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 http://lowendmac.com/ and...
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
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 you have
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)
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
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
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
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
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-
--
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
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
Austin PowersPsychedelic Holocubes, baybee!/ap
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 cents
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 to
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
--
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 http://lowendmac.com/ and...
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...
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
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
would
--
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 sure
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
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
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 it
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 would
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
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 (I have a
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 Maxxum
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
1.3 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
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
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
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
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 (I have
--
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)?
--
40 matches
Mail list logo
