| 2:21 am on Aug 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Whew! Makes my Nikon 950 look like a toy.
| 2:56 am on Aug 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
::sigh:: now if they'd just combine that resolution with the mini-CDR storage of the CD Mavica, I'd really be drooling.
(But is it a true SLR, like the 4 megapixel Olympus? I get so tired of having to compensate for viewfinder offset...)
| 3:49 am on Aug 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
The choice of some digital still camera really depends on the end media you intend to publish on.
I take shots of stained glass panels in churches off a 60 feet high tripod, taking shots one panel at a time and puting them back together with PhotoShop. I started with a Nikon 950 to try it. Since I was sucessfull at it I got a Hasselblad with a 6 megapixel digital back.
Now, with this Sony product, I have the Hasselblad for sale, anyone interested in this sub standard and over priced product?
| 4:03 am on Aug 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>>>>60 feet high tripod
Let me guess. You make the dog in your profile climb up the pole to push the button...hence the he seeks a little r&r after the job, eh?
| 4:41 am on Aug 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>>Let me guess
The gizmo is fully radio remote controlled. I can see and control everything from the ground. Hand made the "hand" and "eye" myself. 60 feet tripod made in Canada [luksa.com], many copies sold to Hollywood, eh!
The dog is no good choice, cats can climb much better.
| 5:35 am on Aug 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
sub standard and over priced product?
"digital back" meaning you could also get a 35mm back for it, and have a converto-Hasselblad? How over priced is "over priced"?
| 11:40 am on Aug 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Five MP and it ships with a whopping 16 MB Memory Stick. Can you even squeeze one TIFF image on it? The camera itself sounds great, but shipping a Ferrari with a one liter gas tank doesn't make much sense.
| 12:09 pm on Aug 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>If it's half as well thought-out as the Mavica, it'll slay the market.
I wonder how many people are waiting for a fully-loaded digital camera to be combined with a mini-cdr or a microdrive? Personally, I have trouble buying a 16mb model when the 1gb microdrive is just ::waiting:: to be put in the right camera.
| 12:24 pm on Aug 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I don't know how much storage you can get on a memory stick, but I just ordered a 256 MB compact flash card (Kingston) to replace a 160 MB card. I like to shoot a lot of TIFF images on my 3.1 MP camera. After rebate, it will set me back $140. The price on that stuff is coming down. I don't see any reason to cheap out on storage on an already expensive camera.
| 1:03 pm on Aug 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>I wonder how many people are waiting for a fully-loaded digital camera to be combined with a mini-cdr or a microdrive?
Me, for one. I didn't pick up the Mavica until the FD7 came along, figuring that the first roll-out product would quickly be upgraded as they found out what they users really wanted. (Evidently, the FD7 is STILL a consumer hit though it's long been obsolete; still bringing $300 on ebay.)
| 1:22 pm on Aug 22, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>>How over priced is "over priced"?
We payed 24.000 USD for the Phase One back and acessories. Then we had to pay for the Hass. lenses and acessories. Even if we ad a special price with some education channel we payed 15.000$ for quite a basic 6 megapixel camera. Total is almost 40.000$. I recommended some Kodak pro digital line wich were a lot cheaper (8.000$) but some idiot at school drooled all over the papers when he read Hasselblad.
Now if the DSC-F707 has a FireWire interface and really gets five megapixels without interpolation. I am going to suggest the school director to sell the Hass. so we can buy 3 more units tripod included.
Sony could consider making some proline models. I also believe this baby will slay the market. They have a 128 meg memory stick going for 149$
| 5:54 pm on Aug 24, 2001 (gmt 0)|
a fully-loaded digital camera to be combined with a mini-cdr or a microdrive?
Sony does offer a 3+ megapixel mini-CDR model now, but unfortunately (IMO) it only offers a wimpy 3x zoom. I think they should have just bumped up the resolution on their 1st CDR camera, with the 10x zoom.
My dream digital would offer mini-CDR, long zoom or removable lenses (I've got some Minolta lenses already... are you listening Minolta? Capitalize on my brand loyalty here!), and 4+ MP resolution.
| 6:04 pm on Aug 24, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Agreed, 10x should be the minimum. This one is 5x.
Though I'm not into higher-end photography myself, I've heard several in that business comment that they can't wait for a digital cam to be introduced that would accept their name brand lenses.
| 6:14 pm on Aug 24, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Absolutely! I got my three lenses in a really excellent deal from a friend, but I know a good set of pro equipment can be a huge investment (of course, Macguru's Hasselblad is at the TOP end of that scale) to just be tossed aside when the digital is picked up, and for someone used to that level of control over their photography, even the Sony 10X zoom is going to feel resrictive.
I think Canon offers a "prosumer" EOS digital model that allows the use of their lenses, but I really think all the major film camera companies need to wake up and offer digital SLR "bodies" to their existing 35mm and medium format customers. I'd JUMP on a 4MP Minolta body...
Ah yes, for my dream digital (as mentioned earlier): SLR!!! I want to look in the viewfinder and see out the lens! Enough with this amateur viewfinder-off-to-one-side garbage... I had enough of that when I stopped using a 110 as my primary camera!
| 12:14 am on Aug 27, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I promised my Pentax P30T with normal, 28mm and 135mm lens to one of my daughters. I love the view through the lens too. I also like the way it feels like a "real" camera. Not to mention the consistent quality of film photography. Why did I make that promise? Oh well.
By the way, lot's of superb cameras have a rangefinder viewfinder. My first camera, which I bought new, was a Minolta with a rangefinder.
| 6:10 pm on Aug 27, 2001 (gmt 0)|
lot's of superb cameras have a rangefinder viewfinder
I guess I've always dealt with the cheapos then... leaving me trying to guess/compensate for the viewfinder offset when framing the picture, and hoping I'm not cutting off the edge of the photo and/or won't end up having to crop & recenter it.
Annoying. I want my SLR! Then again, I have the same stubborn bias for manual transmissions, even if the automatic model shifts beautifully and gets better gas mileage. Did I mention I dislike autofocus too? And I have a bull-headed wanna-do-it-myself streak as wide as the Mississippi R.?