OT John Larkin

It's a Fujifilm Finepix S5200, 10x zoom. I bought it on vacation at a mall, no big deal. I don't really like it... it has a knob that selects one of 11 modes, too many, and it's so easy to rotate that it's usually wrong. And the auto-focus is terrible in macro mode. It works fine for vacation-type pix, but I mostly use a digital camera for close stuff. I sure there's newer, better stuff around.

John

Those pictures blew away what my piece of shit Canon S3 is capable of. Canon is over-rated IMO. Even with a small nuclear bomb as a flash, the pictures are still washed out and blurry. Forget indoors pictures. Anyways, what do you consider a good camera?

Hmm, my S1 IS works okay for me. Examples all over my website (since, er,

2005 or so, before which I had a much worse camera!).

Tim

-- Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk. Website @

The Fuji has a good sensor, high res and good indoor pics without the flash. As usual these days, it's good hardware and crappy firmware.

It *does* pack four AA cells, so battery life is good. It used to be that you schlepped a camera and ten rolls of film; now you schlepp a camera and ten batteries.

Another dumb feature: the batteries (and maybe a supercap) keep the date/time/settings up. So if you pull the batteries for a few days to recharge, it loses it all. A good camera will have a separate lithium cell for that stuff.

At work we have an Olympus digital SLR with interchangable lenses, and it's very good. I think you can get the package, SLR with two zoom lenses, for around $500. I like the SLR for pics of equipment and parts, because you can manual focus and see exactly what you'll get. A lot of dinky cameras, the Fuji included, seem to deliberately defocus the instant you push the shoot button, and the manual focus stuff tends to be hard to use.

I have another pretty-good small camera at work for casual stuff; I don't remember just now what it is.

In general, buy a camera with a big fat (like 55 mm) lens with a big (like 10x) optical zoom range. It should *not* fit in your pocket.

John

I've owned a Sony Cyber-shot DSC-S70 for more than 5 years.

Definitely not "pocket-size".

Replaced original Li-ion battery just a few months ago. Battery life is good for more than 100 pictures per charge.

I've posted numerous pictures on a.b.s.e and on my website.

Even though I reduced the posted DPI, I think the quality is pretty good; and the macro close-ups were used for the recent cacti pictures.

...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
             
         America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

There are a lot of issues with the S3 and similar cameras from Canon, just google for "canon class action". I have to admit that I deluded myself for quite a while with my S3. I chose it after a lot of on-line research (or so I thought, I never thought to check for class action lawsuits) because it seemed to have a good lens, great macro and super macro modes, uses AA batteries, has a lithium cell for the date, a great swivel-out LCD screen and generally good reviews.

This was my first digital camera. I was using a Canon SureShot Owl film camera before that must be 15 years old by now. Worked great for what it is.

But the S3 has never been able to take decent pictures indoors, there is always grain and noise and the colors are a bit washed out. The auto-focusing is borderline, and there is no red-eye reduction. Cell phone cameras do better. There's also no battery indicator whatsoever, except 1 or 2 seconds before the batteries die you get a big red battery icon and the camera shuts off. Real useful.

How many cameras have so many websites dedicated to their failures?

etc.. etc.. etc..

Anyways, one basic, major HUGE design flaw with these cameras is the fact that the lens acts as a piston when the camera powers up. It draws air in the camera body. There is nothing you can do about this except hope it's been properly engineered. It seems to me, after seeing the dust caught inside the lens of my S3, that dust gets caught in the delicate lens mechanism, every time you power up the camera, every time you zoom. It's a basic flaw.

Canon's abysmal costumer service and continued denial of the problem has made me put them in the same shitlist as Sony. I shitcanned them when they denied the microswitch problems with their MD decks back in the day. Also their persistence with non-standard formats, their deteriorating build quality and over-priced hardware too.

It's too bad, the S3 is basically a good concept, poorly executed.

As usual, you boil it down to the basics and get it right... Olympus and Fuji seem like nice pieces of kit. I was hesitating between the Finepix and the S3, I took the Canon because my friend recommended Canon. Well I hope he can still sit when I shove the S3 up his butt. "Lens error" THAT, S3...

| > John | | As usual, you boil it down to the basics and get it right... Olympus | and Fuji seem like nice pieces of kit. | I was hesitating between the Finepix and the S3, I took the Canon | because my friend recommended Canon. | Well I hope he can still sit when I shove the S3 up his butt. "Lens | error" THAT, S3...

I was going to say the Canon A720IS, not a whole lot of money and the pictures are fine. Has a nice macro mode, and runs on 2 AA and a lithium. I haven't read of any major problems. I'm sure if you spent more on an Olympus or Fuji you'd get better results, but for the price it can't be beat.

Cheers

are fine. Has a nice macro mode, and runs on 2

more on an Olympus or Fuji you'd get better

The latest issue of Consumer Reports rates 1,2 Nikon D80, Olympus Evolt E-510...

or if you have big bucks...

Nikon D300

...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
             
         America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

are fine. Has a nice macro mode, and runs on 2

more on an Olympus or Fuji you'd get better

The full-frame sensor Nikon D3 is even better, but more than 2.5 x the price. The D300 is good value, IMHO. The deal may have ended, but Nikon was recently offering $300 off when bundled with their excellent

18-200 (11:1!) VR zoom lens (f3.5-5.6).

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

--
"it\'s the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

Unfortunately, a lot of digital SLR manufacturers are lost to the slappy mirrors concept, rather than the underlying concept of what you see is what you get, which is where reflex cameras originated.

Actually it depends on your purposes. For some of my purposes i want a pack of cards fast shot class camera, for others i want best low light performance, for other times i want best image quality. Just not the same cameras.

On a sunny day (Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:20:55 -0700) it happened JosephKK wrote in :

I am a bit confused here. I had a nice Russian SLR (with normal film, before the digital age), and yes 'what you see is what you get'. But is it not so, that in a digital camera without flip mirror, you should, if it has a decent LCD screen, ALSO get what your see? I do not really understand the move to flip mirrors at all, mechanical nightmare, better have a good viewer?

So whats up here?

D3 is a pro/journalist model, overkill for an occasional photographer. I'd almost say the same for D300. I plan to get D300 later this year when they announce new (probably ff) model (and D300 falls in price accordingly), but I'm seriously into this hobby and I shoot concerts occasionally for newspapers. I could afford D3 but I'd feel stupid since I don't consider my work to be quite good enough for such a camera yet. Besides, I've got a few nice DX lens.

Generally for someone who isn't serious about photography I don't recommend DSLR/SLR, there's usually the additional work involved in after processing and learning how to operate the thing; in automatic setting a good compact usually produces better images and is generally far less hassle for a newby.

18-200 VR is very convenient, but as you get more serious about photography you begin to see its shortcomings. The moment you try lens from the higher end it won't seem so good anymore. 70-200 2.8 is much much better, but about the price range of D300 and much heavier (waiting for new model myself). M

Flash tends to do that, yes, washed-out terrible photos. Hike-up the ISO and open the aperture, than try again without flash. Avoid flash, if possible. IS (stabilization) of some kind helps get good results with slow shutter. If you have to use flash, direct it at floor or walls, if possible, and bounce light off that. Also a diffuzor could help (try placing a white plastic bag to diffuze the light). You may have to compensate loss of light with settings.

In concert photography you don't use flash at all. It is also almost never allowed. And when used results are usually terrible.

Don't always assume camera is the problem :)

Mark

Actually i think you are getting my point quite nicely. Take a look at many (if not all) of the current crop of digital SLR cameras and the flipping mirror is still there. Disgusted the heck out of me when i learned it. I use a "point and shoot" instead because of that.

light

Thanks for the info, but i think you wanted to respond to someone else.

On a sunny day (Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:48:14 -0700) it happened JosephKK wrote in :

What I carry with me almost always these days, is a small Mustek video camera, that records to SDcard. Great for youtube stuff, follow the little speck in the clouds:

And that one has fixed focus, but can also take some nice pictures in higher resolution: ftp://panteltje.com/pub/approach.jpg Of course nothing is ever really in foucus with that fixed lens ;-)

Sorry.

M