eBay seller friendly camera

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ignoramus9765, Sep 8, 2006.

  1. My current Fuji camera is showing suspicious signs that may be
    indicative that it will not last much longer.

    I am looking for some tips on buying a "professional" ebayer friendly
    camera.

    I understand that consumer camers all are advertised on the basis of
    "megapixels", which is misleading if the (cheap) megapixels are
    combined with poor optics.

    My own priorities are

    1) Being able to take good pictures both as closeups and at some
    distances.

    2) Being able to "cycle" quickly when working in flash mode. My
    current camera sucks in this department, taking a long time to cycle
    and recharge the caps.

    3) Being able to focus even in not so good lighting (another problem
    with my camera)

    4) Being able to be operated a lot (meaning be able to take many
    thousands of pictures before it breaks due to wear, that means
    expensive and maybe heavier components)

    5) Be relatively abuse proof

    6) Export a USB drive even when it is taking pictures, so that I can
    take photos and download pictures to my PC without plugging/unplugging
    the camera from USB

    7) Be able to take videos, which are very handy to provide proof that
    "equipment is in running condition".

    8) Be friendly to batteries, taking a long time before battery
    changes.

    Any suggestions?

    i
    Ignoramus9765, Sep 8, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ignoramus9765 wrote:
    > My current Fuji camera is showing suspicious signs that may be
    > indicative that it will not last much longer.
    >
    > I am looking for some tips on buying a "professional" ebayer friendly
    > camera.
    >
    > I understand that consumer camers all are advertised on the basis of
    > "megapixels", which is misleading if the (cheap) megapixels are
    > combined with poor optics.
    >
    > My own priorities are
    >
    > 1) Being able to take good pictures both as closeups and at some
    > distances.
    >
    > 2) Being able to "cycle" quickly when working in flash mode. My
    > current camera sucks in this department, taking a long time to cycle
    > and recharge the caps.
    >
    > 3) Being able to focus even in not so good lighting (another problem
    > with my camera)
    >
    > 4) Being able to be operated a lot (meaning be able to take many
    > thousands of pictures before it breaks due to wear, that means
    > expensive and maybe heavier components)
    >
    > 5) Be relatively abuse proof
    >
    > 6) Export a USB drive even when it is taking pictures, so that I can
    > take photos and download pictures to my PC without plugging/unplugging
    > the camera from USB
    >
    > 7) Be able to take videos, which are very handy to provide proof that
    > "equipment is in running condition".
    >
    > 8) Be friendly to batteries, taking a long time before battery
    > changes.
    >
    > Any suggestions?
    >
    > i
    >


    The ONLY three choices in a digital camera are Nikon, Nikon, or Nikon.
    Make sure it is at least five megapixels.

    Tutorials at http://www.tinaja.com/auct01.asp



    --
    Many thanks,

    Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
    Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
    rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email:

    Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
    Don Lancaster, Sep 8, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ignoramus9765

    jeremy Guest

    "Ignoramus9765" <ignoramus9765@NOSPAM.9765.invalid> wrote in message
    news:%bhMg.2$...
    > My current Fuji camera is showing suspicious signs that may be
    > indicative that it will not last much longer.
    >
    > I am looking for some tips on buying a "professional" ebayer friendly
    > camera.
    >
    > I understand that consumer camers all are advertised on the basis of
    > "megapixels", which is misleading if the (cheap) megapixels are
    > combined with poor optics.
    >
    >


    If you are seeking maximum overall image quality, coupled with versatility,
    DSLRs offer a margin of improvement.

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2dig.htm
    jeremy, Sep 8, 2006
    #3
  4. Ignoramus9765

    m Ransley Guest

    Canon S3is, Sony H2 or H5, Pansonic Fz30. These cameras do alot, as do
    their less feature laden models. I dont know of a Nikon to compare to a
    Canon S3iS or sony H5. or Fz30
    m Ransley, Sep 8, 2006
    #4
  5. Ignoramus9765

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:51:07 GMT, Ignoramus9765
    <ignoramus9765@NOSPAM.9765.invalid> wrote:

    >My current Fuji camera is showing suspicious signs that may be
    >indicative that it will not last much longer.
    >
    >I am looking for some tips on buying a "professional" ebayer friendly
    >camera.
    >
    >I understand that consumer camers all are advertised on the basis of
    >"megapixels", which is misleading if the (cheap) megapixels are
    >combined with poor optics.
    >
    >My own priorities are


    You left out price, and that leaves the topic too wide open.

    >1) Being able to take good pictures both as closeups and at some
    >distances.


    Nikon is usually rated the best for macro work. Most decent cameras
    do well at distance, but many don't have good macro capabilities.
    The "Coolpix" series offers some good, reasonably priced and
    dependable camera.

    >2) Being able to "cycle" quickly when working in flash mode. My
    >current camera sucks in this department, taking a long time to cycle
    >and recharge the caps.
    >
    >3) Being able to focus even in not so good lighting (another problem
    >with my camera)


    Lighting doesn't affect focussing, but lighting does affect whether or
    not you can see in the viewfinder or LCD screen if you are in focus.


    >4) Being able to be operated a lot (meaning be able to take many
    >thousands of pictures before it breaks due to wear, that means
    >expensive and maybe heavier components)
    >
    >5) Be relatively abuse proof


    Digitals are not as sturdy as the old SLR cameras. That's an
    across-the-board statement. When you have an LCD screen and a lens
    that moves in and out, you have components that don't take a lot of
    abuse. The life expectancy of a digital camera is far less than life
    expectancy of a SLR. (I'm not speaking of Digital SLRS, but the older
    SLRs.)


    >6) Export a USB drive even when it is taking pictures, so that I can
    >take photos and download pictures to my PC without plugging/unplugging
    >the camera from USB


    Some of the Nikon Coolpix cameras have wi-fi capability.

    >7) Be able to take videos, which are very handy to provide proof that
    >"equipment is in running condition".


    You won't take videos on any digital camera. You can take short .avi
    bursts (30 seconds to 3 minutes or so) with movement and sound, but
    these are not videos. They eat up space and battery charge.

    >8) Be friendly to batteries, taking a long time before battery
    >changes.


    Batteries have improved a great deal. I personally prefer a camera
    that uses AAA batteries since I can use rechargables routinely but be
    able to buy non-rechargables if I'm on a trip or something and just
    pop them in. Some cameras have built-in batteries that require the
    camera to be plugged in.

    >Any suggestions?


    Go handle some cameras. You've left out size and ergometric design.
    I've handled cameras that were so small that I can't grip them
    properly or conveniently access the buttons. Yet they meet your other
    requirements. See if features like a swivel LCD screen would be good
    for you.

    I'd never buy a digital that I haven't held. If it doesn't fit right
    in my hand, I'm not going to like it.


    --


    Tony Cooper
    Orlando, FL
    Tony Cooper, Sep 8, 2006
    #5
  6. On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:33:04 -0400, Tony Cooper <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:51:07 GMT, Ignoramus9765
    ><ignoramus9765@NOSPAM.9765.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >>My current Fuji camera is showing suspicious signs that may be
    >>indicative that it will not last much longer.
    >>
    >>I am looking for some tips on buying a "professional" ebayer friendly
    >>camera.
    >>
    >>I understand that consumer camers all are advertised on the basis of
    >>"megapixels", which is misleading if the (cheap) megapixels are
    >>combined with poor optics.
    >>
    >>My own priorities are

    >
    > You left out price, and that leaves the topic too wide open.


    I would say under $700, $800 at most.

    >>1) Being able to take good pictures both as closeups and at some
    >>distances.

    >
    > Nikon is usually rated the best for macro work. Most decent cameras
    > do well at distance, but many don't have good macro capabilities.
    > The "Coolpix" series offers some good, reasonably priced and
    > dependable camera.


    That's nice to know, and iteresting that they offer wifi
    capabilities.

    >>2) Being able to "cycle" quickly when working in flash mode. My
    >>current camera sucks in this department, taking a long time to cycle
    >>and recharge the caps.
    >>
    >>3) Being able to focus even in not so good lighting (another problem
    >>with my camera)

    >
    > Lighting doesn't affect focussing, but lighting does affect whether or
    > not you can see in the viewfinder or LCD screen if you are in focus.


    My camera has troubles focusing in less that great amount of light.

    >
    >>4) Being able to be operated a lot (meaning be able to take many
    >>thousands of pictures before it breaks due to wear, that means
    >>expensive and maybe heavier components)
    >>
    >>5) Be relatively abuse proof

    >
    > Digitals are not as sturdy as the old SLR cameras. That's an
    > across-the-board statement. When you have an LCD screen and a lens
    > that moves in and out, you have components that don't take a lot of
    > abuse. The life expectancy of a digital camera is far less than life
    > expectancy of a SLR. (I'm not speaking of Digital SLRS, but the older
    > SLRs.)


    Understood. Does same apply to real professional cameras?

    >
    >>6) Export a USB drive even when it is taking pictures, so that I can
    >>take photos and download pictures to my PC without plugging/unplugging
    >>the camera from USB

    >
    > Some of the Nikon Coolpix cameras have wi-fi capability.


    Great.

    >>7) Be able to take videos, which are very handy to provide proof that
    >>"equipment is in running condition".

    >
    > You won't take videos on any digital camera. You can take short .avi
    > bursts (30 seconds to 3 minutes or so) with movement and sound, but
    > these are not videos. They eat up space and battery charge.


    That's what I want. Just a few seconds to show that a machine is
    running.

    >>8) Be friendly to batteries, taking a long time before battery
    >>changes.

    >
    > Batteries have improved a great deal. I personally prefer a camera
    > that uses AAA batteries


    yes. I have a nice set of rechargeables and a good charger.

    > since I can use rechargables routinely but be able to buy
    > non-rechargables if I'm on a trip or something and just pop them in.
    > Some cameras have built-in batteries that require the camera to be
    > plugged in.


    I do not like that at all. Sounds like scam to fleece me from my money
    by selling special batteries.

    >>Any suggestions?

    >
    > Go handle some cameras. You've left out size and ergometric design.
    > I've handled cameras that were so small that I can't grip them
    > properly or conveniently access the buttons. Yet they meet your other
    > requirements. See if features like a swivel LCD screen would be good
    > for you.


    I like heavier, bigger cameras myself.

    > I'd never buy a digital that I haven't held. If it doesn't fit right
    > in my hand, I'm not going to like it.


    Makes sense. Thank you.

    i
    Ignoramus9765, Sep 8, 2006
    #6
  7. Ignoramus9765

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:54:57 GMT, Ignoramus9765
    <ignoramus9765@NOSPAM.9765.invalid> wrote:

    >> You left out price, and that leaves the topic too wide open.

    >
    >I would say under $700, $800 at most.
    >
    >> Lighting doesn't affect focussing, but lighting does affect whether or
    >> not you can see in the viewfinder or LCD screen if you are in focus.

    >
    >My camera has troubles focusing in less that great amount of light.


    Actually, I misspoke. In very poor lighting, spot focussing can't
    find anything to focus on. However, that's lighting so poor that you
    wouldn't take a picture under those conditions.

    I wouldn't worry about focussing based on light. Be more concerned
    about figuring out how to illuminate your object properly. Some cheap
    clip-on reflector lamps and setting your camera's white balance to
    incandescent illumination can solve that problem. You haven't said
    anything about taking candid shots under poor lighting

    >>>5) Be relatively abuse proof

    >>
    >> Digitals are not as sturdy as the old SLR cameras. That's an
    >> across-the-board statement. When you have an LCD screen and a lens
    >> that moves in and out, you have components that don't take a lot of
    >> abuse. The life expectancy of a digital camera is far less than life
    >> expectancy of a SLR. (I'm not speaking of Digital SLRS, but the older
    >> SLRs.)

    >
    >Understood. Does same apply to real professional cameras?


    At $700, I wouldn't think you are in the "professional" range. The
    professionals using digital are using digital SLRs with entry level
    pricing at over a grand.


    --


    Tony Cooper
    Orlando, FL
    Tony Cooper, Sep 8, 2006
    #7
  8. On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:09:48 -0400, Tony Cooper <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:54:57 GMT, Ignoramus9765
    ><ignoramus9765@NOSPAM.9765.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >>> You left out price, and that leaves the topic too wide open.

    >>
    >>I would say under $700, $800 at most.
    >>
    >>> Lighting doesn't affect focussing, but lighting does affect whether or
    >>> not you can see in the viewfinder or LCD screen if you are in focus.

    >>
    >>My camera has troubles focusing in less that great amount of light.

    >
    > Actually, I misspoke. In very poor lighting, spot focussing can't
    > find anything to focus on. However, that's lighting so poor that you
    > wouldn't take a picture under those conditions.
    >
    > I wouldn't worry about focussing based on light. Be more concerned
    > about figuring out how to illuminate your object properly. Some cheap
    > clip-on reflector lamps and setting your camera's white balance to
    > incandescent illumination can solve that problem. You haven't said
    > anything about taking candid shots under poor lighting


    Well, if the camera could focus in poor lighting, it could take a
    picture using its flash. Thus saving me time and having those clip on
    lights etc.

    >>>>5) Be relatively abuse proof
    >>>
    >>> Digitals are not as sturdy as the old SLR cameras. That's an
    >>> across-the-board statement. When you have an LCD screen and a lens
    >>> that moves in and out, you have components that don't take a lot of
    >>> abuse. The life expectancy of a digital camera is far less than life
    >>> expectancy of a SLR. (I'm not speaking of Digital SLRS, but the older
    >>> SLRs.)

    >>
    >>Understood. Does same apply to real professional cameras?

    >
    > At $700, I wouldn't think you are in the "professional" range. The
    > professionals using digital are using digital SLRs with entry level
    > pricing at over a grand.


    Tony, what about those Nikon D70* cameras, do they have both manual
    and auto focus?

    i
    Ignoramus9765, Sep 8, 2006
    #8
  9. Ignoramus9765

    Bob G Guest


    > >

    >
    > The ONLY three choices in a digital camera are Nikon, Nikon, or Nikon.
    > Make sure it is at least five megapixels.
    >



    Absolute nonsense offered with great authority.

    There must be dozens of high-quality, reliable cameras that fit your
    bill - go to a camera store with your list of requirements. Electronic
    outlets are probably not too savvy about cameras. Try Consumer Reports
    also - your local library has it if you're not a subscriber.

    The higher the megapixels the larger your files and the longer it takes
    to upload them to eBay. Five megapixels I'd say would be tops for
    high-speed connections.

    You should not spend more than $300 on a camera if all you want to do
    is shoot for eBay.

    My two cents.
    Bob G, Sep 8, 2006
    #9
  10. Ignoramus9765

    Bob G Guest

    Tony Cooper wrote:
    >
    > At $700, I wouldn't think you are in the "professional" range. The
    > professionals using digital are using digital SLRs with entry level
    > pricing at over a grand.
    >


    The Canon Rebel XT DSLR with the kit lens can be had for $800
    currently. Eight megapixels, very fast shooting.

    If all the OP wants to do is shoot for eBay he will do very well for no
    more than $300. If he wants to dabble in Photography or likes
    electronic gadgets then the sky's the limit.
    Bob G, Sep 8, 2006
    #10
  11. On 8 Sep 2006 12:25:39 -0700, Bob G <> wrote:
    >
    >> >

    >>
    >> The ONLY three choices in a digital camera are Nikon, Nikon, or Nikon.
    >> Make sure it is at least five megapixels.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Absolute nonsense offered with great authority.
    >
    > There must be dozens of high-quality, reliable cameras that fit your
    > bill - go to a camera store with your list of requirements. Electronic
    > outlets are probably not too savvy about cameras. Try Consumer Reports
    > also - your local library has it if you're not a subscriber.
    >
    > The higher the megapixels the larger your files and the longer it takes
    > to upload them to eBay. Five megapixels I'd say would be tops for
    > high-speed connections.


    I use xv to quickly edit images (usually under 5 seconds per image),
    and optimize them, that usually shortens them to less than 100 kB. I
    do not upload images to eBay, I host them myself.

    > You should not spend more than $300 on a camera if all you want to do
    > is shoot for eBay.


    Well, taking family style pictures would also be its job. My main
    concern about buying cheap cameras is that they may not be as sturdy
    and long lasting as the better built ones.

    i
    Ignoramus9765, Sep 8, 2006
    #11
  12. Ignoramus9765

    JC Dill Guest

    On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:33:04 -0400, Tony Cooper
    <> wrote:

    >Lighting doesn't affect focussing,


    Yes it does. Most digicams have problems auto-focusing in low light.

    jc

    --

    "The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot
    of different horses without having to own that many."
    ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA
    JC Dill, Sep 8, 2006
    #12
  13. Ignoramus9765

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 19:17:06 GMT, Ignoramus9765
    <ignoramus9765@NOSPAM.9765.invalid> wrote:

    >On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:09:48 -0400, Tony Cooper <> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:54:57 GMT, Ignoramus9765
    >><ignoramus9765@NOSPAM.9765.invalid> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> You left out price, and that leaves the topic too wide open.
    >>>
    >>>I would say under $700, $800 at most.
    >>>
    >>>> Lighting doesn't affect focussing, but lighting does affect whether or
    >>>> not you can see in the viewfinder or LCD screen if you are in focus.
    >>>
    >>>My camera has troubles focusing in less that great amount of light.

    >>
    >> Actually, I misspoke. In very poor lighting, spot focussing can't
    >> find anything to focus on. However, that's lighting so poor that you
    >> wouldn't take a picture under those conditions.
    >>
    >> I wouldn't worry about focussing based on light. Be more concerned
    >> about figuring out how to illuminate your object properly. Some cheap
    >> clip-on reflector lamps and setting your camera's white balance to
    >> incandescent illumination can solve that problem. You haven't said
    >> anything about taking candid shots under poor lighting

    >
    >Well, if the camera could focus in poor lighting, it could take a
    >picture using its flash. Thus saving me time and having those clip on
    >lights etc.


    But you would be going about it wrong. Flash creates problems as well
    as solving problems. It washes out some images, it creates glare and
    high spots, it creates distracting shadows, and - when you depend on
    flash - you can't visualize what you what your how your photograph
    will come out. It sucks battery power.

    External lighting allows you to "pose" your object. It reveals what
    the camera will see. It doesn't lead to surprises like shadows and
    glare spots.

    When you compare time, you have to consider the time it takes to
    re-shoot if the first image doesn't look right.

    >>>Understood. Does same apply to real professional cameras?

    >>
    >> At $700, I wouldn't think you are in the "professional" range. The
    >> professionals using digital are using digital SLRs with entry level
    >> pricing at over a grand.

    >
    >Tony, what about those Nikon D70* cameras, do they have both manual
    >and auto focus?


    Sure. But Ritz lists the D70 at $1,236 with a lens. Those cheaper
    prices you see are for body only and no card.




    --


    Tony Cooper
    Orlando, FL
    Tony Cooper, Sep 8, 2006
    #13
  14. Ignoramus9765

    pkstore2 Guest

    Honestly i have gone thru 5 cameras the last 8 years. They last me about 2
    years at most and then i'm ready for new technology since so much stuff has
    changed or companies scraped ideas and went a different direction. Nikon
    seems to be's everyones pick. My last one was a Sony 7megapixel and it is
    great except for no zoom really. For Ebay is is really good though all
    around. Their new one that just come out has same features but just about
    15% more to play with. Canon's bew 8mgpxl looks appealing but haven't used
    but QVC & HSN have had them for $400. Just buy 1 keep the receipt and if you
    don't like it take it back.
    pkstore2, Sep 8, 2006
    #14
  15. On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:12:05 -0400, Tony Cooper <> wrote:
    >>Well, if the camera could focus in poor lighting, it could take a
    >>picture using its flash. Thus saving me time and having those clip on
    >>lights etc.

    >
    > But you would be going about it wrong. Flash creates problems as well
    > as solving problems. It washes out some images, it creates glare and
    > high spots, it creates distracting shadows, and - when you depend on
    > flash - you can't visualize what you what your how your photograph
    > will come out. It sucks battery power.


    It actually works well for the majority of things that I sell, though
    I agree that sometimes it is difficult to work with.

    I need to use flash, no doubt about that.

    >>>>Understood. Does same apply to real professional cameras?
    >>>
    >>> At $700, I wouldn't think you are in the "professional" range. The
    >>> professionals using digital are using digital SLRs with entry level
    >>> pricing at over a grand.

    >>
    >>Tony, what about those Nikon D70* cameras, do they have both manual
    >>and auto focus?

    >
    > Sure. But Ritz lists the D70 at $1,236 with a lens. Those cheaper
    > prices you see are for body only and no card.


    Well, seems like tehre is a great variation in prices. I do not know
    enough to tell if there are any hidden deficiencies, but check out
    ebay item 160024982688, camera plus two lenses plus microdrive, all
    for $959 (which, I know is more than I indicated). Again, it may have
    a hidden gotcha, but the seller's feedback is decent.

    i
    Ignoramus9765, Sep 8, 2006
    #15
  16. On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 20:28:21 GMT, pkstore2 <> wrote:
    >
    > Honestly i have gone thru 5 cameras the last 8 years. They last me about 2
    > years at most and then i'm ready for new technology since so much stuff has
    > changed or companies scraped ideas and went a different direction. Nikon
    > seems to be's everyones pick. My last one was a Sony 7megapixel and it is
    > great except for no zoom really. For Ebay is is really good though all
    > around. Their new one that just come out has same features but just about
    > 15% more to play with. Canon's bew 8mgpxl looks appealing but haven't used
    > but QVC & HSN have had them for $400. Just buy 1 keep the receipt and if you
    > don't like it take it back.


    Your cameras, did they fall apart from use? What was the reason for
    replacement?

    i
    Ignoramus9765, Sep 8, 2006
    #16
  17. Ignoramus9765 wrote:

    > My current Fuji camera is showing suspicious signs that may be
    > indicative that it will not last much longer.


    Using anything other than a Nikon D2x for your eBay pics is totally and
    utterly foolish. If you're just starting out on eBay you can squeak by with
    an entry lever Nikon D200.







    Rita
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Sep 8, 2006
    #17
  18. On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 17:04:31 -0400, Rita Ä Berkowitz <> wrote:
    > Ignoramus9765 wrote:
    >
    >> My current Fuji camera is showing suspicious signs that may be
    >> indicative that it will not last much longer.

    >
    > Using anything other than a Nikon D2x for your eBay pics is totally and
    > utterly foolish. If you're just starting out on eBay you can squeak by with
    > an entry lever Nikon D200.


    Too expensive, sorry.

    i
    Ignoramus9765, Sep 8, 2006
    #18
  19. Ignoramus9765

    Kurt Guest

    In article <SkjMg.204$>,
    Ignoramus9765 <ignoramus9765@NOSPAM.9765.invalid> wrote:

    > On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:09:48 -0400, Tony Cooper
    > <> wrote:
    > > On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 18:54:57 GMT, Ignoramus9765
    > ><ignoramus9765@NOSPAM.9765.invalid> wrote:
    > >
    > >>> You left out price, and that leaves the topic too wide open.
    > >>
    > >>I would say under $700, $800 at most.
    > >>
    > >>> Lighting doesn't affect focussing, but lighting does affect whether or
    > >>> not you can see in the viewfinder or LCD screen if you are in focus.
    > >>
    > >>My camera has troubles focusing in less that great amount of light.

    > >
    > > Actually, I misspoke. In very poor lighting, spot focussing can't
    > > find anything to focus on. However, that's lighting so poor that you
    > > wouldn't take a picture under those conditions.
    > >
    > > I wouldn't worry about focussing based on light. Be more concerned
    > > about figuring out how to illuminate your object properly. Some cheap
    > > clip-on reflector lamps and setting your camera's white balance to
    > > incandescent illumination can solve that problem. You haven't said
    > > anything about taking candid shots under poor lighting

    >
    > Well, if the camera could focus in poor lighting, it could take a
    > picture using its flash. Thus saving me time and having those clip on
    > lights etc.
    >
    > >>>>5) Be relatively abuse proof
    > >>>
    > >>> Digitals are not as sturdy as the old SLR cameras. That's an
    > >>> across-the-board statement. When you have an LCD screen and a lens
    > >>> that moves in and out, you have components that don't take a lot of
    > >>> abuse. The life expectancy of a digital camera is far less than life
    > >>> expectancy of a SLR. (I'm not speaking of Digital SLRS, but the older
    > >>> SLRs.)
    > >>
    > >>Understood. Does same apply to real professional cameras?

    > >
    > > At $700, I wouldn't think you are in the "professional" range. The
    > > professionals using digital are using digital SLRs with entry level
    > > pricing at over a grand.

    >
    > Tony, what about those Nikon D70* cameras, do they have both manual
    > and auto focus?
    >
    > i


    I use a D70. Manual and auto. A superb camera.

    --
    Kurt

    To reply, change GrippyMcChew to labolide
    Kurt, Sep 8, 2006
    #19
  20. Ignoramus9765 wrote:

    >> Using anything other than a Nikon D2x for your eBay pics is totally
    >> and utterly foolish. If you're just starting out on eBay you can
    >> squeak by with an entry lever Nikon D200.

    >
    > Too expensive, sorry.


    Nonsense! A D2x(s) pays for itself in three months or less with your
    increased eBay sales. If funding is tight you can get the New Nikon D80 or
    a used D70(s) for next to nothing.






    Rita
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Sep 8, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dr Rich

    info on Ebay seller

    Dr Rich, Oct 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    2,903
    Gisle Hannemyr
    Dec 15, 2004
  2. misirens

    DVD Power Seller Goes Broke On EBay

    misirens, Oct 15, 2006, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,984
    Aaron J. Bossig
    Nov 8, 2006
  3. Rich
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    300
    nellybly
    Apr 6, 2006
  4. Bigbazza
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,677
    Bigbazza
    Oct 16, 2007
  5. Bigbazza

    ebay ebay ebay

    Bigbazza, Oct 16, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    791
    Bigbazza
    Oct 16, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page