Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Best camera for $500 or less ??

Reply
Thread Tools

Best camera for $500 or less ??

 
 
Unspam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2005


> Red Haze wrote:
>> What is the best camera for $500 or less ?
>>
>> I know there are different kinds of cameras, but if you had a $500
>> American dollars budget for a camera (including all needed accessories)
>> what would you get? Let's say you were leaving to spend a year in
>> another country and that was all you could spend on a camera before
>> leaving.

>
> For my style of photography, the Coolpix 5000 with the accessory wide
> angle lens and the accessory AA battery grip and a big CF card probalby
> sell for about $500 on ebay.
>
> The WC-E68 lens gives the camera the 35mm eq. of about a 19mm lens.
> Without it, the built in lens is 28mm eq.
>
> With a fresh charge, it will take hundreds of photos, including ample
> LCD time and generous flash.
>
> If the "other country" was going to severly limit my ability to read the
> CF card or charge the batteries, I might revise and extend my remarks.
> If your photographic needs are considerably different from mine, then my
> choices might not be relavent for you.
>
> Bob



I now somebody that bought a Coolpix (not sure of the model) with a Nikon
wide angle supplementary lens, it got in the way of the flash and made an
annoying shadow. He sold it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2005
Unspam wrote:
[]
> I now somebody that bought a Coolpix (not sure of the model) with a
> Nikon wide angle supplementary lens, it got in the way of the flash
> and made an annoying shadow. He sold it.


I think you will find that /any/ camera which offers an 18mm or 19mm
equivalent FOV by means of an add-on lens will have some blocking of the
built-in flash.

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Scott Schuckert
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2005
In article <BE523D85.16EE1%(E-Mail Removed)>, Unspam <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> I now somebody that bought a Coolpix (not sure of the model) with a Nikon
> wide angle supplementary lens, it got in the way of the flash and made an
> annoying shadow. He sold it.


Oh, yeah? Well, I know a guy (me, actually) who read the specs BEFORE
buying the WA lens and knew it would interfere with the built-in flash.
Said so in black in white. What was your point?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott Schuckert
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2005
In article <BE523D85.16EE1%(E-Mail Removed)>, Unspam <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> >> I know there are different kinds of cameras, but if you had a $500
> >> American dollars budget for a camera (including all needed accessories)
> >> what would you get? Let's say you were leaving to spend a year in
> >> another country and that was all you could spend on a camera before
> >> leaving.

> >
> > For my style of photography, the Coolpix 5000 with the accessory wide
> > angle lens and the accessory AA battery grip and a big CF card probalby
> > sell for about $500 on ebay.


Since the request was in a 35mm forum, don't you think he wanted to
know about a film camera?

For this scenario, the camera should be:
1. A brand available and serviceable in the destination country
2. Should take a battery that's easy to get AND has a long service life.
3. As mechanically simple and reliable as possible
4. Either very easy to use or familiar to the user.
5. Of high enough quality to be used for irreplaceable shots.

For ME, the answer would be a Nikon FM3a, even if a lens and flash
would take it somewhat over $500.

If the $500 was absolute, perhaps "demo" or slightly used equipment
would suffice. Or, (obviously) a similar camera from another
manufacturer.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Unspam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2005


> In article <BE523D85.16EE1%(E-Mail Removed)>, Unspam <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> I now somebody that bought a Coolpix (not sure of the model) with a Nikon
>> wide angle supplementary lens, it got in the way of the flash and made an
>> annoying shadow. He sold it.

>
> Oh, yeah? Well, I know a guy (me, actually) who read the specs BEFORE
> buying the WA lens and knew it would interfere with the built-in flash.
> Said so in black in white. What was your point?



My point? What do you think, moron? You are obviously an idiot who buys
cameras that don't work properly and doesn't seem to mind.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Larry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2005
In article <BE5253D8.16EE8%(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> My point? What do you think, moron? You are obviously an idiot who buys
> cameras that don't work properly and doesn't seem to mind.
>


The camera worked exactly as it was intended.
So did the add on lens.

What failed to work was YOU.. You didn't read the disclaimer on the paperwork
that came with the lens.

Almost all add-on lenses cause some problem or other with the day to day
operation of the camera. If you had read the copy, you would have known.

So you didn't like the way it worked, so whats your point??

Other than giving you the oportunity to call someone obviously smarter than
you a moron, do you have any point whatever?




--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
 
Reply With Quote
 
bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2005
Unspam wrote:


> I now somebody that bought a Coolpix (not sure of the model) with a Nikon
> wide angle supplementary lens, it got in the way of the flash and made an
> annoying shadow. He sold it.
>


Besides the fact that this behavior is fully documented, and the fact
that the firmware disables the built in flash when you let it know that
its' there, (besides those things), there aren't very many flashes of
any sort that will cover 19mm, especially not built in ones!!

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
Unspam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2005


> In article <BE5253D8.16EE8%(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
>> My point? What do you think, moron? You are obviously an idiot who buys
>> cameras that don't work properly and doesn't seem to mind.
>>

>
> The camera worked exactly as it was intended.
> So did the add on lens.
>
> What failed to work was YOU.. You didn't read the disclaimer on the paperwork
> that came with the lens.
>
> Almost all add-on lenses cause some problem or other with the day to day
> operation of the camera. If you had read the copy, you would have known.
>
> So you didn't like the way it worked, so whats your point??
>
> Other than giving you the oportunity to call someone obviously smarter than
> you a moron, do you have any point whatever?
>
>
>

It wasn't *my* camera dumbass, as explained previously if you took the time
to read it. If you're so smart why did you buy a lens that interferes with
the operation of the flash, halfwit?

 
Reply With Quote
 
bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2005
Scott Schuckert wrote:

>
> Since the request was in a 35mm forum, don't you think he wanted to
> know about a film camera?


Check your headers!

>
> For ME, the answer would be a Nikon FM3a, even if a lens and flash
> would take it somewhat over $500.
>
> If the $500 was absolute, perhaps "demo" or slightly used equipment
> would suffice. Or, (obviously) a similar camera from another
> manufacturer.


Presumably since he's comparing film offerings to digital, then you need
to make an assumption about the cost of a year's supply of film, as
well. My FM2 sold for about $200 on ebay. My 35mm f/1.4 went for less.
That would still leave $100 for film. Maybe he'll have some kind of
income to cover the cost of film over the course of the trip though, so
it doesn't need to count...

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2005
Unspam wrote:

>
> It wasn't *my* camera dumbass, as explained previously if you took the time
> to read it. If you're so smart why did you buy a lens that interferes with
> the operation of the flash, halfwit?
>


You obviously don't understand what you're talking about.

The Coolpix 5000 is an accessory for the WC-E68, not the other way
around. It's a bonus that there's a flash built in for those rare
occasions when the WC-E68 is not in use, but it certainly isn't a
significant part of the camera.

Here's a test: Name any other photographic system that will give you a
field of view equal to 19mm on 35mm film for under $500. If you can come
up with any other alternatives, then can you verify that it has a built
in flash that is not affected by the lens?

Didn't think so.

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More Efficiency,More Benefit,Less Risk,Less Work! jiajia wu ASP .Net 0 10-01-2009 01:50 PM
More Efficiency,More Benefit,Less Risk,Less Work! lllll Ruby 0 06-08-2009 02:10 PM
More Efficiency,More Benefit,Less Risk,Less Work! 6668 Ruby 0 05-14-2009 12:33 AM
camera for less than $200 esefers Digital Photography 6 06-29-2005 07:46 PM
S400 like camera with less shutter delay Cherokee6 Digital Photography 2 11-06-2004 12:04 PM



Advertisments