Sony digital camera opinions?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Cathy, Apr 19, 2005.

  1. Cathy

    Cathy Guest

    I've never heard anyone here mention it, though that doesn't mean it was
    never on radio here.
    Yes, its somewhere in there :) You haven't said when the Bickersons were
    on the radio,
    You said in a previous message:
    I agree that Heaven can Wait, the second one with Warren Beatty is
    definitely a remake of
    Here comes Mr. Jordan, which was about a boxer and the remake was Warren
    Beatty as a football player. Some things are changed, but the theme and
    story are basically the same. Both have gone to heaven by mistake of a
    Heavenly messenger and both must fine other bodies..

    But the one I have of "Heaven can wait" has no connection to those other
    two movies other than the title name is the same (Heaven Can wait). The
    story just happens to be about the afterlife, but Don Ameche supposedly
    ends up in hell and Lucifer played by Laird Cregar asks Don Ameche to
    describe what was so bad about his life that he ended up in hell, and
    Ameche explains his life in flashbacks starting with his birth and tells
    about all his affairs and things he shouldn't have done.A lot of focus
    is on Gene Tierney as his wife and her problems with her weird parents,
    and the grandfather was Charles Coburn who was wonderful in the movie.

    One obvious example - consider when
    Remakes almost always have similarities either with similar charactes or
    story. But Heaven Can wait, the 1943 version, is not similar in any way
    to Here comes Mr. Jordan or Heaven can wait with Warren Beatty. Here
    comes Mr. Jordan was made in 1941, and Heaven can wait with Don Ameche
    was made in 1943. If it had been a remake, it is not likely a remake
    would have come out so soon after Here comes Mr. Jordan. Usually a few
    years or sometimes many years have to pass before a remake is made or
    there is not much point if its close to some movie made only two years
    earlier.
    I am not mainly interested in taking pictures of family because none of
    them like pictures taken unless I manage to talk them into it. And I
    don't visit that many places. There is no flora or fauna yet to capture.
    If I lived downtown there would probably be more to see. I did see a
    snail when walking on the sidewalk today when on a short walk, but I
    don't like the look of them.
    Well whether you read a book or listen to a radio, or watch TV, they all
    couch potato activities or non activities :)

    Cathy
     
    Cathy, Apr 27, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Cathy

    Cathy Guest

    On www.imdb.com under "Heaven can wait" - Warren Beatty version:

    "The role of Joe Pendleton was originally a boxer in Here Comes Mr.
    Jordan (1941). Warren Beatty originally wanted to have Muhammad Ali play
    the boxer. When Ali's boxing schedule prevented him from doing the
    movie, Beatty - who could not box but could play football - recast the
    lead role as a football player"

    On your other message you thought that both versions of "Heaven can
    wait" were remakes of Here comes Mr. Jordan, but only the 1978 version
    with Warren Beatty was a remake of "Here comes Mr. Jordan", not the 1943
    version with Don Ameche. I believe you said you had not seen the Don
    Ameche version of "Heaven can wait". If you saw it you would see it
    stands on its own and not a remake.

    Cathy
     
    Cathy, Apr 27, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Cathy

    ASAAR Guest

    I did mention when they were on the radio. ("It was originally
    broadcast sometime in the late 1940's and was called the Dream
    Show.") That was up a couple of messages when I first mentioned the
    B's.

    Well, I did say that I hadn't seen the first Heaven Can Wait, so
    now I'm doubly mistaken. From your description of it, I now recall
    seeing probably the last 10 or 15 minutes of it on TV a number of
    years ago, and the bit that I saw was quite different compared to
    the other two. But I wouldn't say that it is not similar in any way
    to the other two. They're all fantasies with main characters that
    have one foot it this plane and the other in the afterlife. But
    there could have been a real mess. Did you know that the character
    played by Don Ameche in Heaven Can Wait was originally supposed to
    be "Mr. Jordan"? Don't laugh. My source is quite reliable. I
    wouldn't automatically believe anything George or Marion told me,
    but Cosmo Topper is quite reliable. Anything he tells me I can take
    directly to the bank.

    Uh, even if you don't like the way snails look, if you have a
    camera with you it might be worth taking a couple of pictures, if
    only for the practise, so that when you find a more suitable subject
    your chances of not messing up are improved. If you want to take
    better pictures you'll want to go beyond using the camera on Full
    Newbie Auto, and that takes practice. Better to learn with
    uninteresting subjects when you have all the time in the world. You
    just asked in another message something about a camera that seemed
    to take blurry pictures. The blurry pictures could have been due to
    a poor design, or a defective camera. But the blurry pictures may
    well have been due to an inexperienced photographer that used auto
    settings that had the camera select a shutter speed that wasn't fast
    enough. With practice, using optimal settings becomes second
    nature, and doesn't slow you down.

    The TV pretty much ties you down. But CDs, minidiscs, mp3 players
    all allow you to listen to e-books while walking/hiking/jogging, and
    the same is true for radio. Take a hike on a nature trail with your
    camera while listening to Vivaldi's "The Seasons" or if you're in a
    different mood, Stravinsky's "The Rites of Spring". Even more
    appropriate, listen to the e-book version of Bill Bryson's "A Walk
    In The Woods" and find out if he ever managed to walk the full
    length of the Appalachian Trail. :) I don't know what the ebook
    sounds like, but I read the book several years ago and it's often
    quite funny.
     
    ASAAR, Apr 27, 2005
  4. Cathy

    Cathy Guest

    Check out:

    http://rinkworks.com/movies/m/heaven.can.wait.1978.shtml

    As it says in that URL or maybe another one, Heaven can wait (1978
    version) was a poor choice of title, as it had nothing to do with the
    earlier 1943 version and it got confused with the earlier Heaven can
    wait (1943) which was a different movie altogether.
    I would say that is as far as the similarity goes other than maybe the
    after life theme.
    Same can be said of "A matter of Life and Death" which has a
    heaven/earth them but is a
    different movie and story altogether. It is coming out on DVD in a few
    months. Stars David Niven. Its from the 40'5 or 50's. Forget exactly.
    Part is in black and white and part is in color. Its very good.
    In the 1943 version of "Heaven Can Wait", Don Ameche dies and goes to
    hell, but he wasn't supposed to go to hell. He was supposed to go to
    heaven, so the devil asked him to tell him about his life so he can
    decide whre Don Ameche belongs and why he ended up in hell. Unlike Here
    comes Mr. Jordan and 1978 HCW with Warren Beatty, in HCW (1943), the
    main character dies before his time and tries to find a new body to get
    back to living again.
    Why the question mark at the end of "Robert Montgomery?" above? Are you
    asking me if *I* mean Robert Montgomery?
    Well, its not as if I am learning to be a professional photographer. I
    won't be using it probably anywhere near the amount of time you use
    yours. I don't see anyone walking along my street bending down to take a
    photo of a snail onthe sidewalk. I would have to look around first to
    see if anyone was looking as its not my usual passtime :) Taking
    pictures of flowers would be more interesting than snails or stuff like
    that. No flowers around here yet though. spring is late. I took a lot of
    photos of flowers on the macro on my 35mm camera when I was in Scotland.
    They turned out very nice.

    You
    Back on topic - Yes, it could be that the pictures could have been
    inexperienced, but that doesn't happen very often in reviews, and if it
    was me, I would like to be sure my review photos were not blurry or its
    not a very good representation of the pictures or Fuji cameras. Maybe it
    was just that one review that was like that. I would have to go back and
    check. I am waiting on some cameras to go on sale.
    Each to his own. I don't have the energy or interest in the same things
    as you do obviously :)

    Cathy
     
    Cathy, Apr 27, 2005
  5. Cathy

    ASAAR Guest

    Uh, Cathy. That "You mean Robert Montgomery?" was never typed by
    me. I just checked the copy of my message that was downloaded from
    my newsserver and it's not anywhere in it. I just did a search of
    the rec.photo.digital messages for "Montgomery" and found that it
    initially occurred in one of your messages, and then appeared in two
    other messages as quotes. This is the context:

    Do you think that maybe you might have accidentally typed it while
    composing your reply? If not, either George or Marian might have
    done it. :) FWIW, they are two frolicsome invisible ghosts
    (invisible to all save Cosmo and the viewers) that have nothing
    better to do than show up at inopportune times to do things that
    cause all sorts of problems for the still living Cosmo Topper (in a
    number of movies and an old TV show).

    Nor am I a professional photographer, and I take a relatively
    small number of pictures. Far less than most people in this ng, and
    possibly less than you will, assuming that some day you will
    eventually will get your digital camera. :)
    I think you missed the point. You should take many types of
    pictures to not only learn how to use the camera, but to learn its
    idiosyncrasies. All so that when you eventually see a subject that
    you'd really like to take a picture of, you'll be able to do it and
    won't need to fumble with the manual for 10 minutes to figure out
    how to get the camera to do the job when auto mode proves incapable.


    Do you still remember which review that was? Even Fuji's older,
    low megapixel, inexpensive cameras intended mainly for small
    snapshots generally take fairly sharp pictures. How blurry was the
    blur? Where did it occur? Over the entire image, or just in the
    corners with the lens zoomed to maximum wide angle?
     
    ASAAR, Apr 28, 2005
  6. Cathy

    Cathy Guest

    Yes, you're right. I typed it in the wrong place when I was going to
    edit something, and forgot to delete it.

    I just checked the copy of my message that was downloaded from
    Yes,I was editing and typed it, was interrupted, and forgot all about
    deleting it when I came back to the computer. My mistake.

    If not, either George or Marian might have
    I liked the Topper version with Leo G. Carrol the best plus I liked the
    rest of the cast. I have a two video tape version of a few episodes of
    that version. Lots of people, women in particular, liked Cary Grant in
    another version of Topper, but I thought he was just OK.
    Haha, yes, I hope so. At the rate I am going I will need a 6" LCD and a
    3" viewfinder.
    I will take far less pictures than you I am sure.
    Your suggestion has some merit. I knew what you meant. But I will
    likely just take pictures of people or things of interest to me and get
    just as much practice as I need that way. I am one of these strange
    people who usually read instruction manuals for everything I buy, before
    I try things out. I got a new printer not long ago and read the manual
    before I set up the printer. I do the same with most things I buy. I
    remember when VCR's came out, I read the manual and was able to figure
    out how to program the VCR soon after I got it, and at the time people I
    worked with, were still struggling with it, because they didn't have
    patience to read the manual. Of course I don't have patience for other
    things and doesn't mean I know how things work even after reading an
    instruction manual. LOL . My kids hardly ever read instruction manuals,
    and then they complain they don't know how things work.
    It was in Steves digicam review. As you know, he has a lot of the same
    pictures he takes with various cameras which is good as it lets you
    compare the differences in cameras.

    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/fuji_e510_samples.html
    The red building is the one I always compare with various cameras so I
    am consistent that way and it gives me a better comparison, though I
    look at some other pictures on that same screen particularly if they
    have indoor shots (red eye you know), but with the Fuji E510 that red
    building when zoomed in which is what I look at, the whole picture looks
    a little blurred to me. I wouldn't say terribly blurred, but I've seen
    much clearer pictures with other cameras of that red building.
    But the indoor picture of the girl is not blurred and I don't see any
    red eye.

    http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fuji/finepix_e510-review/index.shtml -
    I like Jeff's reviews on dcresource.com though he seems to be a bit more
    critical in his reviews, which may be good in some ways. See his review
    which is the URL above, and you will see that he mentions in the "cons"
    above average purple fringing and some other things.

    See http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/ls753_samples.html - its
    the Kodak LS753 which is also a 5 MP camera and the red building looks
    much clearer to me and not blurry like the Fuji E510.

    The Canon A95 is even more clear than both of the above. See-

    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/a95_samples.html

    For comparison, I chose only 5MP point and shoot type cameras.

    At one point I thought about A75 or A85, but because of 4 batteries,
    they seemed a little less compact, but most people who have them like
    them. and they are now hard to find as they have been discontinued and
    replaced by A510 and A520.

    Cathy
     
    Cathy, Apr 28, 2005
  7. Cathy

    Ron Hunter Guest

    The building looks good, but there is, as usual, some compression
    muddiness in the trees to the right of the building. Kodak is a bit
    aggressive in its compression, which is about the only complaint I have
    about my camera.
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 28, 2005
  8. Cathy

    Cathy Guest

    Which camera are you referring to Ron? The E510 or the L753 or the A95?
    The URLS above are
    for each of the three cameras. In my opinion at least, I found the Fuji
    E510 picture of the building to be all a bit blurry, not just the trees
    to the right of the building. I found the L753 picture of the building
    to be more clear and the A95 the clearest. I mean zoomed-in pictures of
    the red building picture.

    Cathy
     
    Cathy, Apr 28, 2005
  9. Cathy

    ASAAR Guest

    I've seen his reviews before but found myself gravitating to
    dpreview.com most often and dcresource.com to a lesser extent. But
    after looking at the pictures and reviews on his website last night
    I have a much lower opinion of it that the other two. First, the
    "same pictures" aren't really the same. I noticed some perspective
    shifts when looking at pictures of the red building taken with
    different cameras. At first I thought it might be primarily due to
    differences between the focal lengths used and the sensor sizes.
    But no, he evidently just took the pictures from somewhere in the
    vicinity of where he took the previous shots. This was very minor,
    not really a problem, but there were other bits of sloppiness that
    made comparisons between the cameras less than completely useful.

    I only examined pictures of the red building, and looked at those
    from the Canon A95 and G6, the Fuji E510 and S5100 as well as the
    Kodan LS 753. Please don't look at the picture taken by the G6 as
    it is may make you reevaluate the type of camera you want to get.
    You'd think its 7mp sensor would only produce slightly sharper
    pictures than the others, but you'd be wrong. Its picture was far
    superior.

    About the sloppiness. According to the exif data the E510's
    picture was taken at 16:51 (4:51 PM) and the S5100's was taken at
    16:17 (4:17 PM). Judging by the shadows, the late afternoon times
    are probably accurate. On the other hand the Canon A95's picture
    was taken at 05:06 (5:06 AM) and the G6 at 05:02 (5:02 AM), yet the
    shadows are very similar to the ones in the Fuji pictures. I assume
    that the times were set incorrectly and that all pictures were taken
    in the late afternoon. I'd be very surprised if Canon's had a bug
    in the way times were included in the exif data so that 5:00 pm
    would have neither a PM indicator, nor be represented as 17:00.
    There's also a woman in the G6's picture, and if it was really 5:02
    AM I think that it would be much darker and she wouldn't have
    arrived that early. :) BTW, the Kodak LS 735's version was taken
    at 17:39 (5:39 PM). There was more sloppiness in to be found but
    I'll get to that shortly.

    As for the pictures, yes, the E510's picture of the red building
    wasn't as quite as sharp as the pictures taken by the other cameras.
    The one taken by the Canon A95 was better all around than the LS753
    and the E510. The picture taken by the LS753 may have done a bit
    better with the red bricks than the E510, but it was much worse in
    other areas. Look at the street sign ("Nicholson St."). It's much
    darker and harder to see. The "SPEED LIMIT 25" sign on the left
    side, which is not obscured by shadows is also quite dark. Then
    look at the pole holding up the 'no parking' sign in the lower right
    part of the picture. The E510 clearly shows the multiple holes in
    the pole that are almost completely invisible in the picture taken
    by the LS753. Part of this may be due to differences between the
    times the pictures were taken and the corresponding shadows, but I
    think more of it may be attributed to what Ron pointed out. That
    the LS753 compresses its pictures too highly, causing loss of shadow
    detail, and possibly making already slightly dark areas appear even
    darker.

    Also examine the sky. Blotchiness caused by noise can be seen in
    all of the pictures to some degree, but it is most pronounced in the
    picture taken by the LS753. So much so that I wanted to see if the
    camera had another quality setting that didn't compress the image as
    much. I couldn't find a review for the LS753, but the 4mp version,
    the LS743 (IIRC) had one, and it didn't offer multiple compression
    levels for the highest resolution, so I assume the LS753 doesn't
    either. The review of the LS743 also mentioned the camera's high
    noise level, which all things being equal should be lower than that
    of the LS753, so I guess I wasn't imagining the noise. :) The color
    in the LS753's pictures wasn't quite so vivid, but that might be due
    to the sun being a bit lower, with a bit less available light. So
    again, if there's any criticism it should be aimed at Steve, not
    Kodak.

    Lastly, and the worst sloppiness was in the settings that were used
    to take the pictures. The exposures used by all of the cameras was
    about the same, but the individual shutter speeds and apertures were
    not. This alone pretty much invalidates what you perceive about the
    sharpness of the pictures the cameras can take. It doesn't mean
    that the pictures aren't a fair representation of what the cameras
    can do, but the really might not be fair comparisons. Looking at
    the exif data, the sharpest picture by far was taken by the Canon
    G6, which used a shutter speed and aperture of about 1/1000 and F4.
    I don't know that the pictures were or weren't taken on a solid
    tripod, but I suspect that they weren't. So the 1/1000 shutter
    speed would help minimize and camera motion. The F4 aperture also
    helps, as most lenses are at their sharpest when closed down by only
    1 or 2 F stops.

    The Canon A95 and Fuji S5100 used a shutter speed of 1/500 sec.
    (adding a bit more motion, and corresponding increased blur) and
    aperture of F5.02 and F4.92. Still a reasonable aperture though.
    The E510 though went much farther, slowing the shutter to 1/240th
    sec. and closing the lens all the way with an aperture of F8. Both
    ot these settings probably contributed greatly to the E510's lesser
    sharpness. The only justification for using these settings would be
    if Auto Mode was used, but that's a feeble excuse. All of the
    cameras should have used 1/500 sec., F4 (assuming that was the
    proper exposure) and should have been taken during approximately the
    same time of day with the same amount of light.

    Despite all of this, each of the cameras would probably produce
    very nice 4x6 and 5x7 pictures. 8x10 might be acceptible too, but
    here differences would start to stand out. Unless you plan on
    getting a lot of 8x10 prints made, I think any of the cameras would
    See the dpreview.com review. They weren't thrilled with the A95's
    purple fringing, so unless you do your own tests (impractical) you
    shouldn't rely on just one or two opinions. The A95 certainly has
    many nice features, but I don't think its pictures rival those taken
    by the G6 or Canon's other PowerShots, the more compact S60 and S70.
    The problem with cameras is that they're just like computers.
    Whatever you get, whenever you get it, in no time there'll be new
    models with better spec's, more features and for a lower price. But
    I don't think I'll see a decent computer running on AAs very soon.
    I have and old one though, made by HP. :)
     
    ASAAR, Apr 28, 2005
  10. Cathy

    Cathy Guest

    Do you mean you have a lower opinion of dpreview.com? I want to be sure
    which one you mean.
    I don't go too dpreview.com too often as I can't seem to find picture
    samples as easily or as detailed with as many illustrations as Steves
    and dsresource.com or image acquire. I think they give me a better idea
    of the camera I might be trying to find a review of than dpreview.com .
    Its a mater of personal preference I suppose.
    What was your reason to compare the S5100 with the other three.? I
    compared the three cameras because they were all 5 MP cameras, so if you
    included a 7 mp camera, it wouldn't be a fair comparison since its in a
    different class and its not a point and shoot.
    When checking picture samples, naturally I don't go into all the details
    you do, as I don't know enough about those details, so I have to just
    rely on my vision in regard to what I see as a blurry picture and a
    sharper picture with better colors. Thats really all I want to do. I
    don't need to analyze and may never analyze though I don't know of
    course..
    At least you agree with that :)
    You agree with that too, so at least I was right about one thing. The
    difference in the sharpness of the pictures of the A95, E510 and LS753.
    I only chose the A95 because it was a 4 MP camera , same with the LS753,
    but the A95 and LS753 are out of my price rangem but the A85 and LS743
    and E510 are within my price range. Also to be considered is the LS743
    comes with a charger and rechargable lithiums included. The two other do
    not . My decision wouldn't be based only on an included batter charger,
    but it is considered in the whole picture.

    The picture taken by the LS753 may have done a bit
    That may be, but I wanted to find a simple way to choose a camera and
    comparing the same picture is the best way for me.

    Yes, I like it too but I don't need a 7 MP camera and its too bulky and
    meant more for a far more serious photographer than me. Oh and its way
    over my price range.
    But I don't intend to buy any of those kind of cameras. They are too big
    for what I want. I just want a point and shoot compact. The A95 is too
    much money. I only used it as an example for the Fuji E510 which is a
    lot cheaper.
    That is the case with fast changing technology in all things.

    But
    An old computer?

    Thanks for your analysis.

    Cathy
     
    Cathy, Apr 28, 2005
  11. Cathy

    ASAAR Guest

    No. I think dpreview.com does a better, more thorough job
    evaluating cameras. That's why I "gravitate" to it more often.
    Even the specifications Steve's supplies is sloppier. He provides
    some types of data for some cameras and not for others. It's not
    anything unusual. I wanted to check the smallest available aperture
    for some of the camera's lenses and it wasn't provided for some.
    That should be pretty basic info. along with max. apertures,
    shortest and longest shutter speed, etc.

    It would give you a better idea of what the cameras were capable
    of doing if the conditions used by the cameras was the same. But
    they weren't and that invalidates what the pictures purport to show.
    There's no question that the picture taken by the E510 wasn't as
    sharp as those taken by the other cameras, but that doesn't mean
    that it's not capable of taking pictures as sharp as, or even
    sharper than the A95 and LS753. You seem to have missed this point,
    but that's what I was trying to show. You may not be aware of it,
    but lenses aren't uniformly sharp at all apertures. They generally
    produce the least detail at the widest, and smallest apertures. So
    if the situation was reversed, and the Kodak and Canon cameras took
    their pictures at F8 and the Fuji at F5, the Fuji may well have
    produced the sharpest pictures of the three. You can't make valid
    comparisons when the conditions are different. In addtion, the
    Fuji's shutter speed was twice as long as the other two, which may
    also have reduced apparent sharpness.

    I included the S5100 because that's my camera. You know, the one
    that took 600+ pictures on a set of alkaline AA batteries? :) It
    only has a 4mp sensor, and it's useful to include cameras having
    lower and higher resolution sensors, just to make sure that the
    results seen for all of the 5mp cameras are "in the ballpark".
    FWIW, I didn't think the S5100 would show up significantly different
    than the 5mp cameras, and it didn't. You really, really missed the
    point about including the 7mp G6. It was in no way intended to be
    an unfair comparison to the 5mp cameras. I thought it would produce
    pictures only slightly better than the 5mp cameras. I was wrong.
    Its pictures were much better, and that's worth knowing. You didn't
    seen me then say that the 5mp cameras weren't worth considering
    because the G6 did so much better. Instead, I said that unless you
    intend to print many 8x10's, the 5mp cameras would produce very good
    prints. Prints that you probably couldn't tell if they were taken
    by an E510, A96 or G6.


    Understandable. I didn't think you looked at the exif data, and
    so you wouldn't be aware of an unfair comparison. That's why I told
    you about it. If you still want to assume that the E510 doesn't
    take pictures that are as sharp as the other two, that's up to you.
    But didn't you originally say or imply that in some of the other
    sample pictures the E510 took sharp pictures?

    But we don't agree on the conclusion. I could show you pictures
    taken with a $7.99 throwaway camera that are sharper than those
    taken with an A95. Oops. I forgot to mention that the A95's
    pictures were taken after using it all day slogging through wet and
    dirty streets, trying to cope with a light rain, and I forgot to
    clean the lens before taking the test pictures. Unfair comparisons
    are exactly that. Unfair. And if you find out about the unequal
    conditions you need to throw out the comparisons and try again. You
    shouldn't shrug your shoulders and say "I like what I saw and don't
    want to waste time analyzing the pictures."

    So let me get this straight. I shouldn't have included the G6
    because it was out of your price range (and it wasn't included for
    you, but for me instead), but you included the A95 and the LS753,
    which were also out of your price range? So you're left with the
    harder to find A85 and the LS743. The LS743 probably doesn't take
    pictures as good as the E510 but it I'm sure it won't matter. I
    doubt that you'll give your own pictures nearly as much scrutiny as
    the test shots you've downloaded from the internet, and they're all
    capable of doing a more than adequate job.

    Did you miss the fact that those items I mentioned above appeared
    in the "same pictures"? You evidently looked at the bricks but not
    the three signs, the leaves, the sky . . . So what did this
    research tell you. The A95 and LS753 are too expensive, and the
    E510 isn't sharp enough. Sounds like you're back to square one, and
    very little was simplified.

    You're back to that are ye? :) I said that *I* like it. I
    didn't say you should even consider getting one. I won't be getting
    one either.
    You can't have it both ways. You can't tell me what you've read
    about the A95 and then complain when I mention a review that
    indicates that they see the A95 in a lesser light. If in anything I
    said you saw the least bit of an attempt to convince you that you
    should get the A95 that would be one thing. But I'm telling you the
    opposite, that it may not be as good as you think it is and then you
    come back as if I'm trying to talk you into buying an A95? <sheesh>


    Yes. Runs on a pair of AA's, alkalines, NiCads or NiMH. But I
    haven't used it in a long time. With its fairly small display
    trying to cram 80x25 characters into it, it's not the easiest thing
    to read. And it has MSDOS built into it, but a few people managed
    to get it to run Windows 3.0 or 3.1. I think the different versions
    were called LX95, LX100 and LX200. They're so old I think the
    Bickersons used one to do their bookkeeping.
     
    ASAAR, Apr 29, 2005
  12. Cathy

    Cathy Guest

    OK, I think I see wat you mean.
    You seem to often say I missed the point. Since I don't know nearly as
    much as you, I will miss a lot of points and a lot of what you say is
    over my head.

    It was in no way intended to be
    Yes, the closeup of the one of the girl was not blurry, but I've noticed
    that most closeups of peoples faces are not often blurred with any
    camera - though red eye can be a problem, but I didn't notice a problem
    with the closeup of the girl. Macros are also usually very clear with
    any make of camera.
    Well, if you wanted to include it for your own purposes, thats OK. its
    up to you.
    I wasn't looking at those cameras to consider buying them. I was only
    comparing them to the Fuji E510 as they seemed like comparable type
    cameras. Nothing to do with buying.

    So you're left with the
    You are probably right that the pictures I would take would not be
    analyzed and scrutinized as you would notice on camera reviews, but I
    like a cameera that takes sharp pictures which are not blurry, unless I
    shake the camera. And maybe the E510 does take better pictures than the
    LS743. I really don't know. I am just trying to learn.
    Well, I am sorry you think that, because I paid attention to what was
    important to me. and I probably did miss things.
    You seem very frustrated. I do not want to get drawn into arguments
    here. I am just trying to learn and just because I don't pay attention
    to everything you say, or don't agree with everything you say or not
    looking at everything you are looking at, does not mean I haven't
    listened to anything you said.

    Cathy
     
    Cathy, Apr 29, 2005
  13. Cathy

    ASAAR Guest

    I don't mind being frustrated, and you're probably feeling a bit
    of frustration too. It's much better than being angry though. :)
    But I don't expect you to agree with everything I say. And I wasn't
    saying that the pictures on Steve's website are valueless. But at
    least one of them has problems that make it less than useful to
    judge the picture taking quality of cameras, and that seemed to be
    the one you were weighting most heavily to make your decisions.

    Also, about the value of comparing other than 5mp cameras when
    you've decided that you want a 5mp camera. You must have seen
    messages here where some people say that the difference between 6mp
    and 8mp sensors is slight. The same may be true for other sizes.
    Even if you think 5mp cameras are for you, don't take other people's
    (or reviewer's) word as gospel. Download some pictures taken with
    3mp and 4mp cameras. If they're significantly less sharp or have
    other problems your decision is simplified. You want to get one of
    the 5mp cameras. But if the difference is slight, and that's very
    possible, then the 3mp or 4mp camera might produce prints just as
    good as the 5mp cameras, and you'd probably be able to save a good
    amount of money too. You have talked about price being a big
    factor, so why pay more for something that doesn't deliver? All
    things being equal, the sensors with fewer pixels should produce
    pictures with less noise or allow you to use higher ISO settings.

    Whether you will be doing your own printing or will have some
    photofinisher do it for you, why not try printing some of the
    pictures you've downloaded, or putting some on a CD and having them
    printed for you, with a few larger 5x7 prints included in the mix?
    For a couple of dollars you should be able to get a fair number of
    prints, and it could end up saving you far more money if you see for
    yourself that a more expensive camera doesn't necessarily improve
    the prints. And if the more expensive camera does result in better
    prints, you'd have some reassurance that you wouldn't be wasting
    money by getting the better camera. And you don't have to do any of
    this, but it's useful to know that this is another way to evaluate
    cameras if you're close to a decision but are stuck with two
    prospective cameras and can't determine which one to get.
     
    ASAAR, Apr 29, 2005
    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.