Very pocketable?

T i m wrote:

Isn't there 12 volts available somewhere on the motorcycle?

Yes there is, and that would probably be quite straightforward for a
basic std cell charger, not so easy for the on-camera chargers with
'special' packs. I could arrange a regulated output (5V etc) for say a
F31fd but it's not so 'straight forward'. I really mean when we were
cycle camping as the F420 takes std AAA's.

Cool, very few cameras charge the battery internally any more. There are
12 volt chargers available for most Li-Ion batteries, including for the
NP-95 in the F30, or you could buy a 12V to 5V adapter.

"http://www.berger-bros.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=EMPRVBC299&C ategory_Code=Empire_Scientific&Store_Code=BBCVD

Land Rover? (are the gutters so you keep dry or make fitting of cycle
racks easier .. how I miss the Thule roof bars that I used to fit on
my fully-guttered Sierra Estate) ;-(

Yeah, I had a Toyota Land Cruiser with real gutters and Thule bars. It
was much stronger than the current attachment methods, and less damaging
to the vehicle.

As to the Land Rover, see
"http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2006133".
I think I'll pass!

David J Taylor wrote:
(snip)
As am I, for a pocket camera, but I tend to leave it set at -0.3 stops
exposure compensation. You might like to try that.

I'd already added it to the "ADJ" button. Makes swapping between normal
exposure and -0.3 very easy.


Fuji have a sensor with dual pixels providing an improved dynamic
range - the smaller pixels capturing just the highlights - and it
seems to work well. I'm not aware of that sensor being used in any
IS camera, but I don't know if it may be in a wide-angle camera
somewhere.

May look at that for the next camera...

--
Jeff
(cut "thetape" to reply)

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:53:46 -0700, SMS
wrote:

T i m wrote:

Isn't there 12 volts available somewhere on the motorcycle?

Yes there is, and that would probably be quite straightforward for a
basic std cell charger, not so easy for the on-camera chargers with
'special' packs. I could arrange a regulated output (5V etc) for say a
F31fd but it's not so 'straight forward'. I really mean when we were
cycle camping as the F420 takes std AAA's.

Cool, very few cameras charge the battery internally any more.

Except the F31fd we have just bought for instance ..?

There are
12 volt chargers available for most Li-Ion batteries, including for the
NP-95 in the F30,

Thanks for that (link).

or you could buy a 12V to 5V adapter.

I think that might be the best idea. Most of the 'off the shelf'
jobbies (for charging USB mp3 players etc) seem to be only 1A and the
Fuji charger that comes with the F31fd is rated at 1.5A ?

Land Rover? (are the gutters so you keep dry or make fitting of cycle
racks easier .. how I miss the Thule roof bars that I used to fit on
my fully-guttered Sierra Estate) ;-(

Yeah, I had a Toyota Land Cruiser with real gutters and Thule bars. It
was much stronger than the current attachment methods, and less damaging
to the vehicle.

Yup, I also miss gutters .. sob

As to the Land Rover, see
"http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2006133".
I think I'll pass!

Nah, that's probably as a result of all the Freelanders, Range Rovers
and Discovery's ... not the 'real' Land Rovers .. ;-)

http://supercarblog.net/images/super...20defender.jpg

All the best ..

T i m

T i m wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:12:47 -0500, John Turco
wrote:


Hello, Tim:

I've used a Kodak V603 (6 megapixel, 3x zoom), these past few
months, and have been rather pleased with it. Other than the
optical viewfinder, it meets all of your specifications, above.

Hi John and thanks for the input.

Hello, Tim:

Glad to be of service.

It's funny (for me anyway) that I used to work for Kodak on their
range of micro fiche and film machines and saw them at the time slip
behind in 'cameras'. Everyone was going digital and they didn't seem
to be.

That's funny, considering Kodak invented the digital camera!

I think the penny dropped that digital was the way to go but I don't
know if they have re coupled their position?

Yes, the company is among the sales leaders, today.

Because I'm not into 'photography' I have to admit I don't really take
much notice of the detail of most pictures, as long as I can see what
it is, that it's in focus and reasonably well lit, that will do for
me. And how far does one go on this search for the Holy Grail in any
case?

It's easy, in one way, as there are so many affordable, capable digcams
available, currently. Yet, it's difficult, in another respect, because
of this very fact; such a great variety of nice models makes it harder
to choose the right product.

edited, for brevity

Respectfully, the Kodak V603 seems to be very much like many of the
other P&S cameras out there and if I was given it (or any of the
others probably) I'm sure I would be happy with my lot. Personal
feedback . recommendation is good though, knowing it at least lives up
to what it says on the box etc.

Like trainers or cars sometimes we buy stuff because we just like the
style or image or because they are the best or the cheapest etc. Some
always buy one brand or model (no matter how good or bad it may be).
What makes my decision more difficult is that I'm actually buying the
camera for someone else (our daughter) and the sort of money we are
talking about (~£150) is not an insignificant sum for us at the moment
so I want to tick as many of the boxes as possible .. if only I knew
what they were!

The bottom line may be that I go with the flow and choose something
that might be a compromise re some of my boxes but actually be good
at doing what a camera is supposed to do ... take pictures under most
typical circumstances. As I for see her more likely to be using this
camera (rather than the S7000) for taking indoor / snapshots maybe a
requirement that should be high up the list for her is it's low light
ability?

edited

These are the V603's advantages, over most of its competitors:

Optical zoom works, in movie mode.

IS (image stabilization), during video capture.

"AF assist light," which helps it focus, in dim conditions.

Built-in panorama stitching.

Uses Kodak's "Perfect Touch" technology, that can (optionally)
noticeably enhance photos.

Ironically, however, the V603's IS isn't employed, when taking still
shots...oh, well, one can't have everything, I guess! ;-)


Cordially,
John Turco

T i m wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:20:18 -0700, SMS
wrote:

T i m wrote:

Like trainers or cars sometimes we buy stuff because we just like the
style or image or because they are the best or the cheapest etc. Some
always buy one brand or model (no matter how good or bad it may be).
What makes my decision more difficult is that I'm actually buying the
camera for someone else (our daughter) and the sort of money we are
talking about (~£150) is not an insignificant sum for us at the moment
so I want to tick as many of the boxes as possible .. if only I knew
what they were!
I'm big into "box ticking" when making a purchase such as this.

I was told. ;-)
I usually is make up a list of "no compromise" features," "strongly
desired" features," and "nice to have" features. The list of course
varies by individual, each person has different requirements, but for
products for which the person is unfamiliar, there are often a lot of
issues that don't even occur to the buyer before the purchase.

Ah, and that's a good point isn't it. So sometimes one has to get a
toe in the water with *something* and maybe make some mistakes before
we can fully appreciate some of the more subtle aspects.
With digital cameras, it seems that the unfamiliar buyer looks at items
such as megapixels and LCD size, while ignoring a lot of the equal or
more important characteristics.

Indeed. I'm trying to avoid that by doing plenty of Googling and
asking / reading here. Re the 'here' bit, many folk have their own
favourite's which they may have come by at the time via the same path
as me (plus reading DC mags etc) and others simply because it was a
gift or on sale at their local shop but it still seems to do what they
want.

I have a newish Toshiba laptop and an oldish Dell (lower spec and was
given to me faulty and I repaired it (dead backlight)) and I much
prefer the Dell for my needs, it just feels / works 'better'? Should I
want Vista on something it would probably have to be the Tosh simply
because of the spec.
For an ultra-compact camera here's my list:

No-Compromise
-------------
Optical Viewfinder

(getting rare)

Lens with 28mm min at wide end

(not that common I read?)

Low noise up to ISO 400 (Good low light performance)
AF-assist lamp

(on most compacts now did someone say?)

Total lag of 0.5 sec (AF plus shutter)
Powerful flash

(is that possible on any compact?)

Minimal purple fringing


Strongly Desired
----------------
Li-Ion or Li-Po Battery (no AA)

(I would actually prefer AA's as long as they gave a good shot count
because we often go cycle / motorcycle camping and often are nowhere
near a mains source).

Manual White Balance

(still not sure how / when that would be used?)

Image stabilizer
30 fps movie mode
SD for storage

(My Palm TX takes SD's so that would be nice)

Steel body
High-Speed USB 2.0 support
Good Macro mode


Nice to Have
------------
RAW/TIFF mode
Manual Focus, Aperture, Shutter Speed
Metal tripod mount
Live histogram

(I believe the S7000 has that but I can't say we have used it yet. She
(daughter) did say last night she would like to understand what the
buttons did a bit better so maybe it's the time for a good 'Idiots
Guide to digital cameras' book?). Up till now she just want's to pull
the camera out, use it and put it back in it's bag.

Minimal red eye (red eye is easy to fix in post processing)
Conversion lens support
Good macro mode


In my case, just two of the no-compromise requirements pretty much
eliminate all but a single ultra-compact.

And that's the problem isn't it. Until *most* compact's tick all your
boxes (and I guess that won't happen if optical viewfinders are being
phased out because they are not considered good selling points for the
masses) then you are gonna be without a camera?

It's very rare to find both a
lens with 28mm at the wide end and an optical viewfinder on an
ultra-compact. The only one I could find was the Canon SD800 IS.
Unfortunately, it has a poor macro mode, red-eye problems, and doesn't
support conversion lenses. Oh well, there is no perfect camera in this
category.

But if say you were *generally* only taking pictures of architecture
then it could well be a winner?
Too bad Ricoh left IS and an optical viewfinder off the Caplio R6. The
R6 is almost the ideal ultra-compact, with a very good macro mode, and
the 7x 28-200mm lens. While Ricoh doesn't sell into the U.S. anymore,
some NYC stores are grey-marketing the R6.

Yeah I Googled / found / explored that and it did look nice. However,
after reading the reviews there always seemed to be a sting in the
tail somewhere .. and for us that could have been simply price.

I have always understood the 'you get's what you pay's for' thing and
when I want something that I expect to be good / reliable I'm aware I
open have to pay for the privilege. However, you can often find kit
that seems to slip past that rule and it's nice if you can pickup one
of those once in a while.
Good luck in your quest.

Thanks Steve, and I have to be careful it doesn't actually turn into a
quest rather than a 'purchase'.

I had a quick chat with our daughter last night and told her we were
thinking of getting her a 'compact' camera for her holidays (in 2
weeks) and as a portable / everyday option to use alongside her S7000.
She said 'cool' weg and I think, with all things considered it might
end up being the Fuji F31fd. She likes the idea of the fd function,
the low light abilities and the huge battery. She also doesn't mind
'Fuji' (my F420 / her S7000) and wasn't bothered by the fact that it
wasn't the slimmest camera available (she actually said she has
difficulty getting her very slim LG mobile phone in her jeans pocket
in any case).


Ahhh HAH! I see a really inexpensive solution to your problem. Buy her
some looser jeans for the trip! Grin.
Some of the jeans I see on girls these days would have trouble getting a
grain of sand in the pockets! Not that I am complaining.


And at around £125 isn't any more expensive than many of the
alternatives that are also missing things like optical viewfinders and
don't have the low light abilities of the Fuji chip nor the 500+ shot
battery life?

All the best Steve ..

T i m

John Turco wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
SMS wrote:
T i m wrote:
I have looked here, asked elsewhere and Googled quite a bit and I
think it's down to the Fuji F30 or, if anyone can spot what we might
loose that is 'essential' the F20 LE or the F31fd?

In case the F20 LE is unique to one store here in the UK (Argos) a
link to it is here.
Avoid those cameras at all costs.

I guess I'd opt for the Canon SD1000. You definitely don't want to give
up an optical viewfinder. It's $200 in the U.S..
On the same order is the Kodak cs875. Ability to use AA batteries is
good for flexibility, and eliminates the need for recharging. Will fit
into a pocket or purse.


Hello, Ron:

If you're referring to the C875, it appears to be a real bargain, yet
lacks an optical viewfinder.


Cordially,
John Turco
Hummm. Only looked at the specs. which are very good, but lack of an
optical viewfinder would be a blocker for me. My wife wouldn't care.

T i m wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:55:50 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

No thanks. NOT going to do without an optical viewfinder. LCDs,
whether in the 'viewfinder', or on the back are just not conducive to
good pictures, and drain batteries faster. Putting in a viewfinder
doesn't markedly increase camera size, it is just a money-saving ploy.
Every time I see someone taking a picture with their camera extended at
arms length, I cringe.

Could it be possible that someone could take perfectly good (or even
outstanding) picture by using a 'non traditional' method Ron? Like the
golfer with a 'bad' stance / swing (by traditional standards) that
goes on to win the open? Our daughter despairs how so many people
don't seem to 'get it' even when using the viewfinder, taking a
picture of / for her and her then finding she's been decapitated or is
standing on a 45 deg slope? Some people have just got it and I think
the LCD screen may actually help noobys get a good shot, at least as
far as framing is concerned .. 'what you see is what you get' ?
As for the laws of physics. Every time I have read about something not
being possible due to the laws of physics, someone seems to find a way
to skirt the law, or someone seems to outright 'repeal' it. Grin.

I think perpetual motion is a good idea .. if you connected a dynamo
to the shutter release you could charge the battery as you took the
pictures! ;-)


Grin. Well, the way my wife tends to 'stab' the shutter button, they
could put a dynamo in the thing and a motion device like in self-winding
watches, and eliminate the battery completely. I have minimized her
shake problems by insisting that she put her thumb on the bottom of the
camera below the shutter button, but she still doesn't seem to
understand the concept of squeezing the button.....

I recall some years ago a 'guru' on the design and function of modems on
telephone lines claiming the laws of physics didn't allow speeds faster
than 450 baud on phone lines.... Oh well.

Maybe he was thinking of direct modulation techniques .. somewhat
stifled in a 3k voice bandwidth?


Of course he was, but he overlooked the possibility of using other
characteristics of the connection to get the higher bandwidth. So he
was technically correct, but conceptually wrong.


All the best ..

T i m

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:10:51 -0500, John Turco
wrote:

Hi John,



I've used a Kodak V603 (6 megapixel, 3x zoom), these past few
months, and have been rather pleased with it. Other than the
optical viewfinder, it meets all of your specifications, above.


It's funny (for me anyway) that I used to work for Kodak on their
range of micro fiche and film machines and saw them at the time slip
behind in 'cameras'. Everyone was going digital and they didn't seem
to be.

That's funny, considering Kodak invented the digital camera!

They did!?

I think the penny dropped that digital was the way to go but I don't
know if they have re coupled their position?

Yes, the company is among the sales leaders, today.

Ok, thanks.

These are the V603's advantages, over most of its competitors:

Optical zoom works, in movie mode.

Oooh, that's good ..

IS (image stabilization), during video capture.

And that ..

"AF assist light," which helps it focus, in dim conditions.

Don't most have this now John?

Built-in panorama stitching.

Hmm, maybe if it was built in (and worked) we might use it .... ? We
did try a panorama shot with the S7000 when down on the coast a while
ago. Found some free stitching software on the net that just took the
series of pics and stitched them together and it worked pretty well.
It was 'interesting' as an experiment but not something we are into
(but good if you like the feature of course).

Uses Kodak's "Perfect Touch" technology, that can (optionally)
noticeably enhance photos.

I don't do much outside of a bit of cropping and resizing and use
Irfanview for that, remember I'm also only a 'snapshooter' ;-) Our
daughter hasn't got into 'retouching' outside of radical arty stuff
(like really working the contrast / colours etc). I also try not to
install any software that comes with anything if I can help it.

I was sorting a P_C for a friend recently who had two Kodak camera and
a dock. It didn't seem that you could access either model directly but
you had to go through the 'Easy Share' software (Would that have been
correct or did we miss something). Even once we got it going it seemed
a bit intermittent and he said 'it does that sometimes' ... ? ;-(

We did get the Fuji F31fd yesterday (local shop, good deal on camera,
case and 2G card) and when I plug it into my PC with the USB cable it
just finds it, gives an icon called "FinePix F31fd" in My Computer and
double clicking on it shows the contents of the camera.

Both our daughter and I prefer this method, to be able to select what
we want and do what we want with it.

Ironically, however, the V603's IS isn't employed, when taking still
shots...oh, well, one can't have everything, I guess! ;-)

Well it is a pretty impressive list anyway (especially the zoom in
video mode).

All the best ..

T i m

ASAAR wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 02:55:50 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

No thanks. NOT going to do without an optical viewfinder. LCDs,
whether in the 'viewfinder', or on the back are just not conducive to
good pictures, and drain batteries faster. Putting in a viewfinder
doesn't markedly increase camera size, it is just a money-saving ploy.
Every time I see someone taking a picture with their camera extended at
arms length, I cringe.

The difference is minuscule. Some of Canon's A6xx series cameras
get 20 hours of LCD viewing time from AA alkaline batteries. A
smaller EVF would use even less power. You might as well also say
that you'd never get a camera with IS (you know, the non-ISO type
g) because moving a lens element or a sensor would definitely
drain the batteries faster. It also means that you won't want to
consider getting a camera with an 8x or longer zoom, since optical
viewfinders wouldn't work very well with those long zooms. So you
have to rely on shorter 3x and 4x zooms, and let your feet do the
walking to compensate for the shorter focal lengths. But when you
do that, you wear out your own organic battery faster.


There are other considerations to the 'let the feet...' as in the case
of taking pictures at the Grand Canyon. Grin.

As for accepting limits. Yes, we all have to do that, and we make our
own choices as to what limits to accept. I find EVFs to be an
unacceptable alternative, and will accept the zoom limit willingly.
Just like I accept the fact that insisting on a pocketable camera
imposes some limits on things like flash range, and zoom range, as well
as battery capacity.



As for the laws of physics. Every time I have read about something not
being possible due to the laws of physics, someone seems to find a way
to skirt the law, or someone seems to outright 'repeal' it. Grin.
I recall some years ago a 'guru' on the design and function of modems on
telephone lines claiming the laws of physics didn't allow speeds faster
than 450 baud on phone lines.... Oh well.

True. When Fuji's F10 was first released, there were a number of
"experts" here (mostly Canonistas) that said that the unanimous
opinions of reviewers couldn't be believed, that the F10 *couldn't*
provide the high ISO/low noise images that they raved about. Even
said that cameras had pretty much reached their limits, and wouldn't
be able to do any better without violating the laws of physics. But
Canon's latest, the EOS-1D Mark III, upped the ISO ante
considerably, with nary a peep about violating any laws of physics.
Maybe getting so close to the ultimate boundary of physical laws is
responsible for its sudden focusing failures, a variation of the
uncertainty principle, where the product of the focusing accuracy
and the ISO sensitivity is a universal constant.

Until next week, when someone comes out with a new idea to get around
the limitations. I believe someone has a camera with a 'fly eye' lens
that can focus each lens differently for shots with amazingly sharp wide
depth of field. Or Kodak's cameras with different lens types in the
same case. If 8mp is the practical limit for sensors of the size in
compact cameras, then other methods will be found to increase resolution.

Jeff Layman wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:
SMS wrote:
[]
Too bad Ricoh left IS and an optical viewfinder off the Caplio R6.
The R6 is almost the ideal ultra-compact, with a very good macro
mode, and the 7x 28-200mm lens. While Ricoh doesn't sell into the
U.S. anymore, some NYC stores are grey-marketing the R6.
[]
Steve
But do take a careful look at the images from the R6 and decide if the
small size justifies any image qualtiy compromises you see. If you
can go a little larger the Panasonic TZ3 is much better.

David

I got an R6 a couple of weeks ago to replace my Kodak EasyShare DX4530.
There were several reasons for choosing the R6; the main three were a
remarkable macro mode, 28 mm equiv wide angle, and small size. The IS would
also be useful.

I was also interested in the claimed improvement in white saturation, as
overexposed light areas were an annoyance with the Kodak. Unfortunately, I
see little difference between the R6 and the Kodak, and indeed with my
wife's Pentax Optio L30. As far as I can tell reading through comments in
this group and elsewhere, the dynamic range of the digital sensors used even
in high-range DSLRs is still lacking somewhat when compared to film. I used
50, 100, and even 200 ASA transparency film (Agfa) for 20 years in an SLR,
taking around 4000 slides (mainly of plants, hence the interest in macro).
It was said that its exposure latitude was, at best, little more than 1/3 of
a stop, but I got hardly any overexposed shots when compared to those from
my digital cameras. If I want to be certain, I underexpose light flowers by
0.3EV with the R6. I haven't tried its autobracketing option yet; maybe
that would be simpler than resetting the exposure each time.

The lack of an optical viewfinder with the R6 doesn't bother me. I thought
it would, but WYSIWYG with the LCD is really just what you'd get with a
film-based SLR. And how would you deal with macro shots using an optical
viewfinder on a compact camera?

Overall, I am quite impressed with the R6.

My camera automatically enables the LCD when set for closeup. I agree
that in many cases the optical viewfinder isn't useful for such shots.
For most of my photographs, however, the viewfinder is much better.