Off-topic Talk Where overpaid, underworked S2000 owners waste the worst part of their days before the drive home. This forum is for general chit chat and discussions not covered by the other off-topic forums.

I want to buy a digital camera...

Thread Tools
 
Old Jul 1, 2001 | 07:11 PM
  #21  
cdelena's Avatar
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,210
Likes: 7
From: WA
Default

Transfer of pics from the camera via USB is very slow and eats batteries. The card reader turns the memory card into a removable disk making moving and manipulating pics fast. It also adds flexibility since you can easily store on the memory card so I use it while editing pics and to move pics to another machine with a reader.

When I get home from an event I just swap memory cards so the camera can be used immediately and the pics can be edited at the same time.
Reply
Old Jul 1, 2001 | 08:16 PM
  #22  
ITR's Avatar
ITR
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
From: TO
Default

I just bought the SONY S75 and it is awesome.
It has lots of good features and is well worth the money.

If you don't want to spend the extra $150-$200, the Kodak 4800 is the best bang for the buck at $400.

The features I like best about the SONY are:

1. excellent battery life
2. excellent quality pics
3. MPEG EX mode allows you to record decent quality sound+video directly on the memory stick.
4. Sepia and Black and white photo modes
5. Well made and has a good lens
Reply
Old Jul 2, 2001 | 06:31 AM
  #23  
FlyingPig's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,551
Likes: 0
From: USR, NJ
Default

If your hand isn't too big, I suggest Cannon S100.
Any higher resolution than 2.1 mega pixel is mostly useless.
In fact, I used mostly 680X480. It's perfect for email and posting on the web.
I may get an Olympus C3030 only because there is an underwater casing for it.

At the size of the credit card, Cannon S100 and S300 are as good as it gets.

I also considered Sony cybershot....until I found out how big it was. DSCS70 and above has a glass lens....which is a very attractive feature if you don't mind the size.
Reply
Old Jul 2, 2001 | 08:16 AM
  #24  
wickerbill's Avatar
25 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,642
Likes: 0
From: Tulsa, OK
Default

I wouldn't say that anything above 2.1 megapixel is useless. It depends on what you want to do with the pictures you take. If all you want to do is post them on a website, then 640 x 480 is fine. If, like me, you want to have the ability to print the pictures you take, the more megapixels the better. I have a Sony DSC-S75 that is 3.4 megapixels, which should yield pretty good results printed 8 x 10. Lower resolution pictures would look worse and 640 x 480 wouldn't even look that good on a 4 x 6. It all comes down to what you want to use the camera for.

Mark
Reply
Old Jul 2, 2001 | 09:09 AM
  #25  
QueRAM's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
From: TROY
Default

I want to thank everyone for their input. I appreciate it. I purchased a Kodak DC 4800. Can't wait to try it out.
Reply
Old Jul 2, 2001 | 09:35 AM
  #26  
FlyingPig's Avatar
Registered User
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,551
Likes: 0
From: USR, NJ
Default

I hope that model of Kodak doesn't have battery problem like the others
Reply
Old Jul 2, 2001 | 10:36 AM
  #27  
QueRAM's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
From: TROY
Default

Originally posted by FlyingPig
I hope that model of Kodak doesn't have battery problem like the others
None of the reviews had any negative info on a battery problem so I guess (and hope) DC 4800 does not have that problem.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Cyclon36
Off-topic Talk
19
Jan 19, 2006 11:19 AM
Chitah831
Off-topic Talk
15
Nov 10, 2004 10:46 PM
Kwando
Off-topic Talk
3
Dec 9, 2001 10:39 AM




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:54 PM.