| 2:17 am on May 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The CD400 had improved considerably on speed compared to the CD300. A few shots could be taken before the buffer was full... and then it got slow!
There were a few good things about those CDs though. First and foremost the ability to be able to shoot loads of pictures without the need of having to download the pics to a computer or an HD-based device. Also, the CDs serve as a kind of digital 'negative', since they can be stored straight off the camera. Once finalised they can be read by any CD drive.
Another great feature of the CD400 was the ability to shoot video clips for almost 5 mins (depending on the size of the mini CD).
But having said all that, I also agree that the G3 is very nice! :-)
| 11:00 pm on May 3, 2003 (gmt 0)|
My two cents on digital cameras is to pay attention to the quality of the pictures over the MP rating. I bought an Olympus D490z back in the day (only 2.1MB) and its picture quality still beats out other newer cameras with more pixels.
I'd say stick with Nikon and Olympus. You can't beat their quality.
| 8:39 am on May 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yes, MP doesn┤t matter much. Take more attention to their CCD Sensor and the ratio of image compression.
| 12:16 pm on May 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I bought a Sony DSC-F717 (5.24MP - 5x optical Zeiss lens) this past February. I cannot say enough good things about this camera. It continues to impress me in every way. An added plus... and an important one, is the superb battery life--over four hours per charge. Very fast, very sharp, very usable.
| 12:41 pm on May 4, 2003 (gmt 0)|
One of Japanese Mobile phone provider started shipping mobile phones with 1.3M pixel camera. Digital cameras may become obsolete sooner than I thought.
| 2:21 am on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I've seen several references to the Nikons and no one talking about the 5700. I don't have the D100 but do have the Coolpix 5700 5.0 MP about 2/3 the cost of the D100 and it DOES have a flash shoe to help eliminate redeye indoor. It's a great camera and usually get's a better shot than the 35MM, especially outdoors but my Nikon N65 35MM still can out-perform it on occasion.
| 5:00 am on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|One of Japanese Mobile phone provider started shipping mobile phones with 1.3M pixel camera. Digital cameras may become obsolete sooner than I thought. |
LoL! I think it will be a long time before we see people taking their holiday snaps with a phone. And I doubt we'll ever see 'proper' photographers using them.
Designers are always harking on about 'convergence' but in reality in never quite meets expectation. They always compromise on functionality to squeeze things into the form factor.
Plus you end up with a device that is so multi-functional that most consumers can't work it.
Putting it another way: Loads of phones have extensive organiser functions on them - but the vast majority of people would rather use a palmtop or even a paper diary.
| 3:02 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Just recently I purchased a Kodak CX 4200 2 MP camera. This is the first digital I have owned.
I also have a JVC GRSXM930 DSC (digital still camera.)
I am pleased with both purchases.
| 5:06 pm on May 5, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I have the Nikon 4500, I am very happy with it. I would like to see a better low light focusing, and faster trigger to shutter speed. The macro setting is great on this. You can fill up the frame with a dime.
Tigger, you asked about giving a flash a booost?
They sell remote flashes that can be added for pretty cheap, I think around 20-30US. They have a light sensor on them and when your main flash pops they go with it. Worth checking out.
Of course there are many expensive remote flash options as well, but you may just want to try one of the cheapies and see how it works.
As far as the Nikon D-100, yeah I want one of those. I cannot wait until the Digital SLR prices go down to that of the film camera...well or under 1000 dollars.
| 4:44 pm on May 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I recently got a HP Photosmart 850. 4.1 MP and 7x optical zoom. I think it was around $500. I took one of the images from it, and had an 11x14 print made, through an online photo service, and I can't tell by looking at the print that it came from a digital camera.
| 7:04 pm on May 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
═ tried some of the cameras mentioned above, but I just quote:
|I bought a Sony DSC-F717 (5.24MP - 5x optical Zeiss lens) this past February. I cannot say enough good things about this camera. |
Very strong reason for this camera: it's lens.
The BEST available, and even in comparison to much more expensive SLR's.
| 2:22 pm on May 9, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I recently bought a Kodak LS443 that I'm pleased with. 4 megapixel, 3x optical zoom, takes video with sound, along with other neat features. It also comes with a docking cradle that charges the battery and has a button that when pressed transfers pics to your PC. I paid $400 and got a 128MB chip thrown in free.
| This 42 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 42 ( 1  ) |