Which compact?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by chris, Mar 22, 2010.

  1. chris

    chris Guest

    Hi,

    I am looking for suggestions for my next digital compact.

    My IXUS 700 has just died, and I am looking for a replacement. The
    only issue I had with it was the lack of manual override for shutter
    speed, and aperture. So, I am looking for suggestions for a digital
    compact that has:

    1. Shutter and aperture manual override. (Preferably including
    exposure times <0.5s)
    2. Good quality lens (f2.8 or faster)
    3. Good quality CCD (and no less than 1/1.8inches).
    4. The ability to select center point focus easily.
    5. Minimum of 12MP resolution.
    6. Fast start up time. The IXUS was around a second, I would not want
    longer than this.
    7. 150+ shots out of a charged battery.

    It would be nice to go for another IXUS in the hope that I can use the
    old spare batteries & chargers from the old IXUS 700.

    Beyond the above, I will be going for the smallest, most robust and
    cheapest.

    Any suggestions would be welcome, as the manufacturers sites are more
    keen to plug their latest made up jargon for 'another-automatic-
    feature' than tell me what the camera is really capable of!


    Thanks,

    Chris.
    chris, Mar 22, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. chris

    Dave Cohen Guest

    On 3/22/2010 8:24 AM, chris wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am looking for suggestions for my next digital compact.
    >
    > My IXUS 700 has just died, and I am looking for a replacement. The
    > only issue I had with it was the lack of manual override for shutter
    > speed, and aperture. So, I am looking for suggestions for a digital
    > compact that has:
    >
    > 1. Shutter and aperture manual override. (Preferably including
    > exposure times<0.5s)
    > 2. Good quality lens (f2.8 or faster)
    > 3. Good quality CCD (and no less than 1/1.8inches).
    > 4. The ability to select center point focus easily.
    > 5. Minimum of 12MP resolution.
    > 6. Fast start up time. The IXUS was around a second, I would not want
    > longer than this.
    > 7. 150+ shots out of a charged battery.
    >
    > It would be nice to go for another IXUS in the hope that I can use the
    > old spare batteries& chargers from the old IXUS 700.
    >
    > Beyond the above, I will be going for the smallest, most robust and
    > cheapest.
    >
    > Any suggestions would be welcome, as the manufacturers sites are more
    > keen to plug their latest made up jargon for 'another-automatic-
    > feature' than tell me what the camera is really capable of!
    >
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Chris.

    My good old Canon A95 has just died. It had all of the above except for
    the resolution.
    Later models in this series should meet most of your requirements.
    Dave Cohen, Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. chris

    SMS Guest

    On 22/03/10 5:24 AM, chris wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I am looking for suggestions for my next digital compact.
    >
    > My IXUS 700 has just died, and I am looking for a replacement. The
    > only issue I had with it was the lack of manual override for shutter
    > speed, and aperture.


    Sure it had those. You just had to load CHDK to get them! All of our
    small cameras are Canon models that can use CHDK (except the G2 predates
    CHDK).

    Get the SD1200 IS (but CHDK not yet available).

    I don't know why you're insistent on 12 MP for such a small sensor,
    which just means too much noise. The SD1200 IS is 10 MP, and it has an
    f2.8 lens (at the wide end). The battery is not the same as the SD700.

    The SD780 is 12 MP, but the lens is slower. CHDK is already available.

    Too bad about your SD700, since it was one of the better compact
    cameras, and Canon has been doing a lot of decontenting in this product
    line. Really hard to find anything good that has an optical viewfinder
    like the SD700, and that's one feature that you should never compromise on.
    SMS, Mar 22, 2010
    #3
  4. chris

    NameHere Guest

    On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:35:26 -0700, SMS <> wrote:

    >On 22/03/10 5:24 AM, chris wrote:
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I am looking for suggestions for my next digital compact.
    >>
    >> My IXUS 700 has just died, and I am looking for a replacement. The
    >> only issue I had with it was the lack of manual override for shutter
    >> speed, and aperture.

    >
    >Sure it had those. You just had to load CHDK to get them! All of our
    >small cameras are Canon models that can use CHDK (except the G2 predates
    >CHDK).
    >
    >Get the SD1200 IS (but CHDK not yet available).
    >
    >I don't know why you're insistent on 12 MP for such a small sensor,
    >which just means too much noise. The SD1200 IS is 10 MP, and it has an
    >f2.8 lens (at the wide end). The battery is not the same as the SD700.
    >
    >The SD780 is 12 MP, but the lens is slower. CHDK is already available.
    >
    >Too bad about your SD700, since it was one of the better compact
    >cameras, and Canon has been doing a lot of decontenting in this product
    >line. Really hard to find anything good that has an optical viewfinder
    >like the SD700, and that's one feature that you should never compromise on.


    So speaks the pretend-photographer troll that has never used a camera in
    its lifetime. SMS comes in handy though if you want it to go look up
    something for you on the net or download and read a manual for you. That's
    all that the SMS Troll will ever be good for.
    NameHere, Mar 22, 2010
    #4
  5. chris

    SMS Guest

    On 22/03/10 8:28 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:

    <snip>

    > Just curious: WHY "Minimum of 12MP resolution"?


    Yes, that jumped out at me too!

    > This silly megapixel race in compact cameras really annoys me. I have small
    > cameras with 8, 10, 12 and 14.5 MP. I routinely set them all to 5 MP. I'd
    > prefer them to be 5 MP natively rather than cramming all those too-tiny
    > photosites into such small CCDs, but you can't even buy a new 5MP camera
    > now.


    Setting them to a lower resolution isn't buying you anything other than
    a smaller file size. I don't think it's helping you with the noise.

    These high pixel densities on the tiny sensors on compact cameras is
    more than annoying, it actually decreases the image quality especially
    if you're shooting at anything higher than ISO 100.

    > Every manufacturer evidently believes he has to do this to keep up with
    > the competition, and the sad part is he's probably right: people will pay
    > more for cameras with higher megapixel counts in the fond belief that
    > "sharper pictures" will be the result.


    It was amazing to see Canon _not_ doing this on the G11. They actually
    went the other way, to a lower MP sensor than the G10. But the G11 is
    targeted at a different buyer than the smaller pocket cameras where LCD
    size and number of megapixels are the only things that the manufacturers
    are able to market.

    > In most cases all they'll really get
    > are (a) fewer pictures on a memory card, (b) longer in-camera processing
    > times, (c) longer transfer times to the computer, (d) more hard disk space
    > used up, and probably (e) more noise when high ISOs are used.


    Yeah, but most people don't know that!

    Two years ago Canon had some excellent cameras with a 7.1 MP sensor,
    image-stabilization, and an optical viewfinder. One was the A570 IS, one
    was the SD800 IS. The latter was unusual because it also had a lens with
    28mm at the wide end, which is non-existent anymore in a pocket camera
    with an optical viewfinder. It became the Olympus XA of the decade and
    was snapped up by cyclists and backpackers. I wanted to buy a spare, and
    was astounded to see the street price on it going up, not down (when did
    you ever see a digital camera going up in price over time?). Now they're
    selling for ridiculous prices on the used market. My kids each have an
    A570 IS which lacks the wide angle lens but still has the optical
    viewfinder).

    I installed CHDK for more manual control and some of the other features,
    but except in the winter (where sunlight and snow combine to make the
    manual features more necessary) I use one of the automatic modes. CHDK
    will give the original poster the manual control he desires. I don't
    think such a thing is available for any other manufacturer's compact
    cameras. It's an amazing piece of work. I did some of the documentation
    for it, which was a bit lacking.
    SMS, Mar 22, 2010
    #5
  6. On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:17:15 -0700, SMS <> wrote:

    >
    >Setting them to a lower resolution isn't buying you anything other than
    >a smaller file size. I don't think it's helping you with the noise.


    Yes it does you fucking cameraless pretend-photographer know-nothing piece
    of shit troll. Downsampling in-camera averages out neighboring pixels.

    Since you don't even know this much the rest of your spewage is merely
    snipped and left unread.
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Mar 22, 2010
    #6
  7. chris

    RichB Guest

    On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:17:15 -0700, SMS <> wrote:

    >
    >I installed CHDK for more manual control and some of the other features,
    >but except in the winter (where sunlight and snow combine to make the
    >manual features more necessary) I use one of the automatic modes. CHDK
    >will give the original poster the manual control he desires. I don't
    >think such a thing is available for any other manufacturer's compact
    >cameras. It's an amazing piece of work. I did some of the documentation
    >for it, which was a bit lacking.


    LIAR!

    Point out just ONE page, just ONE word where you edited the documentation
    for CHDK. The edit history will clearly show if it was done by you.

    But you CAN'T. You don't even know how CHDK works, you fucking
    pretend-photographer troll jack-off.
    RichB, Mar 22, 2010
    #7
  8. On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:56:25 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:

    >>Setting them to a lower resolution isn't buying you anything other than
    >>a smaller file size. I don't think it's helping you with the noise.

    >
    > Yes it does you fucking cameraless pretend-photographer know-nothing
    > piece of shit troll. Downsampling in-camera averages out neighboring
    > pixels.
    >
    > Since you don't even know this much the rest of your spewage is merely
    > snipped and left unread.


    And then you went on to reply to a snipped and unread part two minutes
    later...

    --
    Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
    Robert Spanjaard, Mar 22, 2010
    #8
  9. chris

    SMS Guest

    On 22/03/10 3:08 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote:
    > On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:56:25 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN! wrote:
    >
    >>> Setting them to a lower resolution isn't buying you anything other than
    >>> a smaller file size. I don't think it's helping you with the noise.

    >>
    >> Yes it does you fucking cameraless pretend-photographer know-nothing
    >> piece of shit troll. Downsampling in-camera averages out neighboring
    >> pixels.
    >>
    >> Since you don't even know this much the rest of your spewage is merely
    >> snipped and left unread.

    >
    > And then you went on to reply to a snipped and unread part two minutes
    > later...


    Thank goodness for the nice filters in Thunderbird 3.03. There's no need
    to be bothered with our favorite troll's rantings, just filter him.
    e-mail me and I'll tell you how to do it. There's something in one of
    his headers to filter on.
    SMS, Mar 22, 2010
    #9
  10. chris

    Ken Walls Guest

    On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:10:20 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >For the most part I agree with you, which is why I'd rather the sensors were
    >5 MP natively. There must be some sort of borders between the photosites,
    >which is just one reason that, say, a single photosite must be more
    >efficient that four 1/4-size sites in the same space. I suspect that as a
    >photon-collecting "well" the larger photosite must be "deeper" too.
    >
    >But I think there is probably some noise advantage, however small, to
    >switching to a lower resolution. Here's why I think so: Some recent Nikon
    >Coolpixes with very high ISOs restrict those settings to much lower
    >resolutions. For example, my Coolpix S710 has a maximum of 14.5 MP, but when
    >ISO is set to 6400 or 12800 it automatically switches down to 3 MP. I assume
    >that it does this for noise considerations, so it seems likely to me that
    >even dropping to 5 MP should give some reduction in noise -- though I have
    >never actually tested this idea.


    Wow. I can't believe you're this fucking stupid. It's called pixel-binning
    and has been used for astrophotography and cameras for well over a decade
    now.

    But if the camera is not designed with pixel-binning in the first place,
    then downsizing in camera to a 5mpx image will only use the bicubic
    resampling algorithm to smooth out the noise.

    I can't believe the stupidity that both of you keep displaying. But then,
    that's to be expected from pretend-photographer trolls that have never had
    to research a camera with the intent of actually buying one.
    Ken Walls, Mar 23, 2010
    #10
  11. chris

    Mr. Anon Guest

    On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:10:20 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >I just saw CHDK mentioned here in the newgroup today, don't know anything
    >about it. The only Canons I have are an S60, an A95 and an S2 IS. I guess
    >CHDK, whatever it is, wouldn't do anything for any of those, eh?
    >


    Go educate yourself.

    http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

    Then ask the know-nothing pretend-photographer troll SMS some questions
    about how to run it. He always claims he's used it, claims he even wrote
    the documentation for it, but he doesn't know one damn thing about it. I've
    proved this to myself. I asked him questions about CHDK that aren't written
    up at the CHDK Wiki site yet. He didn't have one clue what I was talking
    about. He's a brain-dead role-playing **** trying to take credit away from
    those that did all the work to create and document CHDK. I being one of the
    main players in the creation of CHDK. I'm even listed under three different
    names in the credits there because I helped in so many different venues in
    the creation of CHDK.

    I could help you. I wrote 98% of the documentation for CHDK, but then,
    you'd rather listen to idiot pretend-photographer trolls, so why should I
    bother. Cut your own throat you did.
    Mr. Anon, Mar 23, 2010
    #11
  12. chris

    SMS Guest

    On 22/03/10 4:10 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:

    > But I think there is probably some noise advantage, however small, to
    > switching to a lower resolution. Here's why I think so: Some recent Nikon
    > Coolpixes with very high ISOs restrict those settings to much lower
    > resolutions. For example, my Coolpix S710 has a maximum of 14.5 MP, but when
    > ISO is set to 6400 or 12800 it automatically switches down to 3 MP. I assume
    > that it does this for noise considerations, so it seems likely to me that
    > even dropping to 5 MP should give some reduction in noise -- though I have
    > never actually tested this idea.


    Yes, they can set it up to do averaging and noise cancellation, though
    of course it's not as good as having fewer larger pixels.

    > I just saw CHDK mentioned here in the newgroup today, don't know anything
    > about it. The only Canons I have are an S60, an A95 and an S2 IS. I guess
    > CHDK, whatever it is, wouldn't do anything for any of those, eh?


    It's available for the S2 IS. "http://mighty-hoernsche.de/". Try it. You
    might find it useful, or at least interesting. Let me know if you have
    any questions on how to use it.
    SMS, Mar 23, 2010
    #12
  13. chris

    LOL! Guest

    On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:49:01 -0700, SMS <> wrote:

    >On 22/03/10 4:10 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >
    >> But I think there is probably some noise advantage, however small, to
    >> switching to a lower resolution. Here's why I think so: Some recent Nikon
    >> Coolpixes with very high ISOs restrict those settings to much lower
    >> resolutions. For example, my Coolpix S710 has a maximum of 14.5 MP, but when
    >> ISO is set to 6400 or 12800 it automatically switches down to 3 MP. I assume
    >> that it does this for noise considerations, so it seems likely to me that
    >> even dropping to 5 MP should give some reduction in noise -- though I have
    >> never actually tested this idea.

    >
    >Yes, they can set it up to do averaging and noise cancellation, though
    >of course it's not as good as having fewer larger pixels.
    >
    >> I just saw CHDK mentioned here in the newgroup today, don't know anything
    >> about it. The only Canons I have are an S60, an A95 and an S2 IS. I guess
    >> CHDK, whatever it is, wouldn't do anything for any of those, eh?

    >
    >It's available for the S2 IS. "http://mighty-hoernsche.de/". Try it. You
    >might find it useful, or at least interesting. Let me know if you have
    >any questions on how to use it.


    Oh, please DO ask him questions about how to run it. I could use the laugh
    when he gets it all wrong -- AGAIN.

    LOL!!!
    LOL!, Mar 23, 2010
    #13
  14. On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:49:01 -0700, SMS <> wrote:

    >On 22/03/10 4:10 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >
    >> But I think there is probably some noise advantage, however small, to
    >> switching to a lower resolution. Here's why I think so: Some recent Nikon
    >> Coolpixes with very high ISOs restrict those settings to much lower
    >> resolutions. For example, my Coolpix S710 has a maximum of 14.5 MP, but when
    >> ISO is set to 6400 or 12800 it automatically switches down to 3 MP. I assume
    >> that it does this for noise considerations, so it seems likely to me that
    >> even dropping to 5 MP should give some reduction in noise -- though I have
    >> never actually tested this idea.

    >
    >Yes, they can set it up to do averaging and noise cancellation, though
    >of course it's not as good as having fewer larger pixels.
    >
    >> I just saw CHDK mentioned here in the newgroup today, don't know anything
    >> about it. The only Canons I have are an S60, an A95 and an S2 IS. I guess
    >> CHDK, whatever it is, wouldn't do anything for any of those, eh?

    >
    >It's available for the S2 IS. "http://mighty-hoernsche.de/". Try it. You
    >might find it useful, or at least interesting. Let me know if you have
    >any questions on how to use it.


    Real smart, fuckwad. He needs to know which firmware is in his camera
    before he goes to download it and install it without locking up his camera.
    Way to go, you fucking idiot troll!
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Mar 23, 2010
    #14
  15. chris

    SMS Guest

    On 22/03/10 8:40 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:

    <snip>

    >> It's available for the S2 IS. "http://mighty-hoernsche.de/". Try it. You
    >> might find it useful, or at least interesting. Let me know if you have any
    >> questions on how to use it.

    >
    > Thanks, I will check it out.


    There's a learning curve to it, so be patient. Plan to spend a couple of
    hours getting used to it. You don't want to be out in the field trying
    to figure it out.

    Go to this page "http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/S2IS" and be sure you use
    the version that matches your camera's firmware.
    SMS, Mar 23, 2010
    #15
  16. On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:30:32 -0700, SMS <> wrote:

    >On 22/03/10 8:40 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >
    ><snip>
    >
    >>> It's available for the S2 IS. "http://mighty-hoernsche.de/". Try it. You
    >>> might find it useful, or at least interesting. Let me know if you have any
    >>> questions on how to use it.

    >>
    >> Thanks, I will check it out.

    >
    >There's a learning curve to it, so be patient. Plan to spend a couple of
    >hours getting used to it. You don't want to be out in the field trying
    >to figure it out.
    >
    >Go to this page "http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/S2IS" and be sure you use
    >the version that matches your camera's firmware.


    So much for your "secret filter" filtering out my posts and my earlier post
    letting you know again where you fucked up, you useless piece of shit
    pretend-photographer role-playing troll.
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Mar 23, 2010
    #16
  17. On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:10:20 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:

    >> Setting them to a lower resolution isn't buying you anything other than
    >> a smaller file size. I don't think it's helping you with the noise.

    >
    > For the most part I agree with you, which is why I'd rather the sensors
    > were 5 MP natively. There must be some sort of borders between the
    > photosites, which is just one reason that, say, a single photosite must
    > be more efficient that four 1/4-size sites in the same space.


    Only with CMOS. There are CCD designs with frame filling photosites, but I
    don't know of any compact camera that uses them.

    --
    Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
    Robert Spanjaard, Mar 23, 2010
    #17
  18. chris

    Bruce Guest

    On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:39:43 -0500, Mr. Anon <>
    wrote:
    >I being one of the
    >main players in the creation of CHDK. I'm even listed under three different
    >names in the credits there because I helped in so many different venues in
    >the creation of CHDK.



    So you're Spartacus!

    ;-)
    Bruce, Mar 23, 2010
    #18
  19. chris

    DanP Guest

    On Mar 22, 11:10 pm, "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:

    > I just saw CHDK mentioned here in the newgroup today, don't know anything
    > about it. The only Canons I have are an S60, an A95 and an S2 IS. I guess
    > CHDK, whatever it is, wouldn't do anything for any of those, eh?- Hide quoted text -


    I don't know if they all can shoot RAW but CHDK will give you that
    plus
    -longer exposure times (and shorter ones but they are pointless)
    -scripting posibilities (timelapse script gave me this
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/danpetre/3962303098/)
    -bracketing
    -option to remove black frame noise reduction (shoot twice as fast
    with no noise reduction for exposures longer than 1 sec)
    -file navigator: delete files, read text

    Don't look at it if you think geeks are silly.


    DanP
    DanP, Mar 23, 2010
    #19
  20. chris

    Mr. Anon Guest

    On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 03:14:21 -0700 (PDT), DanP <>
    wrote:

    >On Mar 22, 11:10 pm, "Neil Harrington" <> wrote:
    >
    >> I just saw CHDK mentioned here in the newgroup today, don't know anything
    >> about it. The only Canons I have are an S60, an A95 and an S2 IS. I guess
    >> CHDK, whatever it is, wouldn't do anything for any of those, eh?- Hide quoted text -

    >
    >I don't know if they all can shoot RAW but CHDK will give you that
    >plus


    All CHDK capable cameras can save the raw sensor data as a true raw file or
    a DNG format. Keeping in mind that the CHDK RAW file format is not Canon's
    RAW file convention. It is truly the raw data right from the sensor without
    any metadata header. Only a few editors will open and read them properly.
    One of the better ones being Photoline, which also has 6 different kinds of
    RAW data interpolation algorithm options for the advanced editor's needs.
    If wanting to save your RAW files as a more universal DNG format then
    you'll have to run the script "badpixel.lua" in the chdk\scripts\test\
    folder first to make the DNG file-saving feature functional. This is
    required because CHDK is now taking full control of the sensor data and the
    DNG conversion requires that the 0-value pixels that were mapped out at the
    factory are also mapped out during the conversion. CHDK does not have
    access to the company's mapped-out table so it has to create its own by
    using the badpixel.lua script.

    >-longer exposure times (and shorter ones but they are pointless)


    The shorter shutter-speeds are only pointless to a talentless and
    unimaginative snapshooter.

    >-scripting posibilities (timelapse script gave me this
    >http://www.flickr.com/photos/danpetre/3962303098/)


    You should have used the motion-detection feature. You're no longer
    hindered by keeping the shutter open over and over again and hoping for a
    lightning shot to fill the frame while it is being held open. But then, you
    have to be smart enough to know how to use the motion-detection scripts, so
    that's probably why you didn't use that better feature for this purpose.

    >-bracketing


    With or without scripts. Without scripts by using the high-speed burst
    mode. You can manually trigger how many shots you want by only releasing
    the shutter to a half-press and briefly pressing fully again, this keeps
    the bracketing feature incrementing as if you held the shutter down
    continuously. Or use the cameras own self-timer "custom" option and set how
    many bracketed shots you want there. With or without a time-delay before
    first shot.

    >-option to remove black frame noise reduction (shoot twice as fast
    >with no noise reduction for exposures longer than 1 sec)


    Then you have to handle the dark-frame subtraction manually. Turning NR
    always on will add a nearly imperceptible time increase to short shutter
    speeds and being an effective way of removing hot-pixels from all
    shutter-speeds if you don't want to use the "badpixel" file method. The
    "badpixel" file (not badpixel.bin) created by running the program
    show_bad.exe on your PC on a RAW dark-frame file. (Different from the
    badpixel.bin file created for DNG file-saving by using the badpixel.lua
    script internally in the camera.)

    >-file navigator: delete files, read text
    >
    >Don't look at it if you think geeks are silly.


    Having as much manual control over a camera as CHDK affords to the user is
    a godsend to all pro photographers. All those options would only seem
    "geeky" to a lowly and ignorant snapshooter.

    e.g.:

    >DanP
    Mr. Anon, Mar 23, 2010
    #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. Mike Henley

    Okay... compact film vs compact digital ..

    Mike Henley, Jun 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    794
    Anoni Moose
    Jun 22, 2004
  2. Rick S.
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,162
    Ron Hunter
    Sep 13, 2004
  3. Lee Chen
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    510
    Lee Chen
    Dec 1, 2004
  4. Akilesh  Ayyar

    Compact or Ultra Compact? And then which one?

    Akilesh Ayyar, May 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    351
  5. The Jesus of Suburbia

    Microcontrollers: which one ? which language ? which compiler ?

    The Jesus of Suburbia, Feb 11, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    510
Loading...

Share This Page