Fuzzy view through Canon viewfinder

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Archie, Apr 5, 2005.

  1. Archie

    Archie Guest

    What is the view on Canon P&S viewfinders? I find them to be unsharp
    (for the S410, S500, A95, etc.). The quality of the viewfinders is
    rarely mentioned in the reviews one finds on the web.

    I've tried with and without glasses, and it is worse with glasses, for
    me anyway.

    By comparison, I find the HP cameras to look much clearer.
     
    Archie, Apr 5, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Archie

    Time Teamer Guest

    buy Nikon you get a viewfinder focus.........well my 5700 has it.


    "Archie" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > What is the view on Canon P&S viewfinders? I find them to be unsharp
    > (for the S410, S500, A95, etc.). The quality of the viewfinders is
    > rarely mentioned in the reviews one finds on the web.
    >
    > I've tried with and without glasses, and it is worse with glasses, for
    > me anyway.
    >
    > By comparison, I find the HP cameras to look much clearer.
    >
    >
     
    Time Teamer, Apr 5, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Archie

    Mark B. Guest

    "Archie" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > What is the view on Canon P&S viewfinders? I find them to be unsharp
    > (for the S410, S500, A95, etc.). The quality of the viewfinders is
    > rarely mentioned in the reviews one finds on the web.
    >
    > I've tried with and without glasses, and it is worse with glasses, for
    > me anyway.
    >
    > By comparison, I find the HP cameras to look much clearer.
    >
    >


    I never use the optical viewfinder on a P&S digicam, LCD all the way for me.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Apr 5, 2005
    #3
  4. Archie

    Pete D Guest

    "Mark B." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Archie" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> What is the view on Canon P&S viewfinders? I find them to be unsharp
    >> (for the S410, S500, A95, etc.). The quality of the viewfinders is
    >> rarely mentioned in the reviews one finds on the web.
    >>
    >> I've tried with and without glasses, and it is worse with glasses, for
    >> me anyway.
    >>
    >> By comparison, I find the HP cameras to look much clearer.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I never use the optical viewfinder on a P&S digicam, LCD all the way for
    > me.
    >
    > Mark


    How sad for you.
     
    Pete D, Apr 5, 2005
    #4
  5. Archie

    Archie Guest

    On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 06:26:49 -0400, "Mark B."
    <> wrote:

    >"Archie" <> wrote in message
    >news:p...
    >> What is the view on Canon P&S viewfinders? I find them to be unsharp
    >> (for the S410, S500, A95, etc.). The quality of the viewfinders is
    >> rarely mentioned in the reviews one finds on the web.
    >>
    >> I've tried with and without glasses, and it is worse with glasses, for
    >> me anyway.
    >>
    >> By comparison, I find the HP cameras to look much clearer.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >I never use the optical viewfinder on a P&S digicam, LCD all the way for me.
    >


    Try that while locking the focus, with the button half way down.

    A.
     
    Archie, Apr 6, 2005
    #5
  6. Archie

    Cathy Guest

    "Archie" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > What is the view on Canon P&S viewfinders? I find them to be unsharp
    > (for the S410, S500, A95, etc.). The quality of the viewfinders is
    > rarely mentioned in the reviews one finds on the web.
    >
    > I've tried with and without glasses, and it is worse with glasses, for
    > me anyway.
    >
    > By comparison, I find the HP cameras to look much clearer.


    Archie, I partly agree with you. I found HP M307 and M407 to have very
    clear viewfinders while I've been looking for the last few months. But I
    found Canon A75 quite clear and A85 and A95 were OK. But many makes have
    quite blurred viewfinders (to me at least). Maybe its because I wear
    glasses, or in my case, its probably middle age :) I have very sensitive
    eyes. Most of the young guys selling cameras in stores don't even notice
    and say to me "the viewfinder doesn't look blurry to me" and I said "of
    course not, you are young and don't have glasses. Wait till you get
    older and lets see if you say the same thing ". I don't want to depend
    only on LCD's because I see better in the viewfinder. I would need at
    least a 1.8" LCD but I should get 2" LCD. I would probably use the
    viewfinder most of the time, but its nice to have the LCD too. I looked
    at HP M407 a few months ago but there are not many reviews on it, so I
    am still wavering. Its the cheapest camera I've seen for a 4 MP- $199.00
    Can. $165.00 US. The M307 and 407 have 1.8" LCD's but with the M607 and
    M 707 for some unknown reason that makes no sense to me, they went back
    to the tiny 1.5" LCD. I would need binoculars :) If the M407 had a 2"
    LCD, I would seriously consider it, as long as the quality of the
    pictures was ok, which I am not sure about.

    Cathy
     
    Cathy, Apr 6, 2005
    #6
  7. Archie

    Mark B. Guest

    "Pete D" <> wrote in message
    news:kyu4e.907$...
    >
    > "Mark B." <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> I never use the optical viewfinder on a P&S digicam, LCD all the way for
    >> me.
    >>
    >> Mark

    >
    > How sad for you.
    >


    Why is that? Please explain.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Apr 6, 2005
    #7
  8. Archie

    Mark B. Guest

    "Archie" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 06:26:49 -0400, "Mark B."
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>>

    >>
    >>I never use the optical viewfinder on a P&S digicam, LCD all the way for
    >>me.
    >>

    >
    > Try that while locking the focus, with the button half way down.
    >
    > A.


    That's exactly how I operate my G1. What's the big deal? I'd much rather
    look at the view the lens is seeing than try to look through the optical
    viewfinder, which as the OP pointed out is terrible on most digicams not to
    mention is not what will be captured on the sensor.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Apr 6, 2005
    #8
  9. On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 06:58:42 -0400, in rec.photo.digital , "Mark B."
    <> in <>
    wrote:

    >"Pete D" <> wrote in message
    >news:kyu4e.907$...
    >>
    >> "Mark B." <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I never use the optical viewfinder on a P&S digicam, LCD all the way for
    >>> me.
    >>>
    >>> Mark

    >>
    >> How sad for you.
    >>

    >
    >Why is that? Please explain.
    >

    As discussed elsewhere it is harder to hold the camera still that way.
    I also find that it is much more difficult to compose a good shot that
    way. I do it when I want the camera somewhere my eye can't be (and the
    swivel lens on the F707 gives me lots of those opportunities) but
    otherwise close to the face, with no distractions, allows crisper
    better photos.



    --
    Matt Silberstein

    All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
    a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
    there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
    end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
    or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.
     
    Matt Silberstein, Apr 6, 2005
    #9
  10. Archie

    Mark B. Guest

    "Matt Silberstein" <> wrote in
    message news:p...
    >>>
    >>> "Mark B." <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I never use the optical viewfinder on a P&S digicam, LCD all the way
    >>>> for
    >>>> me.
    >>>>
    >>>> Mark
    >>>
    >>> How sad for you.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Why is that? Please explain.
    >>

    > As discussed elsewhere it is harder to hold the camera still that way.
    > I also find that it is much more difficult to compose a good shot that
    > way. I do it when I want the camera somewhere my eye can't be (and the
    > swivel lens on the F707 gives me lots of those opportunities) but
    > otherwise close to the face, with no distractions, allows crisper
    > better photos.
    >


    If we were talking about a digital SLR, I'd agree 100% - very difficult to
    hold a SLR with even a smallish lens any length away from your face and get
    a steady shot. Even if this feature eventually migrates to DSLRs, I'll
    still use the optical viewfinder. But with a light digicam, it's not a
    problem in most cases. I've never had any problem with my G1 or A70 doing
    this.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Apr 7, 2005
    #10
  11. Archie

    ecm Guest

    I agree - HP makes great viewfinders - I used an old 315xi for 4 years
    without ever turning on the LCD - it seriously chewed batteries,
    anyways. OTOH, my Oly C-5060 can't really be used WITHOUT the LCD - the
    optical viewfinder only covers about 70-80% of the scene, so I never
    get my shot framing right. I use the optical viewfinder when I'm taking
    "vacation snaps" and the framing really doesn't matter, and with 5
    Mpixels I can crop to 1/2 size and still print great 8X10's; otherwise
    for "hobby pictures" I use the LCD and either a monopod or a tripod.

    ECM
     
    ecm, Apr 7, 2005
    #11
  12. Archie

    Renee Guest

    "Cathy" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    <snip>
    >But many makes have
    > quite blurred viewfinders (to me at least). Maybe its because I wear
    > glasses, or in my case, its probably middle age :)


    <snip>
    >I would probably use the
    > viewfinder most of the time, but its nice to have the LCD too.



    Sounds like you need a camera with a diopter adjustment dial.

    I usually use the viewfinder because I can hold the camera steadier when I
    brace my arms closer to my body. I set the diopter on my Canon when I first
    got it because my eyes aren't that sharp either. I found the diopter
    adjustment to be a great feature to have.

    Renee
     
    Renee, Apr 8, 2005
    #12
  13. Archie

    Cathy Guest

    "Renee" <> wrote in message news:2vD5e.25740

    > "Cathy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > <snip>
    > >But many makes have
    > > quite blurred viewfinders (to me at least). Maybe its because I wear
    > > glasses, or in my case, its probably middle age :)

    >
    > <snip>
    > >I would probably use the
    > > viewfinder most of the time, but its nice to have the LCD too.

    >
    >
    > Sounds like you need a camera with a diopter adjustment dial.


    You are probably right, but I haven't seen many cameras that have the
    diopter adjustment, and never actually looked in one with that feature.
    They seem to be in more expensive cameras. I am looking for a camera
    around $299.00 Can.$ so around $250.00 US. We get most of the models
    here that you do in the US, but not all,and depending on the camera
    make, some cameras here cost quite a lot more than in the US. I could
    pay a little more if I really liked a camera, but not a lot more, as I
    would not be using it frequently - mainly want one for family 4X6 stills
    and scenery.
    I'd like to get one with 2" LCD if possible, but for me the viewfinder
    has to be pretty clear.

    > I usually use the viewfinder because I can hold the camera steadier

    when I
    > brace my arms closer to my body. I set the diopter on my Canon when I

    first
    > got it because my eyes aren't that sharp either. I found the diopter
    > adjustment to be a great feature to have.


    Yes, you are right, holding the camera in the way you describe sounds
    like a good idea.
    Is a diopter for using with no glasses, kind of like using binoculars? I
    don't need glasses when looking through my binoculars and always think
    this would be great if my vision was like this all the time and I
    wouldn't need glasses :)
    What model Canon do you have? I am looking for point and shoot and have
    looked at many reviews, and many cameras in the stores.I didn't look for
    a while, but starting to look again.
    Thanks Renee.

    Cathy
     
    Cathy, Apr 9, 2005
    #13
  14. Archie

    ASAAR Guest

    On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 23:44:34 -0400, Cathy wrote:

    > They seem to be in more expensive cameras. I am looking for a camera
    > around $299.00 Can.$ so around $250.00 US. We get most of the models
    > here that you do in the US, but not all,and depending on the camera
    > make, some cameras here cost quite a lot more than in the US. I could
    > pay a little more if I really liked a camera, but not a lot more, as I
    > would not be using it frequently - mainly want one for family 4X6 stills
    > and scenery.
    > I'd like to get one with 2" LCD if possible, but for me the viewfinder
    > has to be pretty clear.


    You might want to consider some of Panasonic's Lumix cameras, even
    though some of them might be slightly above your price limit. I
    don't recall all of the spec's so you'd have to look them up, but
    the ones I'm thinking of have what many here might consider a
    drawback - no viewfinder. But they're small, have large displays
    (up to 2.5 inches) and 3x or 6x optical zoom, depending on model.
    What most people here don't like about using the display to take the
    picture is that it's supposedly not as stable as if a viewfinder is
    used. But these Panasonics all have image stabilization built into
    the cameras, which should more than compensate. Here's some of the
    (incomplete) data I had saved:

    Panasonic Lumix DMC-LS1 : Image Stabilization, AA batteries, (3.7
    x 2.5 x 1.2 in)

    Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ1 / DMC-LZ2 : AA batteries, I.S., 6x optical:
    LZ2==5mp, (4.0 x 2.5 x 1.3 in); large but LoRes LCD

    Panasonix Lumix DMC-FX7 : (3.7 x 2.0 x 1.0 in), Stabilization; USB
    Full Speed; 2.5" display; AF illuminator
     
    ASAAR, Apr 9, 2005
    #14
  15. On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 23:44:34 -0400, "Cathy" <> wrote:

    >"Renee" <> wrote in message news:2vD5e.25740
    >
    >> Sounds like you need a camera with a diopter adjustment dial.

    >
    >You are probably right, but I haven't seen many cameras that have the
    >diopter adjustment, and never actually looked in one with that feature.
    >They seem to be in more expensive cameras. I am looking for a camera
    >around $299.00 Can.$ so around $250.00 US.


    I didn't see the start of this thread, but the Minolta Z series has
    diopter adjustment, and the lower models in the range might be an
    acceptable price for you.

    --
    Stephen Poley
     
    Stephen Poley, Apr 9, 2005
    #15
  16. Archie

    Renee Guest

    "Cathy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Renee" <> wrote in message news:2vD5e.25740
    >
    >> Sounds like you need a camera with a diopter adjustment dial.

    >
    > You are probably right, but I haven't seen many cameras that have the
    > diopter adjustment, and never actually looked in one with that feature.
    > They seem to be in more expensive cameras. I am looking for a camera
    > around $299.00 Can.$ so around $250.00 US. We get most of the models
    > here that you do in the US, but not all,and depending on the camera
    > make, some cameras here cost quite a lot more than in the US. I could
    > pay a little more if I really liked a camera, but not a lot more, as I
    > would not be using it frequently - mainly want one for family 4X6 stills
    > and scenery.
    > I'd like to get one with 2" LCD if possible, but for me the viewfinder
    > has to be pretty clear.
    >
    >> I usually use the viewfinder because I can hold the camera steadier

    > when I
    >> brace my arms closer to my body. I set the diopter on my Canon when I

    > first
    >> got it because my eyes aren't that sharp either. I found the diopter
    >> adjustment to be a great feature to have.

    >
    > Yes, you are right, holding the camera in the way you describe sounds
    > like a good idea.
    > Is a diopter for using with no glasses, kind of like using binoculars? I
    > don't need glasses when looking through my binoculars and always think
    > this would be great if my vision was like this all the time and I
    > wouldn't need glasses :)
    > What model Canon do you have? I am looking for point and shoot and have
    > looked at many reviews, and many cameras in the stores.I didn't look for
    > a while, but starting to look again.
    > Thanks Renee.
    >
    > Cathy
    >


    Cathy, I'm blind without contacts or glasses. Since I'm usually wearing
    glasses, taking them off every time I shoot would be bothersome. So I always
    shoot all my photos with them on. But I can also see through the viewfinder
    without glasses or contacts by adjusting the diopter. Not sure if it'll work
    that way for everyone.

    I have an S1 IS. ($299.95 at NewEgg, $309.95 at B&H -- two vendors I hear
    people trust doing business with). But it doesn't sound like the S1 is one
    you'd want to look at. It only has a 1.5" LCD and has an 10x ultra-zoom, a
    feature you didn't say you'd have use for. Sounds like you'd be better off
    with a wider-angle camera for those landscape photos than a tele-photo one.
    (Though the S1 does take interchangeable lenses like wide-angles. But
    point-and-shoot photographers probably don't care to lug around extra camera
    gear and weight.)

    All the cameras you look at *should* have a feature that lets you zoom in on
    the image while you're reviewing it on the LCD -- you can tell if the photo
    you just took is out of focus. So if you're mainly going to use the
    viewfinder, don't let a smaller LCD sway your decision.

    Whatever models you decide to check out, try to look at some photos taken by
    owners who are casual shooters or amateur photographers. They're the ones
    who are usually taking the shaky shots, and under less than ideal
    circumstances. See how good their shots are coming out.


    Renee

    http://photofan.multiply.com/photos
     
    Renee, Apr 10, 2005
    #16
  17. Archie

    Cathy Guest

    "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 23:44:34 -0400, Cathy wrote:
    >
    > > They seem to be in more expensive cameras. I am looking for a camera
    > > around $299.00 Can.$ so around $250.00 US. We get most of the models
    > > here that you do in the US, but not all,and depending on the camera
    > > make, some cameras here cost quite a lot more than in the US. I

    could
    > > pay a little more if I really liked a camera, but not a lot more, as

    I
    > > would not be using it frequently - mainly want one for family 4X6

    stills
    > > and scenery.
    > > I'd like to get one with 2" LCD if possible, but for me the

    viewfinder
    > > has to be pretty clear.

    >
    > You might want to consider some of Panasonic's Lumix cameras, even
    > though some of them might be slightly above your price limit. I
    > don't recall all of the spec's so you'd have to look them up, but
    > the ones I'm thinking of have what many here might consider a
    > drawback - no viewfinder.


    To be honest, I would not buy a camera with no viewfinder. I am used to
    a 35 mm and dependent on a viewfinder. I know I would have problems
    adjusting to an LCD only as I would use a viewfinder more than an LCD,
    though nice to have an LCD. I've only seen one camera on my travels
    here with no viewfinder, so they don't seem to be very popular - but
    maybe later they will be. However, I don't think they are 2" LCD's. I
    haven't seen many Panasonic cameras in stores here. On the STaples site,
    I only saw two and they were LC50 and LC70, both had 1.5" LCD. Too small
    for me. I need 1.8" at least. On other sites of camera stores here, I
    didn't see any Panasonics. Canons, Sony, Fuji and Olympus are more
    common. But you have more variety than we do and usually cheaper, though
    we have quite frequent sales here so I keep looking.

    <snip>

    > Panasonic Lumix DMC-LS1 : Image Stabilization, AA batteries, (3.7
    > x 2.5 x 1.2 in)
    >
    > Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ1 / DMC-LZ2 : AA batteries, I.S., 6x optical:
    > LZ2==5mp, (4.0 x 2.5 x 1.3 in); large but LoRes LCD
    >
    > Panasonix Lumix DMC-FX7 : (3.7 x 2.0 x 1.0 in), Stabilization; USB
    > Full Speed; 2.5" display; AF illuminator


    I looked up the cameras you mention above, but the lack of viewfinder
    would not do for me.
    Thanks though.

    Cathy
     
    Cathy, Apr 10, 2005
    #17
  18. Archie

    Cathy Guest

    "Stephen Poley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 23:44:34 -0400, "Cathy" <> wrote:
    >
    > >"Renee" <> wrote in message news:2vD5e.25740
    > >
    > >> Sounds like you need a camera with a diopter adjustment dial.

    > >
    > >You are probably right, but I haven't seen many cameras that have the
    > >diopter adjustment, and never actually looked in one with that

    feature.
    > >They seem to be in more expensive cameras. I am looking for a camera
    > >around $299.00 Can.$ so around $250.00 US.

    >
    > I didn't see the start of this thread, but the Minolta Z series has
    > diopter adjustment, and the lower models in the range might be an
    > acceptable price for you.


    I looked to see what Minolta Z series cameras looked like, but they are
    too big for what I want. I am looking for a compact point and shoot
    something like A75/85, but wanted to see if I can get something with two
    batteries. The A510 and A520 replaced them but they seem to have mixed
    reviews. New cameras are coming out all the time and are fairly
    reasonable prices which I consider to be $250.00 US.
    Thanks.

    Cathy
     
    Cathy, Apr 10, 2005
    #18
  19. Archie

    Cathy Guest

    "Renee" <> wrote in message
    news:0h%5e.54248$...
    >
    > "Cathy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > "Renee" <> wrote in message news:2vD5e.25740


    <snip>

    > >> I usually use the viewfinder because I can hold the camera steadier

    > > when I
    > >> brace my arms closer to my body. I set the diopter on my Canon when

    I
    > > first
    > >> got it because my eyes aren't that sharp either. I found the

    diopter
    > >> adjustment to be a great feature to have.

    > >
    > > Yes, you are right, holding the camera in the way you describe

    sounds
    > > like a good idea.
    > > Is a diopter for using with no glasses, kind of like using

    binoculars? I
    > > don't need glasses when looking through my binoculars and always

    think
    > > this would be great if my vision was like this all the time and I
    > > wouldn't need glasses :)
    > > What model Canon do you have? I am looking for point and shoot and

    have
    > > looked at many reviews, and many cameras in the stores.I didn't look

    for
    > > a while, but starting to look again.
    > > Thanks Renee.
    > >
    > > Cathy
    > >

    >
    > Cathy, I'm blind without contacts or glasses. Since I'm usually

    wearing
    > glasses, taking them off every time I shoot would be bothersome. So I

    always
    > shoot all my photos with them on. But I can also see through the

    viewfinder
    > without glasses or contacts by adjusting the diopter. Not sure if

    it'll work
    > that way for everyone.


    I don't recall seeing a camera with a diopter on my travels. I think
    they are probably more money and that is why. Most chain stores here
    that carry cameras just carry the most popular and most sold makes.
    There is one camera store I have looked in, and they sell cameras only,
    I might find more there with diopters, but their prices are a little
    higher than the chain stores, though they sometimes have camera sales. I
    could do without a diopter if I had to. For my needs, its not the most
    important thing but would be nice. As long as the viewfinder is clear to
    me, that would be ok. Some are clear and some are very fuzzy to me.

    > I have an S1 IS. ($299.95 at NewEgg, $309.95 at B&H -- two vendors I

    hear
    > people trust doing business with). But it doesn't sound like the S1 is

    one
    > you'd want to look at. It only has a 1.5" LCD and has an 10x

    ultra-zoom, a
    > feature you didn't say you'd have use for. Sounds like you'd be better

    off
    > with a wider-angle camera for those landscape photos than a tele-photo

    one.
    > (Though the S1 does take interchangeable lenses like wide-angles. But
    > point-and-shoot photographers probably don't care to lug around extra

    camera
    > gear and weight.)


    I am looking for only a point and shoot. The S1 is a Canon? there is
    also an S1 Nikon.
    We don't have Newegg or B& H in this country (Canada). We have Staples,
    Best Buy, Future shop, Henrys and thats the main ones.

    > All the cameras you look at *should* have a feature that lets you

    zoom in on
    > the image while you're reviewing it on the LCD -- you can tell if the

    photo
    > you just took is out of focus. So if you're mainly going to use the
    > viewfinder, don't let a smaller LCD sway your decision.


    Well, I would have to have at least a 1.8" LCD as a 1.5" is way too
    small for me to see comfortably. Even though I would be using a
    viewfinder most of the time, I need to have an LCD that I can also use
    and that could not be a 1.5". Most newer cameras coming out have 2 and
    2.5" LCD's, which is much more to my liking. so no use for me to settle
    for a 1.5", so I have to say that a 1.5" would definitely sway my
    decision. I looked online at a couple of new Sony cameras online which
    will be coming out soon and one store here will carry them. Depends on
    the price though.It has a 2.5" LCD. I also saw a Pentax Optio coming out
    which will be 2". No prices for them given yet.

    > Whatever models you decide to check out, try to look at some photos

    taken by
    > owners who are casual shooters or amateur photographers. They're the

    ones
    > who are usually taking the shaky shots, and under less than ideal
    > circumstances. See how good their shots are coming out.


    I check reviews and photos on Steves digicam and dscresource and
    dpreview.
    I would have to be more serious as to what I want to buy and when I go
    to stores, they would let me see the camera with the LCD lit up. half
    the time they seem to be out of batteries.

    > http://photofan.multiply.com/photos


    Did you take these photos?

    Cathy
     
    Cathy, Apr 10, 2005
    #19
  20. Archie

    Renee Guest

    "Cathy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    <snip>
    > I am looking for only a point and shoot. The S1 is a Canon? there is
    > also an S1 Nikon.
    > We don't have Newegg or B& H in this country (Canada). We have Staples,
    > Best Buy, Future shop, Henrys and thats the main ones.

    <snip>
    > I would have to be more serious as to what I want to buy and when I go
    > to stores, they would let me see the camera with the LCD lit up. half
    > the time they seem to be out of batteries.
    >
    > Did you take these photos?
    >
    > Cathy
    >


    Hi Cathy,

    I have a Canon S1 IS. The S1 photos were taken by me. The A95 photos were
    taken by a friend. She's strictly a point-and-shoot gal like yourself. I had
    to twist her arm to try some of her other camera settings. I'd never give up
    my ultra-zoom but if I had to choose a p&s without it, it'd be the A95. The
    camera gets a lot of good reviews; her photos come out great and she know
    less about what she's doing than I do (if that's possible) :)

    Some people take their own flash memory cards to the stores to shoot test
    pictures. I don't see why you can't bring in your own batteries.

    Renee
     
    Renee, Apr 12, 2005
    #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. JasonC

    The Fuzzy Bunny has Got the carrot

    JasonC, Feb 15, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    495
    Blinky the Shark
    Feb 16, 2004
  2. Ladydeb

    fuzzy TFT monitor

    Ladydeb, Sep 4, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    879
    Pennywise
    Sep 4, 2004
  3. bab

    GEforce MX440 fuzzy on Maple Story game

    bab, Nov 24, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    684
  4. Rob

    Digital Rebel 1.6x zoom through viewfinder

    Rob, Jan 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    665
    fruitbat
    Jan 7, 2004
  5. Gary Edstrom
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    460
    Ed Mullikin
    May 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page