Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Help with selection of Digital Camera

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 1:03:10 AM

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

I currently have a Sony DSC-V1 point & shoot digital camera. I am
having a couple of problems. One: a lot of pictures are blurry. Two:
the bright areas of the picture are over-exposed and the color is
washed out. My thinking is I need a better camera. I studied the
Nikon Coolpix 8800 but read some bad reviews about it. Then I though
maybe I would like the Nikon D70 but read DSLR's are subject to dust
contamination. Can anyone recommend a digital camera that is capable
of high resolution pictures and good color like 35mm slides?
June 7, 2005 4:26:48 AM

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

I've had a Canon Digital Rebel with the stock lens and liked it a lot. I
sold that for a Nikon D70 and love that. I take pictures where ever I go and
I'm slowly learning more and more about how to take a "good" picture. I
don't have any dust problems since I usually keep the same lens on all the
time.

"Mr Joe T" <mrjoet119@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1118116990.473212.84900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I currently have a Sony DSC-V1 point & shoot digital camera. I am
> having a couple of problems. One: a lot of pictures are blurry. Two:
> the bright areas of the picture are over-exposed and the color is
> washed out. My thinking is I need a better camera. I studied the
> Nikon Coolpix 8800 but read some bad reviews about it. Then I though
> maybe I would like the Nikon D70 but read DSLR's are subject to dust
> contamination. Can anyone recommend a digital camera that is capable
> of high resolution pictures and good color like 35mm slides?
>
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 4:26:49 AM

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

"Michael" <cdripper.net> writes:
> I've had a Canon Digital Rebel with the stock lens and liked it a
> lot. I sold that for a Nikon D70 and love that.

Why did you switch from the Rebel to the D70?
Related resources
June 7, 2005 6:49:23 AM

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

Mr Joe T wrote:

> I currently have a Sony DSC-V1 point & shoot digital camera. I am
> having a couple of problems. One: a lot of pictures are blurry. Two:
> the bright areas of the picture are over-exposed and the color is
> washed out. My thinking is I need a better camera. I studied the
> Nikon Coolpix 8800 but read some bad reviews about it.

I'm sure it probably also got some good ones elsewhere? It depends on what
you compare these to as to how they come out in a review. Non-SLR camera's
ussually have more shutter lag and some non-dSLR's also have slow focusing,
especially in low light.


> Then I though
> maybe I would like the Nikon D70 but read DSLR's are subject to dust
> contamination.

All dSLR's except the olympus models have this dust problem.


> Can anyone recommend a digital camera that is capable
> of high resolution pictures and good color like 35mm slides?

What size prints are you wanting to make? What types of things do you
photograph the most? These are the kinds of queations that must be answered
first, there is no "best" camera for everyone.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 7:45:53 AM

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

Something like the Canon 10D or whatever the latest equivalent model is.

--
Post your pictures and discuss photography here:

http://www.rickbakerimages.com


"Mr Joe T" <mrjoet119@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1118116990.473212.84900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I currently have a Sony DSC-V1 point & shoot digital camera. I am
> having a couple of problems. One: a lot of pictures are blurry. Two:
> the bright areas of the picture are over-exposed and the color is
> washed out. My thinking is I need a better camera. I studied the
> Nikon Coolpix 8800 but read some bad reviews about it. Then I though
> maybe I would like the Nikon D70 but read DSLR's are subject to dust
> contamination. Can anyone recommend a digital camera that is capable
> of high resolution pictures and good color like 35mm slides?
>
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 9:24:45 AM

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

'My thinking is I need a better camera'

Exactly the same question for me...
I'm hesitating between the Canon 350D and the Canon Power Shot S2 IS.
Ok, one is CMOS 8MP and is DSL whereas the other one is 5MP and bridge.
However, it is not that easy to know what is the most appropriate to
what I need...
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 9:59:52 AM

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

Vince_Ecosse wrote:

> 'My thinking is I need a better camera'
>
> Exactly the same question for me...
> I'm hesitating between the Canon 350D and the Canon Power Shot S2 IS.
> Ok, one is CMOS 8MP and is DSL whereas the other one is 5MP and bridge.
> However, it is not that easy to know what is the most appropriate to
> what I need...


A DSLR will take better pics & perform faster/better but they:

1 Are bigger so less convenient/subtle/portable.

2 Need multiple lenses to match zoom range.

3 Lack live preview on the LCD which I miss.

4 Although technically capable of shooting in auto, they will push you
to learn more manual settings, making life more complicated.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 11:22:50 AM

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

"Mr Joe T" <mrjoet119@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1118116990.473212.84900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I currently have a Sony DSC-V1 point & shoot digital camera. I am
> having a couple of problems. One: a lot of pictures are blurry. Two:
> the bright areas of the picture are over-exposed and the color is
> washed out. My thinking is I need a better camera. I studied the
> Nikon Coolpix 8800 but read some bad reviews about it. Then I though
> maybe I would like the Nikon D70 but read DSLR's are subject to dust
> contamination. Can anyone recommend a digital camera that is capable
> of high resolution pictures and good color like 35mm slides?
>

I have a Sony V1 and a Pentax Ds, photos from both are excellent and
extremely sharp, mind you I do take my share of duds. Are you using the
viewfinder or the review screen to take your shots? Remember the screen is
for changing settings and reviewing the shots you have taken, do not use it
for taking shots.
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 11:22:51 AM

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

Pete D wrote:
> "Mr Joe T" <mrjoet119@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:1118116990.473212.84900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I currently have a Sony DSC-V1 point & shoot digital camera. I am
>>having a couple of problems. One: a lot of pictures are blurry. Two:
>>the bright areas of the picture are over-exposed and the color is
>>washed out. My thinking is I need a better camera. I studied the
>>Nikon Coolpix 8800 but read some bad reviews about it. Then I though
>>maybe I would like the Nikon D70 but read DSLR's are subject to dust
>>contamination. Can anyone recommend a digital camera that is capable
>>of high resolution pictures and good color like 35mm slides?
>>
>
>
> I have a Sony V1 and a Pentax Ds, photos from both are excellent and
> extremely sharp, mind you I do take my share of duds. Are you using the
> viewfinder or the review screen to take your shots? Remember the screen is
> for changing settings and reviewing the shots you have taken, do not use it
> for taking shots.
>
>
If we could convince the users of digital P&S cameras of that fact, we
could eliminate half (or more) of the complaints of bad pictures. Sigh.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 11:25:35 AM

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

Have a look here for what the V1 can do,
http://www.sonycams.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=271...


"Mr Joe T" <mrjoet119@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1118116990.473212.84900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I currently have a Sony DSC-V1 point & shoot digital camera. I am
> having a couple of problems. One: a lot of pictures are blurry. Two:
> the bright areas of the picture are over-exposed and the color is
> washed out. My thinking is I need a better camera. I studied the
> Nikon Coolpix 8800 but read some bad reviews about it. Then I though
> maybe I would like the Nikon D70 but read DSLR's are subject to dust
> contamination. Can anyone recommend a digital camera that is capable
> of high resolution pictures and good color like 35mm slides?
>
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 4:21:20 PM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:6Zfpe.6786$rt3.5516@fe03.lga...
> Pete D wrote:
>> "Mr Joe T" <mrjoet119@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1118116990.473212.84900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>I currently have a Sony DSC-V1 point & shoot digital camera. I am
>>>having a couple of problems. One: a lot of pictures are blurry. Two:
>>>the bright areas of the picture are over-exposed and the color is
>>>washed out. My thinking is I need a better camera. I studied the
>>>Nikon Coolpix 8800 but read some bad reviews about it. Then I though
>>>maybe I would like the Nikon D70 but read DSLR's are subject to dust
>>>contamination. Can anyone recommend a digital camera that is capable
>>>of high resolution pictures and good color like 35mm slides?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have a Sony V1 and a Pentax Ds, photos from both are excellent and
>> extremely sharp, mind you I do take my share of duds. Are you using the
>> viewfinder or the review screen to take your shots? Remember the screen
>> is for changing settings and reviewing the shots you have taken, do not
>> use it for taking shots.
> If we could convince the users of digital P&S cameras of that fact, we
> could eliminate half (or more) of the complaints of bad pictures. Sigh.
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

I try, I really do. ;-)
Anonymous
June 7, 2005 9:29:23 PM

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

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 05:59:52 -0700, Paul Furman wrote:

> Vince_Ecosse wrote:
>
>> 'My thinking is I need a better camera'
>>
>> Exactly the same question for me...
>> I'm hesitating between the Canon 350D and the Canon Power Shot S2 IS.
>> Ok, one is CMOS 8MP and is DSL whereas the other one is 5MP and bridge.
>> However, it is not that easy to know what is the most appropriate to
>> what I need...
>
>
> A DSLR will take better pics & perform faster/better but they:
>
> 1 Are bigger so less convenient/subtle/portable.
>
> 2 Need multiple lenses to match zoom range.
>
> 3 Lack live preview on the LCD which I miss.
>
> 4 Although technically capable of shooting in auto, they will push you
> to learn more manual settings, making life more complicated.
You will also obtain much more satisfying results because of your efforts.

--
neil
delete delete to reply
June 7, 2005 9:57:03 PM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:6Zfpe.6786$rt3.5516@fe03.lga...
> Pete D wrote:
> > "Mr Joe T" <mrjoet119@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:1118116990.473212.84900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>I currently have a Sony DSC-V1 point & shoot digital camera. I am
> >>having a couple of problems. One: a lot of pictures are blurry. Two:
> >>the bright areas of the picture are over-exposed and the color is
> >>washed out. My thinking is I need a better camera. I studied the
> >>Nikon Coolpix 8800 but read some bad reviews about it. Then I though
> >>maybe I would like the Nikon D70 but read DSLR's are subject to dust
> >>contamination. Can anyone recommend a digital camera that is capable
> >>of high resolution pictures and good color like 35mm slides?
> >>
> >
> >
> > I have a Sony V1 and a Pentax Ds, photos from both are excellent and
> > extremely sharp, mind you I do take my share of duds. Are you using the
> > viewfinder or the review screen to take your shots? Remember the screen
is
> > for changing settings and reviewing the shots you have taken, do not use
it
> > for taking shots.
> >
> >
> If we could convince the users of digital P&S cameras of that fact, we
> could eliminate half (or more) of the complaints of bad pictures. Sigh.
>
>
>
That won't be possible with some of the newer P&S cameras as they have no
viewfinder but they do have a larger LCD screen.
June 8, 2005 5:19:16 AM

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

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 06:57:54 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:


>If we could convince the users of digital P&S cameras of that fact, we
>could eliminate half (or more) of the complaints of bad pictures. Sigh.


Thats a good thing to hear........I read and read review after review
specs tips and hints and anything I could get my hands
on.....including word for word the entire manual........and never once
had I heard that until right now.....just guessing I would say maybe
it frames the picture more accurately is there other reasons to use
the viewfinder......??.....it feels more awkward using the screen but
thats not a good reason in my opinion although you do want to be
comfortable but I figured that would come with time.......for my
sports filming of my boys in track and football I found it easier to
spot the subject quickly using the screen on the camcorder vs the
viewfinder........but then again being blessed with two boys who were
good in sports I have filmed miles of camcorder footage and not so
much still camera.....

Brad

LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A
WELL-PRESERVED BODY, BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT,
SHOUTING... " HOLY @#$%... WHAT A RIDE!"
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 8:01:46 PM

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

Brad <bjdbradnospam@gmail.com> writes:

>>If we could convince the users of digital P&S cameras of that fact, we
>>could eliminate half (or more) of the complaints of bad pictures. Sigh.

>Thats a good thing to hear........I read and read review after review
>specs tips and hints and anything I could get my hands
>on.....including word for word the entire manual........and never once
>had I heard that until right now.....just guessing I would say maybe
>it frames the picture more accurately is there other reasons to use
>the viewfinder......??

The LCD frames the picture more accurately. But holding the camera up
to your face is a steadier way to hold the camera, with less likelihood
of camera shake, than holding it out in front of you so you can see the
LCD in focus.

You may not find this in reviews or the camera manual, but just find any
book about photography from the film camera days and it will likely talk
about how to hold the camera. 90% of the advice in those books applies
just as much to digital cameras as it does to film cameras.

Another hint: Could you try to write using actual sentences? And organize
your ideas into paragraphs? It would make it easier to read what you're
trying to say, and thus easier to help you.

Dave
June 9, 2005 9:19:52 AM

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

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:01:46 +0000 (UTC), davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave
Martindale) wrote:


>
>Another hint: Could you try to write using actual sentences? And organize
>your ideas into paragraphs? It would make it easier to read what you're
>trying to say, and thus easier to help you.
>
> Dave


I will try Dave, but I have written so much using the dots for some
reason that its the way I type. So if I stray from proper structure
its not because I am not taking your advice. I have backspaced twice
already with this little paragraph. I try not to worry about spelling,
grammar or anything else when I am here because mostly I come here to
relax and read, having said that if it effects your enjoyment to read
my posts then I will give it a try.

Brad

LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A
WELL-PRESERVED BODY, BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT,
SHOUTING... " HOLY @#$%... WHAT A RIDE!"
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 9:19:53 AM

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 05:19:52 GMT, Brad wrote:

> I will try Dave, but I have written so much using the dots for some
> reason that its the way I type. So if I stray from proper structure
> its not because I am not taking your advice. I have backspaced twice
> already with this little paragraph. I try not to worry about spelling,
> grammar or anything else when I am here because mostly I come here to
> relax and read, having said that if it effects your enjoyment to read
> my posts then I will give it a try.

Try real hard. You wouldn't want to end up like e. e. cummings or
Don Marquis now would you? :) 
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 9:19:54 AM

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 02:23:42 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

> Try real hard.

Why? You signing his paycheck?
--
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.
Politically Incorrect and proud of it.
My Mail Server is Protected by ChoiceMail.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 10:48:01 AM

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 01:41:02 -0700, Old Salt card carrying
Curmudgeon wrote:

>> Try real hard.
>
> Why? You signing his paycheck?

Nope. You're either an overprotective nanny or the curmudgeon you
claim to be. Did you notice a loud "whooshing" sound as something
rapidly flew over your head? At the very least you seem to have
missed the trailing ":) " or didn't understand why it was there.
FWIW, I wasn't being critical. You have to be at least slightly
familiar with either of the two authors mentioned in my followup to
understand. I suggest spending some time with the late Don Marquis'
slim volume "Archy and Mehitabel" as the starting point for a most
enjoyable journey. It might have the nasty side effect of reducing
your standing with other curmudgeons though.
Anonymous
June 9, 2005 7:29:17 PM

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 06:48:01 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>the curmudgeon you
>claim to be.

I am, and I also should have lurk more to get to know the
personals behind the handles.
--
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.
Politically Incorrect and proud of it.
My Mail Server is Protected by ChoiceMail.
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 2:16:35 AM

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

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 11:57:54 GMT, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote
in news:6Zfpe.6786$rt3.5516@fe03.lga:

>> Remember the screen is
>> for changing settings and reviewing the shots you have taken, do not
>> use it for taking shots.
>>
>>
> If we could convince the users of digital P&S cameras of that fact, we
> could eliminate half (or more) of the complaints of bad pictures.
> Sigh.
>

It's only fact for digicams with stamp-size LCD, not for mine with 2.5" one.
In fact, I like using the LCD for shooting so much that I really hesitate
when having to use an SLR camera. I even frequently shoot with just one hand
at speed around 1/30s and usually have very much acceptable sharpness. Of
course, my elbows are braced against my body and I put my mind into it. I
know not everybody can do it well, but using the LCD for taking picture is
very much a joy. Especially when shooting macro pictures I can still keep my
back straight up, unlike those guys with SLR/DSLR cameras being there with
me, having to bend their back down is such a paint! (Not to mention the
optical viewfinder on all digicams is really useless for macro).
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 3:15:18 AM

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

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 04:03:10 GMT, "Mr Joe T" <mrjoet119@comcast.net> wrote
in news:1118116990.473212.84900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> I currently have a Sony DSC-V1 point & shoot digital camera. I am
> having a couple of problems. One: a lot of pictures are blurry. Two:
> the bright areas of the picture are over-exposed and the color is
> washed out. My thinking is I need a better camera. I studied the
> Nikon Coolpix 8800 but read some bad reviews about it. Then I though
> maybe I would like the Nikon D70 but read DSLR's are subject to dust
> contamination. Can anyone recommend a digital camera that is capable
> of high resolution pictures and good color like 35mm slides?
>

Aside from the small LCD, the V1 is still among the best digicams out there
with very fast focusing/shutter response, short shot to shot cyle time,
sharp, high resolution and low noise images, very saturated colour and a
long list of very useful and necessary features - in short, a very highly
capable camera.

I think your two problems actually are user's problems, not the camera's.
What have you tried to rectify it? Do you know what the nature of the
problems is? If you don't or are in doubt, you can post sample pictures and
people should be able to help you. If you can't overcome those problems with
a very capable digicam, I don't think a DSLR will help you at all.
June 10, 2005 1:10:14 PM

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

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 02:23:42 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 05:19:52 GMT, Brad wrote:
>
>> I will try Dave, but I have written so much using the dots for some
>> reason that its the way I type. So if I stray from proper structure
>> its not because I am not taking your advice. I have backspaced twice
>> already with this little paragraph. I try not to worry about spelling,
>> grammar or anything else when I am here because mostly I come here to
>> relax and read, having said that if it effects your enjoyment to read
>> my posts then I will give it a try.
>
> Try real hard. You wouldn't want to end up like e. e. cummings or
>Don Marquis now would you? :) 


Of course not, and if I knew who those people were I may want to be
less like them even more.....

Brad

LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A
WELL-PRESERVED BODY, BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT,
SHOUTING... " HOLY @#$%... WHAT A RIDE!"
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 1:10:15 PM

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

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:10:14 GMT, Brad wrote:

>> You wouldn't want to end up like e. e. cummings or
>> Don Marquis now would you? :) 
>
> Of course not, and if I knew who those people were I may want to be
> less like them even more.....

That's could be, although the opposite would also be possible.
Being ignorant of who they were isn't too surprising, as they're
both long dead. But cummings was a relatively famous author in his
day. But saying that you may want to be unlike two respected people
from an earlier era only makes you sound childish, but one who
possesses an almost uniquely American trait. Not just ignorant, but
proud of it!
June 10, 2005 5:55:43 PM

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

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 07:00:37 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:10:14 GMT, Brad wrote:
>
>>> You wouldn't want to end up like e. e. cummings or
>>> Don Marquis now would you? :) 
>>
>> Of course not, and if I knew who those people were I may want to be
>> less like them even more.....
>
> That's could be, although the opposite would also be possible.
>Being ignorant of who they were isn't too surprising, as they're
>both long dead. But cummings was a relatively famous author in his
>day. But saying that you may want to be unlike two respected people
>from an earlier era only makes you sound childish, but one who
>possesses an almost uniquely American trait. Not just ignorant, but
>proud of it!


Uh huh.......I guess you would know a childish post when you read one
because you were quick to start name calling like a child.......and
for you.......if you don't like the way I write my posts......I have
an idea for you.....don't read them......you are gettin near the small
group of people that I would like to "bitch slap" if I ever met
you.....I find people who hide behind the anonymity of the internet
and call people names are pathetic cowards to begin with.....

Your friend.....

Brad

LIFE'S JOURNEY IS NOT TO ARRIVE AT THE GRAVE SAFELY IN A
WELL-PRESERVED BODY, BUT RATHER TO SKID IN SIDEWAYS, TOTALLY WORN OUT,
SHOUTING... " HOLY @#$%... WHAT A RIDE!"
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 6:18:26 PM

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

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:55:43 GMT, my buddy Brad bitched:

> you are gettin near the small group of people that I would like
> to "bitch slap" if I ever met you.....
> . . .
> Your friend.....

As my good buddy Bob Dylan once remarked, "You got a lotta nerve,
to say you are my friend . . ."
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 11:42:07 PM

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

Dave,

Was it really necessary for you to comment on my writing? I asked a
polite question in a civil way.

For the rest of you. Great replies. Thanks very much.
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 11:46:33 PM

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

Hi Pete,

I do use the viewfinder most of the time. You comment is excellent.
Thank-you. I changed the AF setting from Single to Monitoring and got
much improved results. Now I will work on trying to eliminate the
color washout of bright flowers. A friend suggested I experiment with
white balance settings. Do you think that may work?
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 11:51:50 PM

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

Hi Stacey,

Good questions.

Regarding size of prints:

Normally I view my pictures on the computer screen. My wife would like
to make enlargements of a couple of my pictures that she likes,
probably 11x14.

Regarding what types of things do I photograph:

I take scenic pictures, pictures of flowers, pictures in the woods, and
snapshots of people. I am having the most trouble with close-up
pictures of flowers and shots in the woods with high contrast (light
and dark areas). Taking snapshots of people seems to be working well.
Anonymous
June 11, 2005 5:52:16 AM

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

On 10 Jun 2005 19:42:07 -0700, Mr Joe T wrote:

> Dave,
>
> Was it really necessary for you to comment on my writing? I asked a
> polite question in a civil way.
>
> For the rest of you. Great replies. Thanks very much.

Mr. Joe.......there may be a glitch with your
newsreader.......Dave's reply was to Brad.......whose writing style
uses multiple periods........not the typical way most people
seperate sentences and phrases......if you see what I mean......:) 
Anonymous
June 12, 2005 2:53:17 PM

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

Hi Dave,

Sorry for the mix-up. Thanks for the correction :) 
Anonymous
June 13, 2005 1:31:01 AM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:6Zfpe.6786$rt3.5516@fe03.lga...
> Pete D wrote:
>> "Mr Joe T" <mrjoet119@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1118116990.473212.84900@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> I have a Sony V1 and a Pentax Ds, photos from both are excellent and
>> extremely sharp, mind you I do take my share of duds. Are you using the
>> viewfinder or the review screen to take your shots? Remember the screen
>> is for changing settings and reviewing the shots you have taken, do not
>> use it for taking shots.
> If we could convince the users of digital P&S cameras of that fact, we
> could eliminate half (or more) of the complaints of bad pictures. Sigh.
>

While I have never felt the need to use the LCD on a DSLR (even if it was
possible), I NEVER use the viewfinder on a point 'n shoot. The viewfinders
are poor optically aside from the fact what you see is not what you get.

Mark
!