«

Digital Cameras >>10 Tips To Consider When Purchasing

Thinking of buying a new Digital Camera? Here are 10 important things
you should consider before you purchase your camera.

Read This Full Article At: http://tinyurl.com/7u3hm

I disagree. Don't waste your time with this one. Its not dated, but it
appears to have been written back in the days when an AC adapter was a
useful accessory and 2-3 mp was considered higher end. Doesn't even address
field of view, lens quality, startup speed or shutter lag.


"ARG" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Digital Cameras >>10 Tips To Consider When Purchasing
>
> Thinking of buying a new Digital Camera? Here are 10 important things
> you should consider before you purchase your camera.
>
> Read This Full Article At: http://tinyurl.com/7u3hm

mrsgator88 wrote:
>I disagree. Don't waste your time with this one. Its not dated, but
> it appears to have been written back in the days when an AC adapter
> was a useful accessory and 2-3 mp was considered higher end. Doesn't
> even address field of view, lens quality, startup speed or shutter
> lag.

I agree it is dated and lacking a number of important issues. Not that
what is listed is not important.


--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Joseph Meehan wrote:
> mrsgator88 wrote:
> >I disagree. Don't waste your time with this one. Its not dated, but
> > it appears to have been written back in the days when an AC adapter
> > was a useful accessory and 2-3 mp was considered higher end. Doesn't
> > even address field of view, lens quality, startup speed or shutter
> > lag.
>
> I agree it is dated and lacking a number of important issues. Not that
> what is listed is not important.
>
>
> --
> Joseph Meehan
>
> Dia duit

I didn't think much of this list. It's dated, and the poster never even
mentions overall image quality, which was my first and foremost
requirement. Not that it is for everyone, but it certainly should be
mentioned as something to consider.

High ARG!

Many of the of the tips listed are highly arguable or directed to the
semi-professional and professional. Personally, I don't think they are
very useful. To talk about cameras that allow aperture value (A/V),
Time value (T/V), etc. is something, but to talk about what just about
every camera offers doesn't help one bit.

For example:

Viewfinder. Most cameras have either no viewfinder or if they have,
they are unusable, except for SLR's and DSL'Rs. What'sd the point?

Resolution. What's the point? Do you know of any camera now that have
less than 3MP?

For example, there are cameras that have very good image quality and do
not have RAW mode. There are cameras that do have it, but have great
rendition of JPEG's (Rebel XT, for instance). This RAW thing is a
purist view of photography.

Batteries. So what's the point? All cameras accept rechargeable
batteries... Do you mean dedicated VS AA's? That would also be a moot
point. I've had dedicated batteies on 4 Canons. They last a long time.
I use them till they go flat and change for a second one and alternate
while the other is being charged.

AC adapter. Again, what's the point? I've never used them. Surely not
for taking photos... During the time you download to the PC? It takes
very little time.

Firewire... Now that's another urbam legeng. My Rebel XT has 8MP and I
can download very fast via USB 2.0. Really no need for a firewire.

Video output. Practically all cameras have it. So what's the point?

Cheers,

Marcel

On 15 Feb 2006 11:42:31 -0800, "Celcius" <>
wrote:

>High ARG!
>
>Many of the of the tips listed are highly arguable or directed to the
>semi-professional and professional. Personally, I don't think they are
>very useful. To talk about cameras that allow aperture value (A/V),
>Time value (T/V), etc. is something, but to talk about what just about
>every camera offers doesn't help one bit.
>
>For example:
>
>Viewfinder. Most cameras have either no viewfinder or if they have,
>they are unusable, except for SLR's and DSL'Rs. What'sd the point?

Why would you say that?
Does this mean that all film cameras' viewfinders (except SLRs) are
also unusable? If not, why not? Isn't a viewfinder more or less a
viewfinder?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Hi Bill!

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was talking about viewfinders on non DSLR
digital cameras. On most (except some, as my Canon Pro I), the
viewfinders are not very helpful. Most DSLR's however will give 95% or
so of the actual scene. But, in many cases, reports state that the
viewfinder is either small or not too clear.

On point and shoot cameras, most have viewfinder now, but their manuals
caution the photographer that the viewfinder is not very accurate.

This is what I meant. Sorry if this seems circumvoluted

Cheers,

Marcel

On 16 Feb 2006 04:30:33 -0800, "Celcius" <>
wrote:

>Hi Bill!
>
>Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was talking about viewfinders on non DSLR
>digital cameras. On most (except some, as my Canon Pro I), the
>viewfinders are not very helpful. Most DSLR's however will give 95% or
>so of the actual scene. But, in many cases, reports state that the
>viewfinder is either small or not too clear.
>
>On point and shoot cameras, most have viewfinder now, but their manuals
>caution the photographer that the viewfinder is not very accurate.
>
>This is what I meant. Sorry if this seems circumvoluted
>
>Cheers,
>
>Marcel

The viewfinders on non-SLRs have always been 'not very accurate.' They
consist of a lens system that is displaced from the taking lens, and
see something the taking lens doesn't. The closer the subject is, the
less accurate the viewfinder is. It's called parallax.
This isn't new to digital at all.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill,

That was my initial point above ("Most cameras have either no
viewfinder or if they have,
they are unusable, except for SLR's and DSL'Rs. What's the point?").
The tip on viewfinders does not pertain to what exists on the market
nowadays. As well, if these are general tips on buying a camera, why
mention a particular brand (Kodak make digital cameras with superb
displays so have a look at those)?

These tips are not very useful to anyone.

Regards,

Marcel

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 08:32:54 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

> The viewfinders on non-SLRs have always been 'not very accurate.' They
> consist of a lens system that is displaced from the taking lens, and
> see something the taking lens doesn't. The closer the subject is, the
> less accurate the viewfinder is. It's called parallax.
> This isn't new to digital at all.

Unless the viewfinders are EVF. Mine seems to be 100% accurate,
or so close as to be indistinguishable when I've made test shots to
check it out. For traditional optical viewfinders, you're right,
especially if mechanical parallax compensation isn't used, as I
think might have been the case with some old rangefinder cameras.