>>>>>pictures... And most people would consider AA batteries an advantage.
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>A bit trivial. Not sure it's worth replying to. But here goes . . .
>>>>
>>>>I like AAs. Right now I wouldn't consider a camera without it. Living in
>>>>the South, I don't have to worry about the effect that prolonged
>>>>freezing temperatures have on my batteries. Rechargeable AAs are so
>>>>inexpensive that it's easy to justify purchasing one or *two* *spare*
>>>>sets. And when you're in a jam, it's nice that there's always some
>>>>alkalines around somewhere. I also don't like the idea of having to
>>>>purchase expensive proprietary spare batteries. It's just one more thing
>>>>that adds to the Total Cost of Ownership when you're starting out with a
>>>>new digicam. I'll probably wind up being the last hold-out for AAs on
>>>>the planet. :-}
>>>>
>>>>My NiMHs take an amazing amount of pictures on one charge. I use the
>>>>viewfinder for just about all my picture taking and rarely review them
>>>>right away. One time I was out shooting pictures at a theme park from
>>>>early morning to the last parade at night. I eventually had to switch
>>>>over to a fresh set of batteries that evening. That's because
>>>>practically all my shots were AE bracketed (3 for every 1 shot). Also
>>>>changed my card that day, too. The point is, exchanging 4 batteries and
>>>>cards "out in the field" was not a big deal. I was even able to keep
>>>>standing while I did it -- on one foot -- and while whistling Dixie.
>>>>:-) Simple stuff to do if you have the slightest bit of coordination.
>>>>Granted, maybe not with a pair of gloves on but that's not a problem for
>>>>me either.
>>>>
>>>>I like silver cameras, as many people do. The color would have to be
>>>>pretty extreme to be a deal breaker for me -- Green, Red, Orange, Yellow
>>>>are all out -- all remind me of children's toy. I might say "it's a
>>>>shame about the colour" if they had *all those* colors *except* for
>>>>silver or black. But I think (hope) most marketing execs are a bit too
>>>>savvy to make that kind of mistake.
>>>>
>>>>If a silver color winds up as a deal breaker for someone on a camera
>>>>they like, it just goes to show how trivial life can get these days.
>>>
>>>In some climates, a reflective color on a camera is a positive thing. The
>>>sun can render a black camera too hot to hold in just a short time in
>>>this climate.
>>
>>
>> Along those same lines...a more reflective camera can mean your pupil
>> shrinks just as you stick your eye up to the viewfinder...due to bright
>> reflection. I prefer black to anything remotely shiny for this reason
>> alone.
>> But really... It's not a HUGE deal either way in most circumstances. If
>> it's REALLY that hot due to sunlight...it's rarely good light to be
>> shooting in anyway, which means you're not likely to be standing there
>> with your camera forever unless you're shooting sports (sidelines, etc.),
>> and if you ARE shooting sports, your hands are on your camera constantly,
>> meaning your hand has a greater influence over the temperature of your
>> camera body than the sun does.
> Unless you set it down on a bench to use another camera, change batteries,
> etc. In the US southwest, the sun can REALLY make black things hot in a
> HURRY.
> Living in the higher latitudes this isn't so much of a factor. If you
> want to know if this is a factor in your area, just count the number of
> black cars. Hint, the color isn't popular in Phoenix, or Tucson.

I live in Souther Cal and do a lot of traveling/shooting in the desert.
While heat can be a factor, I've never found it to be a problem. If this
were as significant a problem as you protray, you'd see non-black bodies
used by sideline pros and other venues. You don't...mainly because this is
not really a big deal.

Lens elements would have a greater tendency to be effected by heat--which is
one reason (besides a clever marketing scheme) Canon L zooms are off-white.
Note, though, that NONE of any manufacturer's professional 35mm/DSLR bodies
are other than black. Were this a significant danger, we'd see otherwise.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 4:55:54 PM

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

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 08:07:21 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> I am surprised that Canon are not offering the camera in black and
> silver - a black camera can be less visible and allow more candid shots.
> I used to think AA batteries were an advantage, until I found how easy
> changing single-cell Li-ion batteries was compared to the palaval of
> dealing with 8 AA cells rolling about all other the place. I really
> wouldn't want to go back now.

It's not as bad as you make it out to be for two reasons. First,
battery life has improved to the point that most people could shoot
all day without needing to change batteries. Using NiMH AAs I
should be able to get approx. 300 to 800 shots per charge, depending
on whether the bulk of the shots are taken indoors or outdoors. If
that's not enough to last all day, I'd suggest changing the
batteries after they've been in use for several hours, at your
convenience, such as lunch time. Not when you're in the middle of
taking pictures and the batteries finally give out. That's not a
smart technique whether you use 1 battery or 4. Unlike NiCads, NiMH
batteries don't mind if you stop using them before they've become
fully exhausted.

Second, it seems that you're making an inaccurate, unfair
comparison by referring to single-cell Li-ion batteries vs. 8 AAs.
Shouldn't that be 1 Li-ion vs 4 AAs, or 2 Li-ions batteries vs. 8
AAs? And you shouldn't ever have to deal with 8 AAs rolling around
at one time. I don't know of any camera that doesn't give you all
the time you need to remove 4 batteries, store them securely and
then take out and install the 4 fresh replacements. And as cameras
are getting more and more efficient, the trend is to go from four
AAs to just two. There are other reasons to prefer lithium
rechargeables. The very slight convenience advantage they give when
changing batteries is, for most people, far outweighed by some of
the advantages AAs can give, two being far lower price and universal
availability. Sony used to make a small AA adapter for some of
their better small cassette recorders that held 4 AA batteries.
This made it more convenient to replace batteries, and might be a
good idea for some of the digital cameras that aren't trying to be
designed as small and slim as possible. But it should be optional,
as some might find those adapters to be an inconvenience too.
April 23, 2005 5:22:02 PM

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

"Dizzledorf" <flunky@dizzle.com> wrote in message
news:f2ai61ds0h3fsdi04liraljgpn5p15ssgl@4ax.com...
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp
>
> 5 MP DiGiC II, *12x* stabilized optical zoom, 1.8" tilt/swivel LCD,
> 640x480 30fps DV quality video, AF assist lamp, shoot stills while
> recording movies...
>
> Sample pics & video:
> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/pss2is/sample-e.html
>
> Ya-hoo-hoo. I'm requesting the first US model off the line.
>
>
> DIZZLE
> (wipes drool from chin and hits "Send")

Too bad it has the smaller sensor. The tradeoff at a particular price point
seems to be optical zoom vs. sensor size. The A95 has the larger sensor, but
only 3x zoom.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 1:18:11 AM

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

<Mark? <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net>> wrote in message
news:3nxae.3171$Zi.2249@fed1read04...
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:1114279489.637846.201380@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mark?(lowest even number here) wrote:
>> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
>> news:3ct257F6mm1mgU1@individual.net...
>> >
>> > "Dizzledorf" <flunky@dizzle.com> wrote in message
>> > news:f2ai61ds0h3fsdi04liraljgpn5p15ssgl@4ax.com...
>> >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp
>> >>
>> >> 5 MP DiGiC II, *12x* stabilized optical zoom, 1.8" tilt/swivel
> LCD,
>> >> 640x480 30fps DV quality video, AF assist lamp, shoot stills while
>> >> recording movies...
>> >>
>> >> Sample pics & video:
>> >> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/pss2is/sample-e.html
>> >>
>> >> Ya-hoo-hoo. I'm requesting the first US model off the line.
>> >
>> > Well, for one thing, it's not "DV quality video," which, for NTSC,
> is 720
>> > x
>> > 480 pixels.
>>
>> I downloaded the 22MB video clip... and I must say it is by FAR the
> best
>> looking digicam-produced video I've yet seen.
>> -Easily good enough for p resentation on a television.
>
> You:
> I downloaded it, too, and it doesn't even come close. The compression
> algorithms used by the camera are pretty bad -- motion is jerky.
> ---------------------------
> Doesn't come close...to what?

To pretty much any consumer camcorder.

> I'm not talking about digital VIDEO cameras.

Well, perhaps I misunderstood you. I was talking about the claim that this
camera produced DV-quality, broadcast-quality video.


> I'm simply noting that compared to other video captures via digital still
> cameras point to this being high quality among those devices.

That may be true.

>
>>
>> The fact that you can shoot a full resolution still image in the
> middle of
>> shooting video is VERY cool.
>
> You:
> It's not a full resol;ution image.
> -----------------
> I agree that what you see snapped in the video clip does not appear to be
> full resolution, but according to the release notes, it does indeed take a
> full resolution image...not just a video still.

According to the release notes, it does NOT produce a full-resolution
DV-image, which is 720 x 480, not 640 x 480.

>
> PS... How about setting your newsreader to not use html or other
> formatting. -It makes for confusing response/quote formatting.

I don't use HTML or other formatting.

>
>
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 1:18:12 AM

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

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:nYyae.5331$Xb4.651@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> <Mark? <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net>> wrote in message
> news:3nxae.3171$Zi.2249@fed1read04...
>>
>> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
>> news:1114279489.637846.201380@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Mark?(lowest even number here) wrote:
>>> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3ct257F6mm1mgU1@individual.net...
>>> >
>>> > "Dizzledorf" <flunky@dizzle.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:f2ai61ds0h3fsdi04liraljgpn5p15ssgl@4ax.com...
>>> >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp
>>> >>
>>> >> 5 MP DiGiC II, *12x* stabilized optical zoom, 1.8" tilt/swivel
>> LCD,
>>> >> 640x480 30fps DV quality video, AF assist lamp, shoot stills while
>>> >> recording movies...
>>> >>
>>> >> Sample pics & video:
>>> >> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/pss2is/sample-e.html
>>> >>
>>> >> Ya-hoo-hoo. I'm requesting the first US model off the line.
>>> >
>>> > Well, for one thing, it's not "DV quality video," which, for NTSC,
>> is 720
>>> > x
>>> > 480 pixels.
>>>
>>> I downloaded the 22MB video clip... and I must say it is by FAR the
>> best
>>> looking digicam-produced video I've yet seen.
>>> -Easily good enough for p resentation on a television.
>>
>> You:
>> I downloaded it, too, and it doesn't even come close. The compression
>> algorithms used by the camera are pretty bad -- motion is jerky.
>> ---------------------------
>> Doesn't come close...to what?
>
> To pretty much any consumer camcorder.
>
>> I'm not talking about digital VIDEO cameras.
>
> Well, perhaps I misunderstood you. I was talking about the claim that
> this camera produced DV-quality, broadcast-quality video.
>
>
>> I'm simply noting that compared to other video captures via digital still
>> cameras point to this being high quality among those devices.
>
> That may be true.
>
>>
>>>
>>> The fact that you can shoot a full resolution still image in the
>> middle of
>>> shooting video is VERY cool.
>>
>> You:
>> It's not a full resol;ution image.
>> -----------------
>> I agree that what you see snapped in the video clip does not appear to be
>> full resolution, but according to the release notes, it does indeed take
>> a full resolution image...not just a video still.
>
> According to the release notes, it does NOT produce a full-resolution
> DV-image, which is 720 x 480, not 640 x 480.

I was not commenting in any way regarding the 720x480 issue with TV
resolution.

Again...that's not what I was referring to.
Rather...What this camera apparently does is allow you to snap a still image
while in the MIDDLE of recording a video clip. The camera apparently
switches over to still-image mode momentarily...shoots teh still image at
the full 5MP res...and then continues recording video at 640x480...without
stopping.

This is a new and unique feature.
-An interesting idea.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 1:18:12 AM

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

PTRAVEL wrote:
>
> <Mark? <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net>> wrote in message
> news:3nxae.3171$Zi.2249@fed1read04...
> >
> > "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> > news:1114279489.637846.201380@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Mark?(lowest even number here) wrote:
> >> "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3ct257F6mm1mgU1@individual.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Dizzledorf" <flunky@dizzle.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:f2ai61ds0h3fsdi04liraljgpn5p15ssgl@4ax.com...
> >> >> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042201canons2is.asp
> >> >>
> >> >> 5 MP DiGiC II, *12x* stabilized optical zoom, 1.8" tilt/swivel
> > LCD,
> >> >> 640x480 30fps DV quality video, AF assist lamp, shoot stills while
> >> >> recording movies...
> >> >>
> >> >> Sample pics & video:
> >> >> http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/pss2is/sample-e.html
> >> >>
> >> >> Ya-hoo-hoo. I'm requesting the first US model off the line.
> >> >
> >> > Well, for one thing, it's not "DV quality video," which, for NTSC,
> > is 720
> >> > x
> >> > 480 pixels.
> >>
> >> I downloaded the 22MB video clip... and I must say it is by FAR the
> > best
> >> looking digicam-produced video I've yet seen.
> >> -Easily good enough for p resentation on a television.
> >
> > You:
> > I downloaded it, too, and it doesn't even come close. The compression
> > algorithms used by the camera are pretty bad -- motion is jerky.
> > ---------------------------
> > Doesn't come close...to what?
>
> To pretty much any consumer camcorder.
>

Actually, I've found that my S1 produces video that is noticeably
better than that from my Canon 8mm Camcorder. The difference is very
obvious, video from the S1 doesn't have that "home video" look.

Lisa
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 2:05:36 AM

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

<Mark? <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net>> wrote in message
news:ilzae.3271$Zi.2067@fed1read04...
>

>>> I agree that what you see snapped in the video clip does not appear to
>>> be full resolution, but according to the release notes, it does indeed
>>> take a full resolution image...not just a video still.
>>
>> According to the release notes, it does NOT produce a full-resolution
>> DV-image, which is 720 x 480, not 640 x 480.
>
> I was not commenting in any way regarding the 720x480 issue with TV
> resolution.
>
> Again...that's not what I was referring to.
> Rather...What this camera apparently does is allow you to snap a still
> image while in the MIDDLE of recording a video clip. The camera
> apparently switches over to still-image mode momentarily...shoots teh
> still image at the full 5MP res...and then continues recording video at
> 640x480...without stopping.
>
> This is a new and unique feature.
> -An interesting idea.

It is. My concern is that Canon appears to be marketing this as the
functional equivalent of a DV camcorder, just as the DV camcorder
manufacturers (including Canon) market their consumer camcorders as the
functional equivalent of a digital still camera.

>
>
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 2:05:37 AM

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

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:QEzae.5349$Xb4.1420@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> <Mark? <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net>> wrote in message
> news:ilzae.3271$Zi.2067@fed1read04...
>>
>
>>>> I agree that what you see snapped in the video clip does not appear to
>>>> be full resolution, but according to the release notes, it does indeed
>>>> take a full resolution image...not just a video still.
>>>
>>> According to the release notes, it does NOT produce a full-resolution
>>> DV-image, which is 720 x 480, not 640 x 480.
>>
>> I was not commenting in any way regarding the 720x480 issue with TV
>> resolution.
>>
>> Again...that's not what I was referring to.
>> Rather...What this camera apparently does is allow you to snap a still
>> image while in the MIDDLE of recording a video clip. The camera
>> apparently switches over to still-image mode momentarily...shoots teh
>> still image at the full 5MP res...and then continues recording video at
>> 640x480...without stopping.
>>
>> This is a new and unique feature.
>> -An interesting idea.
>
> It is. My concern is that Canon appears to be marketing this as the
> functional equivalent of a DV camcorder, just as the DV camcorder
> manufacturers (including Canon) market their consumer camcorders as the
> functional equivalent of a digital still camera.

I found nothing in the announcement from Canon to indicate any intent to
market it as a DV replacement.

Here's their text regarding video capabilities:
----------------------------------------------
"To commence shooting video immediately supporting VGA fine (640 x 480) mode
at either 30 or 15 fps, the PowerShot S2 IS retains the dedicated
movie-shooting button. This eliminates the need to enter menu navigation,
helping make sure users never miss those once-in-a-lifetime shooting
opportunities."

More:
"Simultaneous movies and stills:

"A new Photo-in-Movie feature lets users capture a maximum resolution still
image whilst shooting a movie by simply pressing the shutter release. Movie
recording is temporarily interrupted whilst the still image is captured,
continuing thereafter until the user chooses to stop. The video footage and
still image are saved separately and the fragmented sequence can be stitched
back together with a special edit menu option in the supplied ZoomBrowser EX
5.2 / ImageBrowser 5.1 software."
-----------------------------------------------
I just don't see any over-stating going on there... In fact, there is no
mention of "DV" at all.
April 24, 2005 8:22:43 AM

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

PTRAVEL wrote:
> <Mark? <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net>> wrote in message
> news:ilzae.3271$Zi.2067@fed1read04...
>
>
>>>>I agree that what you see snapped in the video clip does not appear to
>>>>be full resolution, but according to the release notes, it does indeed
>>>>take a full resolution image...not just a video still.
>>>
>>>According to the release notes, it does NOT produce a full-resolution
>>>DV-image, which is 720 x 480, not 640 x 480.
>>
>>I was not commenting in any way regarding the 720x480 issue with TV
>>resolution.
>>
>>Again...that's not what I was referring to.
>>Rather...What this camera apparently does is allow you to snap a still
>>image while in the MIDDLE of recording a video clip. The camera
>>apparently switches over to still-image mode momentarily...shoots teh
>>still image at the full 5MP res...and then continues recording video at
>>640x480...without stopping.
>>
>>This is a new and unique feature.
>>-An interesting idea.
>
>
> It is. My concern is that Canon appears to be marketing this as the
> functional equivalent of a DV camcorder, just as the DV camcorder
> manufacturers (including Canon) market their consumer camcorders as the
> functional equivalent of a digital still camera.


I am impressed with the video quality. No wonder Canon has to put the
1GB limit - so that it won't kill their DV camcorders. Nevertheless,
30[pregressive]fps is bound to be a bit jerky. NTSC standard is 60
{interlaced]f/s I know that from my Canon Elura camcorder with
progressive mode. I think the S2 is a great camera for many people. I,
otoh, would want to save up to get a HDV camcorder. And keep using my
20D... hehehehe... I think the waterproof Pentax OptioWP might have a
place in my home in not too distant future.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 8:45:43 AM

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

"leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:naFae.15735$44.6605@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> PTRAVEL wrote:
>> <Mark? <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net>> wrote in message
>> news:ilzae.3271$Zi.2067@fed1read04...
>>
>>
>>>>>I agree that what you see snapped in the video clip does not appear to
>>>>>be full resolution, but according to the release notes, it does indeed
>>>>>take a full resolution image...not just a video still.
>>>>
>>>>According to the release notes, it does NOT produce a full-resolution
>>>>DV-image, which is 720 x 480, not 640 x 480.
>>>
>>>I was not commenting in any way regarding the 720x480 issue with TV
>>>resolution.
>>>
>>>Again...that's not what I was referring to.
>>>Rather...What this camera apparently does is allow you to snap a still
>>>image while in the MIDDLE of recording a video clip. The camera
>>>apparently switches over to still-image mode momentarily...shoots teh
>>>still image at the full 5MP res...and then continues recording video at
>>>640x480...without stopping.
>>>
>>>This is a new and unique feature.
>>>-An interesting idea.
>>
>>
>> It is. My concern is that Canon appears to be marketing this as the
>> functional equivalent of a DV camcorder, just as the DV camcorder
>> manufacturers (including Canon) market their consumer camcorders as the
>> functional equivalent of a digital still camera.
>
>
> I am impressed with the video quality. No wonder Canon has to put the 1GB
> limit - so that it won't kill their DV camcorders.

Have you ever seen the video from Canon's better consumer camcorders? They
have nothing to worry about from this camera.


> Nevertheless, 30[pregressive]fps is bound to be a bit jerky. NTSC standard
> is 60 {interlaced]f/s I know that from my Canon Elura camcorder

Take a look at Canon's Optura line if you want to see an example of good
consumer digital video.

> with progressive mode. I think the S2 is a great camera for many people.

I'm not saying it isn't. I am saying that it does not produce DV-quality
video, or anything close to it.

> I, otoh, would want to save up to get a HDV camcorder.

Why? There's no delivery mechanism for video from any of the HDV camcorders
yet. Editing HDV from these machines takes an extraordinary amount of
computer horsepower. And, finally, initial reports are that the amount of
compression necessary to fit a 720p or 1080i on a miniDV or miniDVCam tape
produces a lot of artifacts for "busy" scenes.

I'd love an HD camcorder, but I'm going to wait for, at least, the next
generation and some standardized delivery format.


> And keep using my 20D... hehehehe... I think the waterproof Pentax OptioWP
> might have a place in my home in not too distant future.

I have a Canon 10D, which takes beautiful digital stills. I have a Sony
VX2000 which takes spectacular video. I don't expect to see a single device
which will equal both in the near future.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 11:43:23 AM

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

In article <Yqkae.9740$716.7683@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote:

> I like AAs. Right now I wouldn't consider a camera without it. Living in the
> South, I don't have to worry about the effect that prolonged freezing
> temperatures have on my batteries. Rechargeable AAs are so inexpensive that
> it's easy to justify purchasing one or *two* *spare* sets. And when you're
> in a jam, it's nice that there's always some alkalines around somewhere. I
> also don't like the idea of having to purchase expensive proprietary spare
> batteries. It's just one more thing that adds to the Total Cost of Ownership
> when you're starting out with a new digicam. I'll probably wind up being the
> last hold-out for AAs on the planet. :-}

I was apprehensive when I switched from the S1 IS AAs to the FZ-20
Li-Ion, but did some maths and realised that by the time I had bought
the 4 sets of NiMH cells plus both a slow and fast charger (you will
need both), the TCO of either systems were in the same ball-park.

I do appreciate the much better shelf life and performance I get out of
the Li-ion cells and their smaller dimensions.

One tip for AA users, to keep your charged/discharged cells identified,
insert them into the little 4x cell(6v)holders sold at electronics
shops. I identified charged/used by whether they were inserted correctly
or reversed. Keeps them tidy and stops any accidental short circuits.

Or just rubber bands and different pockets in your camera bag.

--
YAnewsWatcher.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 12:20:34 PM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 08:07:21 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> I am surprised that Canon are not offering the camera in black and
>> silver - a black camera can be less visible and allow more candid
>> shots. I used to think AA batteries were an advantage, until I found
>> how easy changing single-cell Li-ion batteries was compared to the
>> palaval of dealing with 8 AA cells rolling about all other the
>> place. I really wouldn't want to go back now.
>
> It's not as bad as you make it out to be for two reasons. First,
> battery life has improved to the point that most people could shoot
> all day without needing to change batteries. Using NiMH AAs I
> should be able to get approx. 300 to 800 shots per charge, depending
> on whether the bulk of the shots are taken indoors or outdoors. If
> that's not enough to last all day, I'd suggest changing the
> batteries after they've been in use for several hours, at your
> convenience, such as lunch time. Not when you're in the middle of
> taking pictures and the batteries finally give out. That's not a
> smart technique whether you use 1 battery or 4. Unlike NiCads, NiMH
> batteries don't mind if you stop using them before they've become
> fully exhausted.

Agreed you may be able to alleviate the problem by careful planning.

> Second, it seems that you're making an inaccurate, unfair
> comparison by referring to single-cell Li-ion batteries vs. 8 AAs.
> Shouldn't that be 1 Li-ion vs 4 AAs, or 2 Li-ions batteries vs. 8
> AAs? And you shouldn't ever have to deal with 8 AAs rolling around
> at one time. I don't know of any camera that doesn't give you all
> the time you need to remove 4 batteries, store them securely and
> then take out and install the 4 fresh replacements. And as cameras
> are getting more and more efficient, the trend is to go from four
> AAs to just two. There are other reasons to prefer lithium
> rechargeables. The very slight convenience advantage they give when
> changing batteries is, for most people, far outweighed by some of
> the advantages AAs can give, two being far lower price and universal
> availability. Sony used to make a small AA adapter for some of
> their better small cassette recorders that held 4 AA batteries.
> This made it more convenient to replace batteries, and might be a
> good idea for some of the digital cameras that aren't trying to be
> designed as small and slim as possible. But it should be optional,
> as some might find those adapters to be an inconvenience too.

My experience has been that I tend to wait until the last minute before
changing batteries, whether that be Li-ion or NiMH. Therefore you aren't
at a convenient spot where you can sit down and change batteries. It's
not a matter of the time to change, I accept that's enough, simply the act
of having to deal with four cells at a time.

I'm expressing a preference - having move to single package Li-ion
batteries I wouldn't want to go back. It would be a significant influence
on my camera choice. I am not expecting everyone to have the same
preference. I do accept that there is a cost issue, and I would like to
see a small range of industry-standard Li-ion cells used in common across
many different manufacturer's cameras, rather than the plethora of
proprietary cells we have today.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 1:57:26 PM

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

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 08:20:34 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> I'm expressing a preference - having move to single package Li-ion
> batteries I wouldn't want to go back. It would be a significant influence
> on my camera choice. I am not expecting everyone to have the same
> preference. I do accept that there is a cost issue, and I would like to
> see a small range of industry-standard Li-ion cells used in common across
> many different manufacturer's cameras, rather than the plethora of
> proprietary cells we have today.

That's a good idea, but it would also need standard chargers as
well. It would be foolish to require the batteries be in the camera
for them to be recharged, but that's what Sony has done with their
minidisc machines and CD players. For standardization of lithium
rechargeables on the low, small capacity end, Sony's "gumstick"
batteries and the ones used in Game Boys (GBA) might work, and I've
seen some sold for as little as $10. But low cost isn't as
important as having them manufactured by many companies, available
far into the future, and from many sources - pharmacies,
supermarkets, etc. Not just in specialized photo stores.
April 24, 2005 3:32:03 PM

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

"leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:naFae.15735$44.6605@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>Nevertheless, 30[pregressive]fps is bound to be a bit jerky. NTSC standard
>is 60 {interlaced]f/s

He may not be an expert on digicam video, but Rob Galbraith seems to think
the S1's video is pretty smooth.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7...

Rob also notes that the S2 will be capable of short clips at 60 fps.

Sounds like he looking forward to getting his hands on one to try out.

shipping date ~ June 2005
MSRP ~ $500
April 24, 2005 3:32:21 PM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:tstk61p1d8s0egd5b77fkqahnaha8j8giu@4ax.com...
> at one time. I don't know of any camera that doesn't give you all
> the time you need to remove 4 batteries, store them securely and
> then take out and install the 4 fresh replacements.

That's what I was thinking, too. And, I consider the size of my hand average
though a lot smaller than most of yours in this NG. I have no trouble
emptying 4 AAs from the camera into the palm of my hand at once. And putting
in fresh ones is no problem either - Up, Down, Up, Down - but, then again,
some say I'm smarter than the average bear. :-)
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 3:32:22 PM

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

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 11:32:21 GMT, Renee wrote:

> That's what I was thinking, too. And, I consider the size of my hand average
> though a lot smaller than most of yours in this NG. I have no trouble
> emptying 4 AAs from the camera into the palm of my hand at once. And
> putting in fresh ones is no problem either - Up, Down, Up, Down - but,
> then again, some say I'm smarter than the average bear. :-)

Oh, I can't bear it Yogi . . . :)  That's a good description of
what I have with my camera, and while easy to change the batteries,
it would have been nice if they made it a little more obvious which
slots should accept the batteries UP, and which DOWN. I don't
really have to mark the battery compartment with a dot of red paint
or nail polish to make it more obvious, but most chargers accept
batteries (or make proper contact) only when they are properly
oriented, and you can see at a glance which way that should be.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 7:32:10 PM

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

The camera was just announced. Maybe Canon will also offer a black
version soon. They finally woke up and did offer a black Digital Rebel
but it was hard to find. I guess they think that black is only popular
in the more expensive models (the Powershot Pro 1) used by serious
amateurs and pros who also want a PS.

David J Taylor wrote:

>ASAAR wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 08:07:21 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I am surprised that Canon are not offering the camera in black and
>>>silver - a black camera can be less visible and allow more candid
>>>shots. I used to think AA batteries were an advantage, until I found
>>>how easy changing single-cell Li-ion batteries was compared to the
>>>palaval of dealing with 8 AA cells rolling about all other the
>>>place. I really wouldn't want to go back now.
>>>
>>>
>> It's not as bad as you make it out to be for two reasons. First,
>>battery life has improved to the point that most people could shoot
>>all day without needing to change batteries. Using NiMH AAs I
>>should be able to get approx. 300 to 800 shots per charge, depending
>>on whether the bulk of the shots are taken indoors or outdoors. If
>>that's not enough to last all day, I'd suggest changing the
>>batteries after they've been in use for several hours, at your
>>convenience, such as lunch time. Not when you're in the middle of
>>taking pictures and the batteries finally give out. That's not a
>>smart technique whether you use 1 battery or 4. Unlike NiCads, NiMH
>>batteries don't mind if you stop using them before they've become
>>fully exhausted.
>>
>>
>
>Agreed you may be able to alleviate the problem by careful planning.
>
>
>
>> Second, it seems that you're making an inaccurate, unfair
>>comparison by referring to single-cell Li-ion batteries vs. 8 AAs.
>>Shouldn't that be 1 Li-ion vs 4 AAs, or 2 Li-ions batteries vs. 8
>>AAs? And you shouldn't ever have to deal with 8 AAs rolling around
>>at one time. I don't know of any camera that doesn't give you all
>>the time you need to remove 4 batteries, store them securely and
>>then take out and install the 4 fresh replacements. And as cameras
>>are getting more and more efficient, the trend is to go from four
>>AAs to just two. There are other reasons to prefer lithium
>>rechargeables. The very slight convenience advantage they give when
>>changing batteries is, for most people, far outweighed by some of
>>the advantages AAs can give, two being far lower price and universal
>>availability. Sony used to make a small AA adapter for some of
>>their better small cassette recorders that held 4 AA batteries.
>>This made it more convenient to replace batteries, and might be a
>>good idea for some of the digital cameras that aren't trying to be
>>designed as small and slim as possible. But it should be optional,
>>as some might find those adapters to be an inconvenience too.
>>
>>
>
>My experience has been that I tend to wait until the last minute before
>changing batteries, whether that be Li-ion or NiMH. Therefore you aren't
>at a convenient spot where you can sit down and change batteries. It's
>not a matter of the time to change, I accept that's enough, simply the act
>of having to deal with four cells at a time.
>
>I'm expressing a preference - having move to single package Li-ion
>batteries I wouldn't want to go back. It would be a significant influence
>on my camera choice. I am not expecting everyone to have the same
>preference. I do accept that there is a cost issue, and I would like to
>see a small range of industry-standard Li-ion cells used in common across
>many different manufacturer's cameras, rather than the plethora of
>proprietary cells we have today.
>
>Cheers,
>David
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 7:51:38 PM

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

ASAAR wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 08:20:34 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> I'm expressing a preference - having move to single package Li-ion
>> batteries I wouldn't want to go back. It would be a significant
>> influence on my camera choice. I am not expecting everyone to have
>> the same preference. I do accept that there is a cost issue, and I
>> would like to see a small range of industry-standard Li-ion cells
>> used in common across many different manufacturer's cameras, rather
>> than the plethora of proprietary cells we have today.
>
> That's a good idea, but it would also need standard chargers as
> well. It would be foolish to require the batteries be in the camera
> for them to be recharged, but that's what Sony has done with their
> minidisc machines and CD players. For standardization of lithium
> rechargeables on the low, small capacity end, Sony's "gumstick"
> batteries and the ones used in Game Boys (GBA) might work, and I've
> seen some sold for as little as $10. But low cost isn't as
> important as having them manufactured by many companies, available
> far into the future, and from many sources - pharmacies,
> supermarkets, etc. Not just in specialized photo stores.

Yes, something as widely available and accepted as AAs are today. Yes,
standard chargers, just like AAs have standard chargers. I really don't
see what the technical problems are with this, and wonder if it's just
marketing or profit greed which is preventing this from happening.
Something in the 7.2/7.4V 1000mAh is what I was envisaging.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 7:51:39 PM

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

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes:
> Yes, something as widely available and accepted as AAs are today. Yes,
> standard chargers, just like AAs have standard chargers. I really don't
> see what the technical problems are with this, and wonder if it's just
> marketing or profit greed which is preventing this from happening.

Bingo.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 7:52:55 PM

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

measekite wrote:
> The camera was just announced. Maybe Canon will also offer a black
> version soon. They finally woke up and did offer a black Digital
> Rebel but it was hard to find. I guess they think that black is only
> popular in the more expensive models (the Powershot Pro 1) used by
> serious amateurs and pros who also want a PS.

... and maybe they'll charge $550 dollars for black versus the $500 for
silver.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 8:54:33 PM

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

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:51:38 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

> Yes, something as widely available and accepted as AAs are today. Yes,
> standard chargers, just like AAs have standard chargers. I really don't
> see what the technical problems are with this, and wonder if it's just
> marketing or profit greed which is preventing this from happening.
> Something in the 7.2/7.4V 1000mAh is what I was envisaging.

The camera companies may say otherwise but I don't think they
really want to give up what amounts to a lot of extra profit for
each new camera sold. When the cameras can't use AAs, the owners
are pretty much going to buy their first extra battery from the
manufacturer of their camera. Some may even be a bit greedier, such
as Canon. Usually, cameras designed to use rechargeables include
one, plus a charger in the box. With their S10 and S20, Canon
provided a single throwaway 2CR5 lithium battery. At $10 each,
Canon could expect most customers would purchase at least one,
probably two batteries, plus their charger. Years later, additional
replacement batteries might be bought at a lower price, but at the
time the camera is purchased, this little battery scam of Canon's
(and others) probably added $50 to $150 to the overall cost. I
think they've been reluctant to give that extra profit up, and I
think that's why they don't pressure battery manufacturers to come
up with standard lithium rechargeables.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 8:56:11 PM

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

David J Taylor wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>
>
>>The camera was just announced. Maybe Canon will also offer a black
>>version soon. They finally woke up and did offer a black Digital
>>Rebel but it was hard to find. I guess they think that black is only
>>popular in the more expensive models (the Powershot Pro 1) used by
>>serious amateurs and pros who also want a PS.
>>
>>
>
>.. and maybe they'll charge $550 dollars for black versus the $500 for
>silver.
>
>Cheers,
>David
>
>
>
>

If that is the case they the S2 will have to produce a much better
result over the Pan FZ5 in order to get me to buy it.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 9:17:55 PM

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

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> writes:

>According to the release notes, it does NOT produce a full-resolution
>DV-image, which is 720 x 480, not 640 x 480.

You can't compare those numbers directly. The 720 pixels horizontal in
DV including the periods of transition from blanking to picture area and
from picture to blanking. The actual 4:3 active picture area is 704
pixels wide, only 10% more than the 640 pixels of a square-pixel image.
In theory, this could give a DV image 10% better horizontal resolution
than a 640x480 image, but in practice it may be no better at all.

In addition, DV compression stores only 1 chroma sample for every 4
luminance samples. Typical practice in JPEG still images is 2:1
downsampling, not 4:1. So the 640x480 pixel JPEG could easily have
double the colour resolution of the DV image.

To really know which is better quality, you'd have to make some
measurements. But it's not at all obvious that a 640x480 JPEG still is
going to be inferior to a 720 (really 704) x 480 DV image.

Dave
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 9:22:57 PM

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:

>Again...that's not what I was referring to.
>Rather...What this camera apparently does is allow you to snap a still image
>while in the MIDDLE of recording a video clip. The camera apparently
>switches over to still-image mode momentarily...shoots teh still image at
>the full 5MP res...and then continues recording video at 640x480...without
>stopping.

>This is a new and unique feature.

If the camera has a 5 MP CCD in it, and it is using the full area of the
CCD during video recording (not all video cameras do), then it is
capturing at 5 MP *all the time*, downsampling to 704x480 for video
output on the fly. All it has to do is keep one of the full-resolution
images and store it as a still frame. This *does* take some extra
memory and computational resources, but it should not interrupt the flow
of video at all.

One interesting question is whether the camera shoots in progressive
scan mode all the time (video is normally interlaced), or if it normally
shoots interlaced and switches to progressive for one frame, or if the
still frame that's output is interlaced.

Dave
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 9:22:58 PM

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

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:D 4gklh$apd$2@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
>
>>Again...that's not what I was referring to.
>>Rather...What this camera apparently does is allow you to snap a still
>>image
>>while in the MIDDLE of recording a video clip. The camera apparently
>>switches over to still-image mode momentarily...shoots teh still image at
>>the full 5MP res...and then continues recording video at 640x480...without
>>stopping.
>
>>This is a new and unique feature.
>
> If the camera has a 5 MP CCD in it, and it is using the full area of the
> CCD during video recording (not all video cameras do), then it is
> capturing at 5 MP *all the time*, downsampling to 704x480 for video
> output on the fly.

I don't think that's how it works.
The computing power it would take to actually downsample 5MP stills at 30,
or even 60 frames per second doesn't even exist in full, powerful desktop
computers...much less a little consumer digicam. There has to be a
different set-up for video capture where not all photosites are used (or
something like that), or the camera could NEVER process fast enough to save
anything.

>All it has to do is keep one of the full-resolution
> images and store it as a still frame. This *does* take some extra
> memory and computational resources, but it should not interrupt the flow
> of video at all.
>
> One interesting question is whether the camera shoots in progressive
> scan mode all the time (video is normally interlaced), or if it normally
> shoots interlaced and switches to progressive for one frame, or if the
> still frame that's output is interlaced.
>
> Dave
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 9:28:09 PM

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

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:


>More:
>"Simultaneous movies and stills:

>"A new Photo-in-Movie feature lets users capture a maximum resolution still
>image whilst shooting a movie by simply pressing the shutter release. Movie
>recording is temporarily interrupted whilst the still image is captured,
>continuing thereafter until the user chooses to stop. The video footage and
>still image are saved separately and the fragmented sequence can be stitched
>back together with a special edit menu option in the supplied ZoomBrowser EX
>5.2 / ImageBrowser 5.1 software."

Ah, so it *isn't* simultaneous still and movie capture after all. The
movie is interrupted. That's disappointing.

Some DV cameras can capture a still frame (but only at 640x480) while
shooting, without any interruption to the movie. In principle, a camera
with a multi-megapixel CCD should be able to capture a large image
without interrupting the movie, but it seems the S2 isn't able to.

Dave
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 9:36:30 PM

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

YAnewswatcher <umustbjoking@ihug.co.nz> writes:

>I was apprehensive when I switched from the S1 IS AAs to the FZ-20
>Li-Ion, but did some maths and realised that by the time I had bought
>the 4 sets of NiMH cells plus both a slow and fast charger (you will
>need both), the TCO of either systems were in the same ball-park.

Why do you need a slow charger at all? I have a couple of slow
chargers, some which came with equipment, and they simply gather dust.
I never charge with anything but a fast charger.

Also, you assume that the NiMH cells are only for your camera. But if
you have multiple devices that use AA cells, the cost of the fast
charger is spread over more devices and becomes cheaper. Cameras with
LiIon batteries typically requires a unique charger for each battery.
My NiMH cells are used in cameras, electronic flash, flashlights, GPS
receivers, and radios.

The last time I bought a camera that uses AA cells, I already had all
the NiMH cells and chargers I needed. There was no extra cost at all.

>I do appreciate the much better shelf life and performance I get out of
>the Li-ion cells and their smaller dimensions.

No argument here. But you *do* pay a cost for LiIon batteries.

Dave
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 9:59:24 PM

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

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:TsLae.24076$_t3.2029@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
> news:naFae.15735$44.6605@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>Nevertheless, 30[pregressive]fps is bound to be a bit jerky. NTSC standard
>>is 60 {interlaced]f/s
>
> He may not be an expert on digicam video,


And that's the whole point.



> but Rob Galbraith seems to think the S1's video is pretty smooth.
> http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7...
>
> Rob also notes that the S2 will be capable of short clips at 60 fps.
>
> Sounds like he looking forward to getting his hands on one to try out.
>
> shipping date ~ June 2005
> MSRP ~ $500
>
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 10:01:10 PM

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

"Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
news:D 4gkc3$apd$1@mughi.cs.ubc.ca...
> "PTRAVEL" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> writes:
>
>>According to the release notes, it does NOT produce a full-resolution
>>DV-image, which is 720 x 480, not 640 x 480.
>
> You can't compare those numbers directly. The 720 pixels horizontal in
> DV including the periods of transition from blanking to picture area and
> from picture to blanking.

That's not true. A single DV frame (NTSC) is 720 pixels by 480 pixels of
image area.


> The actual 4:3 active picture area is 704
> pixels wide, only 10% more than the 640 pixels of a square-pixel image.
> In theory, this could give a DV image 10% better horizontal resolution
> than a 640x480 image, but in practice it may be no better at all.
>
> In addition, DV compression stores only 1 chroma sample for every 4
> luminance samples.

Right.

> Typical practice in JPEG still images is 2:1
> downsampling, not 4:1. So the 640x480 pixel JPEG could easily have
> double the colour resolution of the DV image.

It doesn't matter -- it's not DV-quality.

>
> To really know which is better quality, you'd have to make some
> measurements. But it's not at all obvious that a 640x480 JPEG still is
> going to be inferior to a 720 (really 704) x 480 DV image.
>
> Dave
!