Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Disappointed in CASIO EX-Z57

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 10:02:22 PM

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

Dear Mr.Casio,

How could you?

THE [Your EX-757] greatest tiny camera in years, yet NO AV OUTPUT [so
it cannot be easily used to watch your shots on TV]

F A I L

Try again PLEASE

Thanks

Frances

More about : disappointed casio z57

Anonymous
May 9, 2005 1:47:49 AM

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

"kinga202NOSPAM@hotmail.com" <auscars@yahoo.com> writes:

> Dear Mr.Casio,
>
> How could you?
>
> THE [Your EX-757] greatest tiny camera in years, yet NO AV OUTPUT [so
> it cannot be easily used to watch your shots on TV]
>
> F A I L
>
> Try again PLEASE

Eh. You pays your money, and you takes your choice. Both of my
digital cameras have had TV output, but I've never used it in 5
years. I *tried* once, but we could never figure out a way to get the
cable off the hotel TV set. So I'd rather *not* have one more hole in
my camera, one more set of electronics, etc.
--
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
May 9, 2005 3:57:40 AM

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

ASAAR <caught@22.com> writes:

> On Sun, 08 May 2005 21:47:49 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> Eh. You pays your money, and you takes your choice. Both of my
>> digital cameras have had TV output, but I've never used it in 5
>> years. I *tried* once, but we could never figure out a way to get the
>> cable off the hotel TV set. So I'd rather *not* have one more hole in
>> my camera, one more set of electronics, etc.
>
> Cable?

Yes; the usual name for a piece of wire with multiple conductors and
connectors on the ends.

> None of the cameras I've seen provide an output that would
> work if it was somehow able to be connected to a cable input.

Nor was that what we were trying.
--
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;
Related resources
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 4:20:09 AM

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

On Sun, 08 May 2005 21:47:49 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Eh. You pays your money, and you takes your choice. Both of my
> digital cameras have had TV output, but I've never used it in 5
> years. I *tried* once, but we could never figure out a way to get the
> cable off the hotel TV set. So I'd rather *not* have one more hole in
> my camera, one more set of electronics, etc.

Cable? None of the cameras I've seen provide an output that would
work if it was somehow able to be connected to a cable input. Most
TVs have a one or more alternate inputs (TV1, TV2, etc.) but a hotel
chain could provide TVs with no alternate inputs I suppose. I can't
see why unless they want to discourage the use of portable DVD
players. All of the secondary inputs I've seen used the little RCA
type connectors. One for the video signal, and one or two for the
audio. Some older TVs only have cable (coax) inputs so a camera
that could output that kind of signal might be desirable for some
people.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 5:38:21 AM

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

On Sun, 08 May 2005 23:57:40 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Nor was that what we were trying.

How nice of you to provide so much clarification. Were you
offended by something I said or are you simply a twit?
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 6:39:57 AM

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

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> "kinga202NOSPAM@hotmail.com" <auscars@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>>Dear Mr.Casio,
>>
>>How could you?
>>
>>THE [Your EX-757] greatest tiny camera in years, yet NO AV OUTPUT [so
>>it cannot be easily used to watch your shots on TV]
>>
>>F A I L
>>
>>Try again PLEASE
>
>
> Eh. You pays your money, and you takes your choice. Both of my
> digital cameras have had TV output, but I've never used it in 5
> years. I *tried* once, but we could never figure out a way to get the
> cable off the hotel TV set. So I'd rather *not* have one more hole in
> my camera, one more set of electronics, etc.

My camera also has this feature, but the quality of the pictures on TV
is very disappointing. TV quality stinks! I have no idea where the
cable for my camera for connection to the TV is, and don't care.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 4:36:40 PM

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

On Mon, 09 May 2005 02:39:57 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

>> Eh. You pays your money, and you takes your choice. Both of my
>> digital cameras have had TV output, but I've never used it in 5
>> years. I *tried* once, but we could never figure out a way to get the
>> cable off the hotel TV set. So I'd rather *not* have one more hole in
>> my camera, one more set of electronics, etc.
>
> My camera also has this feature, but the quality of the pictures on TV
> is very disappointing. TV quality stinks! I have no idea where the
> cable for my camera for connection to the TV is, and don't care.

Then one can only assume that there's something wrong with your TV
or with your camera. For family gatherings at times such as the 4th
of July, the pictures displayed on the large Sony screen were very
sharp and clear, with good color. This has been true for every
camera that I've hooked up to the TV, going back several years,
including the little 2mp Canon PowerShot. Viewing the pictures on
the TV is far better than viewing it on the camera's display, and
everyone can see them at the same time, instead of having to pass
the camera around from hand to hand.

If you say that the pictures up on the TV screen aren't as sharp
as a good 8"x10" glossy you'd be right, but even you don't print
most of the pictures you take. Sometimes using the video output is
exactly what's needed. It isn't intended for anything but casual
viewing, and is especially useful when a TV is more conveniently
located (usually in a living room) than a computer. The only
comments I've ever heard about the picture quality has been how good
it was. Never anything like what you seem to be getting by your
"TV quality stinks!" comment. Are you sure that the results you've
gotten on your TV's screen isn't being compromised by some
unmentioned factor? I assume it has a true video output and not an
RF output? I've never heard of a camera that used RF, but that
could certainly lead one to say "TV quality stinks!".
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 5:18:24 PM

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

On 8 May 2005 18:02:22 -0700, "kinga202NOSPAM@hotmail.com"
<auscars@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Dear Mr.Casio,
>
>How could you?
>
>THE [Your EX-757] greatest tiny camera in years, yet NO AV OUTPUT [so
>it cannot be easily used to watch your shots on TV]
>
>F A I L
>
>Try again PLEASE

That's how they make the camera so small - sacrifices have to be made.
If you want more features, buy a larger camera!


andyt
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 9:22:07 PM

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

Maybe its because you, [Nth.America] have inferior NTSC TV-Picture
quality, instead of the vastly superior PAL system?

Regards
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 12:05:46 AM

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

ASAAR <caught@22.com> writes:

> On Sun, 08 May 2005 23:57:40 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> Nor was that what we were trying.
>
> How nice of you to provide so much clarification. Were you
> offended by something I said or are you simply a twit?

Sorry, was it unclear? I felt that repeating what we *were* trying
would be beating a dead horse, hence discourteous, so I didn't.

We were trying to do a perfectly normal hookup of the camera to a
hotel room TV to display the pictures taken on the TV. I used the
word "cable" to refer to the cable that Epson provides to connect the
camera to a TV, which sidetracked us briefly into "cable TV", which
wasn't what we were doing at all.
--
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
May 10, 2005 3:21:18 AM

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

On Mon, 09 May 2005 20:05:46 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Sorry, was it unclear? I felt that repeating what we *were* trying
> would be beating a dead horse, hence discourteous, so I didn't.
>
> We were trying to do a perfectly normal hookup of the camera to a
> hotel room TV to display the pictures taken on the TV. I used the
> word "cable" to refer to the cable that Epson provides to connect the
> camera to a TV, which sidetracked us briefly into "cable TV", which
> wasn't what we were doing at all.

Yes, it was unclear. Most TVs connected to cable boxes (except
for newer digital boxes) use coaxial connectors, and I've never seen
cameras use that type of output. While all wires can technically be
called "cables", if the type isn't specified, it's most often
assumed to the coax. type with the center conductor, surrounded by
relatively thick insulation, which in turn is surrounded by the
outside conductor, or shield. All of the TV's I've seen that were
connected to cameras did so using the RCA type non-coax connectors,
and there are usually two sets of these. One on the back of the TV
(near the coax input) and one on the front, that allows for easy
access when used for non-permanent connections, such as cameras,
video games, portable DVD players, etc. Unless the hotel TV was
specially designed to frustrate customers by having only a single
input (entirely possible, but I've never seen that except for
ancient TVs) it should have had not only another available input,
but that secondary input would be the type that is compatible with
digital cameras. I was primarily wondering if the hotel blocked
access to the other inputs, of the TV had no others, forcing you to
try to remove the cable from what I assumed to be (perhaps
erroneously) a coax input.

Your two terse responses, I repeat, clarified nothing. In fact,
the second one seemed to make little sense. You previously said
that "we could never figure out a way to get the cable off the hotel
TV set". Note the use of the word "cable". In the last terse reply
you seemed to be saying that you weren't trying to connect the
camera to the TV's cable input. That would be literally true if as
you say, you were unable to successfully remove the cable from the
TV, so naturally it would be impossible to attach the camera to that
TV input. The input that I thought you wanted to use. If you think
that your reply was reasonable, so be it, and perhaps we should not
continue this. I wouldn't have replied that way however, unless I
was trying to be intentionally rude.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 3:29:53 AM

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

On 9 May 2005 17:22:07 -0700, kinga202NOSPAM@hotmail.com wrote:

> Maybe its because you, [Nth.America] have inferior NTSC TV-Picture
> quality, instead of the vastly superior PAL system?

No. And the proper adjective is "slightly", not "vastly". PAL
doesn't make that big a difference. Terrible quality is more likely
to have been caused by a low quality, high capacitance cable, using
one designed more for audio than a high frequency video signal. Or
it could be have been due to TV that would have displayed a poor
picture even if connected to a DVD player. I don't even want to
consider that an RF converter might have been used. :) 
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 3:52:29 AM

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

ASAAR <caught@22.com> writes:

> On Mon, 09 May 2005 20:05:46 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> Sorry, was it unclear? I felt that repeating what we *were* trying
>> would be beating a dead horse, hence discourteous, so I didn't.
>>
>> We were trying to do a perfectly normal hookup of the camera to a
>> hotel room TV to display the pictures taken on the TV. I used the
>> word "cable" to refer to the cable that Epson provides to connect the
>> camera to a TV, which sidetracked us briefly into "cable TV", which
>> wasn't what we were doing at all.
>
> Yes, it was unclear. Most TVs connected to cable boxes (except
> for newer digital boxes) use coaxial connectors, and I've never seen
> cameras use that type of output.

The set-top box appeared to communicate to the TV (monitor really, I
think) via an RCA cable; though since it was non-removable I can't be
completely sure what the connector actually was.

> While all wires can technically be called "cables", if the type
> isn't specified, it's most often assumed to the coax. type with the
> center conductor, surrounded by relatively thick insulation, which
> in turn is surrounded by the outside conductor, or shield.

Well, perhaps if your primary experience of wires is from video. My
primary experience of wires is from computers, and we routinely call
them all "cables" -- parallel cable, serial cable, SCSI cable, USB
cable, Firewire cable, even power cable sometimes (though power cord
is more common). Ethernet cable *used to* mean coax, but these days
it doesn't.

> All of the TV's I've seen that were connected to cameras did so
> using the RCA type non-coax connectors, and there are usually two
> sets of these. One on the back of the TV (near the coax input) and
> one on the front, that allows for easy access when used for
> non-permanent connections, such as cameras, video games, portable
> DVD players, etc. Unless the hotel TV was specially designed to
> frustrate customers by having only a single input (entirely
> possible, but I've never seen that except for ancient TVs) it should
> have had not only another available input, but that secondary input
> would be the type that is compatible with digital cameras. I was
> primarily wondering if the hotel blocked access to the other inputs,
> of the TV had no others, forcing you to try to remove the cable from
> what I assumed to be (perhaps erroneously) a coax input.

The TV had no accessible ports. The one cable going in looked like it
*might* be an RCA, but it was non-removeable with the amount of force
we were willing to use.

> Your two terse responses, I repeat, clarified nothing. In fact, the
> second one seemed to make little sense. You previously said that
> "we could never figure out a way to get the cable off the hotel TV
> set". Note the use of the word "cable". In the last terse reply
> you seemed to be saying that you weren't trying to connect the
> camera to the TV's cable input. That would be literally true if as
> you say, you were unable to successfully remove the cable from the
> TV, so naturally it would be impossible to attach the camera to that
> TV input. The input that I thought you wanted to use. If you think
> that your reply was reasonable, so be it, and perhaps we should not
> continue this. I wouldn't have replied that way however, unless I
> was trying to be intentionally rude.

To me it was a simple description of a simple process. One that
didn't work, but simple.
--
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
May 10, 2005 9:39:54 AM

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

On Mon, 09 May 2005 23:52:29 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Well, perhaps if your primary experience of wires is from video. My
> primary experience of wires is from computers, and we routinely call
> them all "cables" -- parallel cable, serial cable, SCSI cable, USB
> cable, Firewire cable, even power cable sometimes (though power cord
> is more common). Ethernet cable *used to* mean coax, but these days
> it doesn't.

My first experience with Ethernet wasn't with the cable most
people think of today. It was mainly with Proteon hardware. I
don't recall the exact number of wires, but the connectors resembled
a joystick connector. Lots of wires, packed in a relatively thick
cable. Also used was "Thick" ethernet. uses to connect two distant
servers. The cable was far thicker than the "thin" ethernet that
most people are familiar with and very hard to bend. Something like
a very stiff, narrow diameter garden hose. The Proteon equipment
wasn't a collision based system like ethernet, but was based on the
token ring concept instead.


>> I wouldn't have replied that way however, unless I
>> was trying to be intentionally rude.

> To me it was a simple description of a simple process.
> One that didn't work, but simple.

I can accept that that was your intention, but based only on what
was typed and not the thinking that couldn't be seen, alternate
interpretations seemed more likely. A too common occurrence on the
internet. Thanks for taking the time to show that I was mistaken.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 4:05:58 PM

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

ASAAR <caught@22.com> writes:

> On Mon, 09 May 2005 23:52:29 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> Well, perhaps if your primary experience of wires is from video. My
>> primary experience of wires is from computers, and we routinely call
>> them all "cables" -- parallel cable, serial cable, SCSI cable, USB
>> cable, Firewire cable, even power cable sometimes (though power cord
>> is more common). Ethernet cable *used to* mean coax, but these days
>> it doesn't.
>
> My first experience with Ethernet wasn't with the cable most
> people think of today. It was mainly with Proteon hardware. I
> don't recall the exact number of wires, but the connectors resembled
> a joystick connector. Lots of wires, packed in a relatively thick
> cable. Also used was "Thick" ethernet. uses to connect two distant
> servers. The cable was far thicker than the "thin" ethernet that
> most people are familiar with and very hard to bend. Something like
> a very stiff, narrow diameter garden hose. The Proteon equipment
> wasn't a collision based system like ethernet, but was based on the
> token ring concept instead.

The process of "tapping" the original thick ethernet involved
*drilling a hole* in the cable and then installing the tap. Then
there was a "drop" cable from there to the computer, which is probably
where the "joystick connector" was (it's a 15-pin "D" connector).
There were specifications for how close together taps were allowed to
be. I've seen garden hoses almost that thin, that's not a bad
comparison at all.

>>> I wouldn't have replied that way however, unless I
>>> was trying to be intentionally rude.
>
>> To me it was a simple description of a simple process.
>> One that didn't work, but simple.
>
> I can accept that that was your intention, but based only on what
> was typed and not the thinking that couldn't be seen, alternate
> interpretations seemed more likely. A too common occurrence on the
> internet. Thanks for taking the time to show that I was mistaken.

You're welcome.
--
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
May 10, 2005 8:43:06 PM

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

On Tue, 10 May 2005 12:05:58 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> The process of "tapping" the original thick ethernet involved
> *drilling a hole* in the cable and then installing the tap. Then
> there was a "drop" cable from there to the computer, which is probably
> where the "joystick connector" was (it's a 15-pin "D" connector).
> There were specifications for how close together taps were allowed to
> be. I've seen garden hoses almost that thin, that's not a bad
> comparison at all.

We only had one or two of those taps, and if I recall correctly
they were sometimes called vampire taps. The spec's controlling the
tap spacing isn't surprising either. I made many thin ethernet
cables for connecting PCs from one to another, as well as to the
server, and they also had a minimum required spacing distance which
had to be honored, even if two of the PC's ethernet cards were
spaced less than a foot apart.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 9:17:33 PM

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

ASAAR <caught@22.com> writes:

> On Tue, 10 May 2005 12:05:58 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> The process of "tapping" the original thick ethernet involved
>> *drilling a hole* in the cable and then installing the tap. Then
>> there was a "drop" cable from there to the computer, which is probably
>> where the "joystick connector" was (it's a 15-pin "D" connector).
>> There were specifications for how close together taps were allowed to
>> be. I've seen garden hoses almost that thin, that's not a bad
>> comparison at all.
>
> We only had one or two of those taps, and if I recall correctly
> they were sometimes called vampire taps.

Yes, that jogs my memory back into working!

> The spec's controlling the tap spacing isn't surprising either. I
> made many thin ethernet cables for connecting PCs from one to
> another, as well as to the server, and they also had a minimum
> required spacing distance which had to be honored, even if two of
> the PC's ethernet cards were spaced less than a foot apart.

Yep, same issue of minimum spacing; it relates to timing in the
protocol. I think it's the other side of the reason there's a
*minimum* packet size (as well as a maximum).
--
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;
!