Anyone have any views on the camera?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Neil, Jun 21, 2006.

  1. Neil

    Neil Guest

    http://www.argos.co.uk/ProductDisplayTRK019?partNumber=5604250

    It is quite a large reduction, but was it ever worth it at full price?!

    I made a totally duff choice with my last digital camera, so I'm looking for
    another. Ideally I want one that can take competent photos indoors and in
    poor/artificial light.
     
    Neil, Jun 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. It is hard to draw a conclusion, especially when they don't indicate the
    model identification. I would guess IF it fits your needs it may be a good
    choice. Does it come with full warranty?
     
    Joseph Meehan, Jun 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Neil

    SL Guest

    SL, Jun 21, 2006
    #3
  4. Neil

    eadg Guest

    Lots of nice things said about it if you Google, looks like a bargain
    at the price. ISO of 400 so might just be suitable for low light pix.
    Only negative is it's tendency to play a tune when you turn it on,
    apparently.
     
    eadg, Jun 21, 2006
    #4
  5. Neil

    harrogate3 Guest

    Personally I wouldn't. Samsung make some good electronics in other
    areas but photography IME is not their forte.

    Look at almost any Olympus, Sony, or even Casio and you will get a
    better camera with a good lens. Even Kodak will be better than this
    even if the results do tend to be a bit gaudy.

    5Mb is enough for anyone up to A4 (or 10"x8") - 7Mb can get noisy for
    no real benefit in resolution. Sony W5 reportedly going cheap at the
    moment, Curry's/Expensive World doing Casio 750 for about £130 as end
    of line.

    One piece of advice: consider getting a camera with an optical
    viewfinder. The LCD - apart from being horrendously difficult to see
    in sunlight - gobbles batteries. You will always get more in the shot
    that the viewfinder shows.
     
    harrogate3, Jun 22, 2006
    #5
  6. Neil

    SL Guest

    Hi Woody,

    Do not be so quick to dicount Samsung cameras. They have been making cameras
    longer than you think & have used Schneider lenses (not 100% sure on this
    model) in the past, with their quite old now, Samsung Vega 140 S zoom 35mm
    compact winning an European award (EISA) for its quality.

    As to the seperate viewfinder, well the particular model in question does
    have one. As to resolution, you can always lower the quality settings.

    I would say it is as good as Kodak. In fact I would be happy ith most models
    from the following: Canon; Nikon; Sony (Carl Zeiss lenses); Casio (Pentax
    lenses); Pentax; Fuji; Panasonic (Leica lenses); Kodak; Konica/Minolta (now
    no more & Sony taking over some of their range, certainly SLR's); & of
    course Samsung.

    While Samsung would not be at the top of my list I would still check out
    reviews on comparable models. Certainly one model I would stay well clear of
    is Vivitar..

    I'd still recommend that Neil checks out camera models you have pointed out
    & compares them on build quality, handling & type of memory card
    (compatibility with other equipment you own,ie.MP3 players), and type of
    battery one can use as my girlfriend's camera is the old Minolta Dimage 400
    & can take an AA double cell CR-V3 lithium rechargable battery that lasts
    miles longer than using NiMH's.

    Cheers,
    Stephen.
     
    SL, Jun 23, 2006
    #6
  7. Neil

    Hugh Spence Guest

    And this will improve noise by enlarging the individual pixel's sensor size?
    No - at best it will average out noise by interpolation.

    the specifications of this camera have a max sensitivity of 400 ISO and
    a lens of f2.7 at wide angle to 4.9 at tele end of the zoom.

    Unless you kill the atmosphere with flash, camera shake is going to be a
    real problem for indoor shots at any but the widest zoom setting, which Neil
    said he wanted the camera for.
    Nothing against Samsung, but the specs don't match Neil's stated uses for
    the camera - "competent photos in poor/artificial light". Yesterday I was
    shooting indoors at 1/60th at f2 at 400 ISO on a bright summer day outside.

    Hugh Spence
     
    Hugh Spence, Jun 23, 2006
    #7
  8. Neil

    Duncan Allan Guest

    Expect most major electronic companies to be hard on the heals of the
    traditional camera companies.

    Panasonic with Leitz, Sony now with the Minolta legacy, and all sorts of
    other tie ups will result in a changed market.

    These electronic giants have patents for all sorts of whizo features that
    can and most likely will be incorporated into to quite low cost units.

    But of course digital is highly disposable media. You can't put just a
    better film in it to get better results. You will have to ditch it and buy a
    new one in far shorter time than ever before.

    Such is the pace of change and the need of course for these companies to get
    more business out of you.

    Duncan
     
    Duncan Allan, Jun 23, 2006
    #8
  9. Neil

    SL Guest

    Hi Hugh,

    Have to say I agree with the points you make. If I had the energy (and after
    getting pc working again & receiving 1201 e-mails), I would have looked more
    closely at its specs & maybe provided better recommendations like you have
    done.

    Personally I would opt for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Casio or Panasonic. In fact I
    hope to pick up a Canon PS50/70 to carry around all the time as its a solid
    performer & uses the same battery & card as my slr.

    Will be looking at getting the girlfriend a Panasonic Z5/7 to replace her
    old film slr (Om10), as she enjoys using the telephoto lens for wildlife.

    Cheers,
    Stephen.
     
    SL, Jun 23, 2006
    #9
  10. harrogate3 bedacht in
    A one-on-one LCD (WYSIWYG: the LCD shows 100% of what you get in the
    final picture) is a lot better than the crappy optical viewfinders on
    most cameras, that only show you (in lousy quality) about 80% of the
    final picture.

    JL
     
    Justus Lipsius, Jun 23, 2006
    #10
  11. Neil

    harrogate3 Guest

    A response from someone who has clearly never tried to use an LCD-only
    camera on any form of sunny day?
     
    harrogate3, Jun 23, 2006
    #11
  12. Neil

    harrogate3 Guest

    Small comment for the record: Casio use either Pentax or Canon
    lenses - if they are marked then that is the source, if they are
    marked Casio or nothing then they can be either dependent upon
    availability at the time of production.

    And that came from Casio UK.
     
    harrogate3, Jun 23, 2006
    #12
  13. Neil

    harrogate3 Guest

    Also it occurs to me - how can an optical viewfinder be "(in lousy
    quality)" when it is just a piece of glass? I said optical
    viewfinder - not electronic (which I would agree are in the main
    crap.)
     
    harrogate3, Jun 23, 2006
    #13
  14. Neil

    Tony Polson Guest

    Samsung own the rights to the "Schneider Kreuznach" brand after
    briefly owning the company when it also bought Rollei. Rollei and
    Schneider are both German owned again, with Schneider no longer using
    the "Schneider Kreuznach" brand. All Samsung owns is the "Schneider
    Kreuznach" brand name, and believe me, the lenses have absolutely no
    Schneider input whatsoever, neither in design nor manufacture.

    Recently, Samsung have announced two 6.1 MP DSLRs with two "Schneider
    Kreuznach" brand lenses. However the cameras and lenses are designed
    and manufactured by Pentax and the only "Schneider Kreuznach" content
    is in the name painted on the lenses.
    TIPA and EISA awards are not given for quality! They are given by a
    trade association for the most marketable products in each category.
    That's damning with faint praise. Kodak digital cameras are junk, and
    overpriced junk at that. The Samsung cameras are also junk, and the
    one advertised at Argos is cheap junk.

    If the camera is remotely as bad as a Kodak digital compact it should
    be given the widest possible berth.
     
    Tony Polson, Jun 23, 2006
    #14
  15. Neil

    Ron Hunter Guest

    If you mean the LCD viewfinder, this may be true. A good optical
    viewfinder will show what you are going to see on the picture, except
    that most digital cameras don't have parallax correction, so for closeup
    work, you have to use the LCD. I find using the LCD produces
    substandard pictures, blurry ones, and it is virtually impossible to use
    this method in bright sunlight with most cameras. I would not but a
    camera without an optical viewfinder.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jun 24, 2006
    #15
  16. Neil

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Your bias, and lack of knowledge are showing.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jun 24, 2006
    #16
  17. Neil

    irwell Guest

    if you can seeit on a bright day, and IF you don't get camera shake
    from the extended arms position.Not the Karma Sutra kind!
     
    irwell, Jun 24, 2006
    #17
  18. Neil

    Geoff Berrow Guest

    It's a major drawback on my, otherwise excellent cameraphone. I have
    considered modfiying a lupe but that's an extra thing to carry and kind
    of goes against the simplicity of always having a camera in my pocket.
     
    Geoff Berrow, Jun 24, 2006
    #18
  19. Neil

    John Turco Guest


    Hello, Ron:

    I suspect that "Tony Polson" was merely making an anti-Samsung,
    Kodak-bashing troll. If, as he claims, "Samsung own the rights to
    the 'Schneider Kreuznach' brand," and "with Schneider no longer
    using the 'Schneider Kreuznach' brand," how does he explain the
    following statement, printed on my Kodak P850's retail box?

    "Schneider-Kreuznach and Varigon are trademarks of
    Jos. Schneider Optische Werke GmbH used under
    license by Eastman Kodak Company."

    Nowhere (i.e., on the camera, its documentaion, or Kodak's Web
    site) is Samsung even mentioned -- odd, indeed! <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jun 25, 2006
    #19
  20. Neil

    no_name Guest

    OTOH, Schneider-Kreuznach appears to have a long standing business
    relationship with Samsung licensing lens designs for Samsung's digital
    cameras.

    Would you expect Kodak to mention a competitor had licensed the same
    technology Kodak has licensed?

    Look at it this way ... neither Canon's nor Nikon's websites mention
    Tamron, Sigma or Tokina, yet all three companies manufacture lenses for
    both Canon & Nikon.
     
    no_name, Jun 29, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.