«

Can someone tell me if this is a good camera and what it is worth? Thanks.

It is a good camera and it is worth about half what you will pay. ;-D

If you have to ask then this camera is not for you.

Google is your friend as is www.dpreview.com


"AW" <> wrote in message
news:BAuRd.35850$uc.13128@trnddc03...
> Can someone tell me if this is a good camera and what it is worth? Thanks.
>
>

They are old (5-6 years) now and only 2.74MP, expect to pay US$500-700
secondhand and well used.

"AW" <> wrote in message
news:BAuRd.35850$uc.13128@trnddc03...
> Can someone tell me if this is a good camera and what it is worth? Thanks.
>
>

Thanks. Yes, I'm quite a newbie to cameras but I might be able to get one of
those cameras for a good price (perhaps around $400) and I want to know if
it has any flaws or things that make it a camera I should avoid buying for
any reason. I'm not sure if I really need the extra MP, since I need smaller
pics anyway that are practical for use on the internet. Should I snatch this
one up?


"Pete D" <> wrote in message
news:%OuRd.166406$...
> They are old (5-6 years) now and only 2.74MP, expect to pay US$500-700
> secondhand and well used.
>
> "AW" <> wrote in message
> news:BAuRd.35850$uc.13128@trnddc03...
> > Can someone tell me if this is a good camera and what it is worth?
Thanks.
> >
> >
>
>

"AW" <> wrote in message news:MfvRd.41811$uc.6053@trnddc04...
> Thanks. Yes, I'm quite a newbie to cameras but I might be able to get one of
> those cameras for a good price (perhaps around $400) and I want to know if
> it has any flaws or things that make it a camera I should avoid buying for
> any reason. I'm not sure if I really need the extra MP, since I need smaller
> pics anyway that are practical for use on the internet. Should I snatch this
> one up?

Does it come with a lens that suits your needs?
-Or is it just the body with no lens?
If no lens, then pe prepaired to pony up additional cash for a camera that is severely
low-resolution by today's standards.

> "Pete D" <> wrote in message
> news:%OuRd.166406$...
>> They are old (5-6 years) now and only 2.74MP, expect to pay US$500-700
>> secondhand and well used.
>>
>> "AW" <> wrote in message
>> news:BAuRd.35850$uc.13128@trnddc03...
>> > Can someone tell me if this is a good camera and what it is worth?
> Thanks.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

No, it does not appear to include a lens. How much will a decent all-purpose
lens cost, maybe used, that will be probably used for mainly close-up,
indoor pics? Thanks.

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:rivRd.95358$0u.20393@fed1read04...
>
> "AW" <> wrote in message
news:MfvRd.41811$uc.6053@trnddc04...
> > Thanks. Yes, I'm quite a newbie to cameras but I might be able to get
one of
> > those cameras for a good price (perhaps around $400) and I want to know
if
> > it has any flaws or things that make it a camera I should avoid buying
for
> > any reason. I'm not sure if I really need the extra MP, since I need
smaller
> > pics anyway that are practical for use on the internet. Should I snatch
this
> > one up?
>
> Does it come with a lens that suits your needs?
> -Or is it just the body with no lens?
> If no lens, then pe prepaired to pony up additional cash for a camera that
is severely
> low-resolution by today's standards.
>
> > "Pete D" <> wrote in message
> > news:%OuRd.166406$...
> >> They are old (5-6 years) now and only 2.74MP, expect to pay US$500-700
> >> secondhand and well used.
> >>
> >> "AW" <> wrote in message
> >> news:BAuRd.35850$uc.13128@trnddc03...
> >> > Can someone tell me if this is a good camera and what it is worth?
> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

"AW" <> wrote in message
news:JlvRd.41812$uc.3431@trnddc04...
> No, it does not appear to include a lens. How much will a decent
> all-purpose
> lens cost, maybe used, that will be probably used for mainly close-up,
> indoor pics? Thanks.
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:rivRd.95358$0u.20393@fed1read04...
>>
>> "AW" <> wrote in message
> news:MfvRd.41811$uc.6053@trnddc04...
>> > Thanks. Yes, I'm quite a newbie to cameras but I might be able to get
> one of
>> > those cameras for a good price (perhaps around $400) and I want to know
> if
>> > it has any flaws or things that make it a camera I should avoid buying
> for
>> > any reason. I'm not sure if I really need the extra MP, since I need
> smaller
>> > pics anyway that are practical for use on the internet. Should I snatch
> this
>> > one up?
>>
>> Does it come with a lens that suits your needs?
>> -Or is it just the body with no lens?
>> If no lens, then pe prepaired to pony up additional cash for a camera
>> that
> is severely
>> low-resolution by today's standards.
>>
>> > "Pete D" <> wrote in message
>> > news:%OuRd.166406$...
>> >> They are old (5-6 years) now and only 2.74MP, expect to pay US$500-700
>> >> secondhand and well used.
>> >>
>> >> "AW" <> wrote in message
>> >> news:BAuRd.35850$uc.13128@trnddc03...
>> >> > Can someone tell me if this is a good camera and what it is worth?
>> > Thanks.
>> >> >

Just a thought: If you are buying this camera for shooting items for eBay,
you would probably be much happier with a simple point and shoot digital
that has a macro function. No extra lenses and settings to deal with, and
in many cases you can post the original pics from the camera without any
extra work. You don't need much more than a 640x480 image.

I hate to disappoint you, I tried this same trick late last year. I tried to
get a Nikon D100 on the cheap, I thought for sure given the D70's
introduction the D100 could be had for $650-700, after all the very
comparable-to-it Canon EOS10D had dropped down to that range and the better
D70 was right at $1000. But in fact, good freaking luck; the D100 sells for
at least $800 used, commonly $900. It's ridiculous.

I agree with the others, you will pay an inordinate amount of money for it
considering the low resolution it has by today's standards. Yes it has a
very tough build as it's based on the Nikon F5, but resolution-wise heck the
cheap models like the Canon Digital Rebel or Nikon's own D70 would far
surpass it in image quality.

A Nikon D1x would be much better, and they have dropped in price a lot from
what they used to cost. They have 5.7 megapixels if I recall (practically 6)
and the same tough body, that's a better bet. Or, the Canon EOS10D can be
had for $700 or so, or the Canon Digital Rebel can be had sometimes used at
Fred Miranda's buy/sell form (http://www.fredmiranda.com) for $600 or so,
sometimes with the 18-55 lens.

I do like Nikons for real, but it is amazing how much their older cameras
(the D1x excepted) cost. It just doesn't compute to me.

LRH

Thanks for all the responses from the group. I have decided to pass on the
camera at this time based mainly on the fact I will need invest more money
into it to get it going, and for other reasons mentioned here as well...

Thanks.

AW

"Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in message
news:...
> I hate to disappoint you, I tried this same trick late last year. I tried
to
> get a Nikon D100 on the cheap, I thought for sure given the D70's
> introduction the D100 could be had for $650-700, after all the very
> comparable-to-it Canon EOS10D had dropped down to that range and the
better
> D70 was right at $1000. But in fact, good freaking luck; the D100 sells
for
> at least $800 used, commonly $900. It's ridiculous.
>
> I agree with the others, you will pay an inordinate amount of money for it
> considering the low resolution it has by today's standards. Yes it has a
> very tough build as it's based on the Nikon F5, but resolution-wise heck
the
> cheap models like the Canon Digital Rebel or Nikon's own D70 would far
> surpass it in image quality.
>
> A Nikon D1x would be much better, and they have dropped in price a lot
from
> what they used to cost. They have 5.7 megapixels if I recall (practically
6)
> and the same tough body, that's a better bet. Or, the Canon EOS10D can be
> had for $700 or so, or the Canon Digital Rebel can be had sometimes used
at
> Fred Miranda's buy/sell form (http://www.fredmiranda.com) for $600 or so,
> sometimes with the 18-55 lens.
>
> I do like Nikons for real, but it is amazing how much their older cameras
> (the D1x excepted) cost. It just doesn't compute to me.
>
> LRH
>
>

There is an automatic mode I can use, right? And can I buy a 'macro lens'
seperately? Also, if i can post pics on ebay hosted from a different site, I
can use higher res pics...

"Sheldon" <> wrote in message
news:Q7ydnTAyLbveO4vfRVn-...
>
> "AW" <> wrote in message
> news:JlvRd.41812$uc.3431@trnddc04...
> > No, it does not appear to include a lens. How much will a decent
> > all-purpose
> > lens cost, maybe used, that will be probably used for mainly close-up,
> > indoor pics? Thanks.
> >
> > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> > news:rivRd.95358$0u.20393@fed1read04...
> >>
> >> "AW" <> wrote in message
> > news:MfvRd.41811$uc.6053@trnddc04...
> >> > Thanks. Yes, I'm quite a newbie to cameras but I might be able to get
> > one of
> >> > those cameras for a good price (perhaps around $400) and I want to
know
> > if
> >> > it has any flaws or things that make it a camera I should avoid
buying
> > for
> >> > any reason. I'm not sure if I really need the extra MP, since I need
> > smaller
> >> > pics anyway that are practical for use on the internet. Should I
snatch
> > this
> >> > one up?
> >>
> >> Does it come with a lens that suits your needs?
> >> -Or is it just the body with no lens?
> >> If no lens, then pe prepaired to pony up additional cash for a camera
> >> that
> > is severely
> >> low-resolution by today's standards.
> >>
> >> > "Pete D" <> wrote in message
> >> > news:%OuRd.166406$...
> >> >> They are old (5-6 years) now and only 2.74MP, expect to pay
US$500-700
> >> >> secondhand and well used.
> >> >>
> >> >> "AW" <> wrote in message
> >> >> news:BAuRd.35850$uc.13128@trnddc03...
> >> >> > Can someone tell me if this is a good camera and what it is worth?
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >> >
>
> Just a thought: If you are buying this camera for shooting items for
eBay,
> you would probably be much happier with a simple point and shoot digital
> that has a macro function. No extra lenses and settings to deal with, and
> in many cases you can post the original pics from the camera without any
> extra work. You don't need much more than a 640x480 image.
>
>