Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera/Lag time

The D1X has a buffer that holds the pictures, so you can shoot without any noticeable lag, but only up to the size of the buffer, after which the lag is back. Also, if you shut down power to the D1X before the buffer is empty, only the current photo being processed will be saved and all others in

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera/Lag time

On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 02:02:56PM -1000, Aron Nelson wrote: : : Do you have one that doesn't have any lag after shooting? The Nikon D1X can do 9 shots in 3 seconds. The Nikon D1H is even faster. -- Eugene Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- G-Books is sponsored by and... Sm

Good, inexpensive digital camera

This web site answers many of the questions about permanence of color in photographic paper and, I believe, in ink jet inks. http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ --- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 16:00:57 -0500 Subject: Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera From: Thomas Ethen

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera/Lag time

Walter R Basil wrote: > Of course I normally shoot at the lowest quality setting for easy > transmittal over email to family., so that has an effect I am sure. When I > bump up the quality..there is more lag as it writes it to the CF I am sure. Yeah, I just tested this with my Epson (PhotoPC 650

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera/Lag time

On 4/20/02 4:21 PM, "(G-Books)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Apparently most/all Digital cameras have lag time after the shot. I > have tried many at CompUSA and Circuit City and they all had lag > after shooting. > > The lag times are even parts of the review process on web sites now. > > Do y

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

On to another topic! Would I be better off using a remote FireWire HD or using the one in my Pismo/400 for digital capture? If a remote, should I use the FireWire port or a PC Card adapter for FireWire for the fastest transfer? Tom -- G-Books is sponsored by and... S

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera/Lag time

>Most digital cameras have a continuous shoot mode which allows you to shoot >a number of shots fairly quickly (until your buffer runs out) Right, I have this, but this is a compromise. Anyway, back to Powerbooks! Aron -- Ar

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

In a message dated 4/20/02 12:29:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Kodak offers a photo CD with every roll of film you have processed by them if you want it. >> I hope Kodak has upgraded that service in the last year or so... I had clients bring me their disk from Kodak expecting the scans t

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

Kodak offers a photo CD with every roll of film you have processed by them if you want it. Tom > My wedding photo was shot digitally and was shared among all our guests > instantly across the country over the net. Then we mailed each guest a CD of > the full 500+ images of our wedding for 33 cent

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

Sony offers the DSC-S75, a 4 MP camera with a black body. It's pretty slick. Almost got one myself, but opted for the Canon s110 Elf. I love how small the camera is, and take it with me everywhere. All of Sony's camera are great. The biggest advantages of the designs come from their experiences

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

I have used one and am thinking about replacing my Nikon 995 with the Sony, since it has such great reviews and worked extremely well when I was using it. Even so, I never go anywhere with my digital unless I take a film camera also, especially on vacation. Digital cameras are at a real disadvanta

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera/Lag time

Most digital cameras have a continuous shoot mode which allows you to shoot a number of shots fairly quickly (until your buffer runs out) and then they usually take around 7 to 10 seconds to recover and be able to do this again. The smaller the file size the more shots that can be taken in rapid s

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

Hang on to that shoe box of prints and negatives, since they will still be usable when the digital prints are long gone. My film camera shoots 5 frames per second, but its biggest plus compared to digital is that it turns on instantly for photo's that show up unexpectedly, unlike all digital camer

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

In a message dated 4/19/02 8:16:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Speaking of expensive (:--)), has anyone tried, or seen (in person) the new Sony DSC-F707? It received some good reviews (speed-wise) on the dpreview.com site. >> I purchased a Sony DSC-S70 about a year ago, a 3.34MP camera wi

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

Speaking of expensive (:--)), has anyone tried, or seen (in person) the new Sony DSC-F707? It received some good reviews (speed-wise) on the dpreview.com site. I have a house full of old 35mm Nikons from my old news photog days. Now have a disability and am researching a move to digital. Want h

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera/Lag time

Aron Nelson wrote: >>That is not a basic problem of digital cameras. That is a basic problem of >>the model you have. > > > Apparently most/all Digital cameras have lag time after the shot. I > have tried many at CompUSA and Circuit City and they all had lag > after shooting. Yes, they do hav

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera/Lag time

>That is not a basic problem of digital cameras. That is a basic problem of >the model you have. Apparently most/all Digital cameras have lag time after the shot. I have tried many at CompUSA and Circuit City and they all had lag after shooting. The lag times are even parts of the review proce

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

That is not a basic problem of digital cameras. That is a basic problem of the model you have. > > > I was TOTALLY into my digital camera until I recently went to a party > and I wanted to take pictures FAST. > > NO WAY! I got one shot off and had to wait while the damn thing took > its time get

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

My Olympus 2100 can take up to 2 pictures a second when not using the flash. My previous film camera was no faster with or without the flash. We simply got tired of the shoe boxes full of prints. Have been using digital for two years and would have an additional 50+ sets of prints for the shoe box

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

Of all the good points you brought up, this one is the killer for me. I was TOTALLY into my digital camera until I recently went to a party and I wanted to take pictures FAST. NO WAY! I got one shot off and had to wait while the damn thing took its time getting ready for the next shot. Not onl

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

Thomas Ethen wrote: > Actually I love both digital and film and use both on a daily basis! I am > still unsure as to what will be done for storage when the digital camera > catches up with film, since the files will be incredibly large. > Tom Psychedelic Holocubes, baybee! Seriously, this is one

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

Don't forget the archival quality of film over digital! Tom > > I do love film, much richer colors and depth, but it is too expensive, in the > long run, and just one huge hassle. In this case, I will take convenience and > price over quality and hassle. Unfortunately. However I lament. > > P- >

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

Actually I love both digital and film and use both on a daily basis! I am still unsure as to what will be done for storage when the digital camera catches up with film, since the files will be incredibly large. Tom > > I'd guess that digital cameras are still 3-5 years from surpassing film > in p

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

Thomas Ethen wrote: > These are not inexpensive digital cameras that we are talking about now! An > inexpensive 35mm film camera (less that $100) will outshoot any inexpensive > digital camera (less than $300) out there when it comes to photographic > sharpness. > > Having used the D1X (5.33 Mega

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

I find film to be one of the largest nuisances of the 20th and 21st centuries. It's a pain to use film and film companies have nothing but themselves to blame for not making developing easier. They should have contrived some contraption to take your film (easy-load, which finally has made an appea

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

These are not inexpensive digital cameras that we are talking about now! An inexpensive 35mm film camera (less that $100) will outshoot any inexpensive digital camera (less than $300) out there when it comes to photographic sharpness. Having used the D1X (5.33 Megapixel) and an EOS-1D (4.06 Megap

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

Clyde Kahrl wrote: > Film is infinitely better and cheaper than digital. > I have done it both ways now, and film is so much cheaper than > digital there is no comparison.Film is also infinitely superior in > quality---by at least 3 orders of magnitude. Well, film has been around a

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 12:44:01PM -0400, Clyde Kahrl wrote: : : For years, film has evolved to en extremely efficient medium. Film cameras have been around longer than digital cameras by around two orders of magnitude. : Everyone knows (or should know) that there is a difference between

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Clyde Kahrl wrote: (amazingly biased rant snipped) Well, that was incredibly off topic. KeS -- G-Books is sponsored by and... Small Dog Electronicshttp://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | -- Check our web site for refurbished Power

Good, inexpensive digital camera

Film is infinitely better and cheaper than digital. I have done it both ways now, and film is so much cheaper than digital there is no comparison.Film is also infinitely superior in quality---by at least 3 orders of magnitude. As an example, scanning Fuji ASA-800 film o

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

Mr. Jeff Lentz, Thank you for the site reference of www.dpreview. I just spent a half an hour (with many more to come) viewing this site. Thank you! Just an aside (you probably already know this), If you put the full web address in, it becomes an active clickable link, as... http://w

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

Also, use the paper made my the manufacturer of your printer to get the best results from your setup. Tom The trick to getting really good > photos is to use photo-quality paper. I have an Epson > Stylus 650 (originally $79, got it free in a bundle), > but I use genuine Epson glossy photo paper

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

On 4/15/02 6:43 PM, "(G-Books)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm looking to get a digital camera, but I'm not sure what's good > considering how many different models are out there. I'm willing to > spend no more than $300, so what could I get in that price range that > would work with FireWire (

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

Thought I'd throw my two cents in as I just went through buying a new camera. I settled on the 2.1 megapixel Canon A40, which I found online for $258 (though with $20 shipping). I was a journalist just long enough to know optics are important, and so I went with the Canon. It's an actual ca

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

My first digital camera was the old Apple QuickTake 7 years ago. The resolution was 600x800, not even 1 megapixel. I was able to use it to print fairly large architectural pictures of my models in college. As Bruce mentioned, it's the optics, AND it's the skills of the user that determines good

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

patrick fisher wrote: > 1.3 Megapixels, I feel, is not good enough for average photograhy. For web stuff, > fine. 2.1 is kind of a minimum, I feel, to decent photography. > > Still, I should get this camera for my daughter. > P > 1.3 is perfectly fine for 3x5 prints or even 5x7 prints on inkjets

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

>1.3 Megapixels, I feel, is not good enough for average photograhy. >For web stuff, >fine. 2.1 is kind of a minimum, I feel, to decent photography. The weird part is that I have seen 1.3 megapixel pictures printed out that are great. I wonder how they do that?? I have a 2 megapixel camera and

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

1.3 Megapixels, I feel, is not good enough for average photograhy. For web stuff, fine. 2.1 is kind of a minimum, I feel, to decent photography. Still, I should get this camera for my daughter. P Vic Viet Duong wrote: > Since we are on the subject of Olympus cameras, I've found this on > www.ma

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

Since we are on the subject of Olympus cameras, I've found this on www.macdeals.com The D-360 and 370 are excellent budget cameras... Olympus D-370L 1.3M digicam for $95 after coupon  11:49 am OfficeMax.com and OfficeMax retail stores offer the Olympus D-370L 1.3-megapixel digital camera for $1

Good, inexpensive digital camera

Just to add my experience to the pot. I have been using an Olympus dl360 for a couple of years $300. Not super high res or firewire, (but quick to download with a USB reader - $40.) Does everything I need - ebay pix, emailable JPEGs for friends, super closeups to 4 inches and macro even closer w

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

Laurent Daudelin wrote: > When I see the ongoing prices for digital cameras, it strikes me that > something is still wrong. To get a good camera, not even matching a good > SLR, you will pay the price that you would pay for an advanced-amateur/pro > SLR. $1000 will almost get you the Minolta Maxx

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

On Monday, April 15, 2002, at 09:54 , lee wrote: >> -- >> I'm looking to get a digital camera, but I'm not sure what's good >> considering how many different models are out there. I'm willing to >> spend no more than $300, so what could I get in that price range that >> would work with FireWire

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

on 4/15/02 11:22 AM, patrick fisher at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I am on my third digital camera. It is a Fuji 4700 and I absolutely love it. I have the Fuji 2600 and I also love it. GREAT 2.1 megapixel photo quality, 3x optical zoom, 16 meg card, rechargeable batteries AND charger all for $27

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

> Good point. I wonder what the answer is to that. They should be cheaper. Maybe it > is the CCD that costs so much. Still, I don't think they should cost as much as > they do. On the other hand, prices are plummeting year by year. > > > I don't know, maybe I'm not getting it, but still, you woul

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

On 15/04/02 11:22, "patrick fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am on my third digital camera. It is a Fuji 4700 and I absolutely love it. > It has a lot of great, fine features. They have it at computergeeks for $339 > and it is USB, though. And it has an optical zoom. Very sweet camera. And

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

I am on my third digital camera. It is a Fuji 4700 and I absolutely love it. It has a lot of great, fine features. They have it at computergeeks for $339 and it is USB, though. And it has an optical zoom. Very sweet camera. And it records movies!!! I think you can still get $20 off if you put Gee

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

Luca, I love my Coolpix 800 and there are some refurbished models left at www.abesofmaine.com--they come with a 90 day warentee and cost around $230- It is a 2.11 megapixel camera and that is a pretty good size. Also, check out www.dpreview.com- it is a great digital camera review site! Ed Zel

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

Hello, Make sure to consider what you want to do with your photos. If you plan to make prints, you'll want to get the best resolution you can for your money. I use mine solely for sending via email or to use on web pages. I got the low-end Sony (DSC-20, I think), and it's been great. It has a U

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

>-- >I'm looking to get a digital camera, but I'm not sure what's good >considering how many different models are out there. I'm willing to >spend no more than $300, so what could I get in that price range that >would work with FireWire (I have a Wallstreet 233 with a FireWire >cardbus)? I'm not

Re: Good, inexpensive digital camera

On Sunday, April 14, 2002 10:39 PM, Luca Rescigno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >-- >I'm looking to get a digital camera, but I'm not sure what's good >considering how many different models are out there. I'm willing to >spend no more than $300, so what could I get in that price range that >w

Good, inexpensive digital camera

-- I'm looking to get a digital camera, but I'm not sure what's good considering how many different models are out there. I'm willing to spend no more than $300, so what could I get in that price range that would work with FireWire (I have a Wallstreet 233 with a FireWire cardbus)? -- G-Bo