Need advice

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:51:27 -0500, "nana wilson"
wrote:

Hi All.

I already have an Olympus 2100 ultra zoom. I am in the market for a smaller
digital camera (purse size) Any suggestions? Under $200.

TIA
Nana NOT giving up the old 2100!!


The Canon SD1000 is for you, small purse size, lots of features,
including viewfinder, and is now on sale for under $170.

Thanks so much for all the help. I have those sites bookmarked & will be
off after the holidays (with, I HOPE, me gifted moneys) to the stores with
at least more info than before.

THANKS AGAIN!!

Nana

"irwell" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:51:27 -0500, "nana wilson"
wrote:

Hi All.

I already have an Olympus 2100 ultra zoom. I am in the market for a
smaller
digital camera (purse size) Any suggestions? Under $200.

TIA
Nana NOT giving up the old 2100!!


The Canon SD1000 is for you, small purse size, lots of features,
including viewfinder, and is now on sale for under $170.

SMS 斯蒂文• � wrote:


There are more differences between the A720 IS and the A570 IS than just
the resolution.

The A570 IS has a 35 - 140 mm lens, while the A720 IS has a 35mm - 210
mm lens. The A570 IS is a better choice in terms of image quality, with
a better lens and less noisy sensor.

Ah, thanks. The latter is probably due to the lower number of pixels in
A570 than in the other one (I believe they both have the same sized sensor)?



However, for a purse camera, maybe Canon SD1000 or SD800 would be even
better. There are ultra compact cameras but have proprietary batteries.

The SD800 IS is a better choice than the SD1000, IMVAIO. Larger pixels,
wide angle lens, and image stabilization.

The wide angle lens and IS are definitely nice features in this!

thanks,
-HS

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:08:33 -0500, H.S. wrote:

SMS ???• ? wrote:
. . .
The A570 IS has a 35 - 140 mm lens, while the A720 IS has a 35mm - 210
mm lens. The A570 IS is a better choice in terms of image quality, with
a better lens and less noisy sensor.

Ah, thanks. The latter is probably due to the lower number of pixels in
A570 than in the other one (I believe they both have the same sized sensor)?

Both cameras us a 1/2.5" sensor, 7mp for the A570 IS and 8mp for
the A720 IS. Image quality is not that easy to generalize. With
fewer pixels, the noise advantage should go to the A570 for shooting
in dim light @ high ISO. But in good light at low ISO, the
advantage could go to the A720 based on its greater number of
pixels. [I just checked some of DPReview's tests, which confirms
this].

With similar sensors, lens quality might be the determining factor
for image quality. According to DPReview the A570 probably has a
little less noise at higher ISO values, but the small sensor is
probably why DPReview notes that for the A570 "ISO 800 and above
only suitable for emergency use". Quoting from the conclusion pages
of reviews for these two cameras :

[A570 IS]
Pros :
# Good resolution
# Clean and detailed results across the frame and zoom range
# Little purple fringing
# Big, fairly bright (though low res) screen
# Good balance of noise reduction and detail retention at higher ISO settings
Cons :
# Occasional highlight clipping
# Images a bit soft viewed at 100% - benefit from a little sharpening
# ISO 800 and above only suitable for emergency use
Overall conclusion :
Its well balanced combination of image quality, functionality
and handling (and not to forget value for money) means the
A570 IS just about deserves our highest award.
Detail Rating (out of 10)
Build quality 7.5
Image quality 7.5
Optics 8.0
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona570is/page13.asp

[A720 IS]
Pros :
Surprisingly good image quality (at lower ISO settings)
Fairly subtle noise reduction in ISO 100-400 region
Cons :
Usual issues above ISO 400 due to noise and noise reduction
Overall conclusion :
If used in automatic mode, it takes consistently good photographs
so long as you keep away from the highest ISO settings.
Detail Rating (out of 10)
Image quality 8.0
Optics 8.0
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona720is/page12.asp

So as far as the lens optical quality, there's little difference
between them (both rated at 8.0), and for image quality a slight
edge goes to the A720 IS over the A570 IS (8.0 vs. 7.5). But as I
pointed out, this is a generalization. The A720 might have slightly
better image quality in normal lighting conditions, but in dim light
the A570 probably has a slight image quality edge.


However, for a purse camera, maybe Canon SD1000 or SD800 would be even
better. There are ultra compact cameras but have proprietary batteries.

The SD800 IS is a better choice than the SD1000, IMVAIO. Larger pixels,
wide angle lens, and image stabilization.

The wide angle lens and IS are definitely nice features in this!

They probably need IS more than the A570 and A720 since very small
cameras are harder to hold steadily. Small size matters more if
there isn't much room to store the camera. So the SD800 and SD1000
would be much better choices if you'd want to store the camera in a
very small case or in a small shirt pocket. Any of these four
cameras could almost get lost in all but the smallest purses. For
another generalization, very small cameras tend to be more expensive
and perform slightly less well. DPReview tested the SD800 and not
the SD1000, but did test the SD1100. Without a full review, it's
hard to compare the SD800 with the SD1000, but if the latter is
comparable to the SD1100, SMS's conclusion that the SD800 is the
better choice would be wrong. For image and lens (optical) quality
the SD1100 did quite well, matching the A720 IS :

Image quality 8.0
Optics 8.0

but did not earn the Highly Recommended label of the A570 and A720,
since DPReview noted :
Cons :
# Little manual control
# Poor Auto White Balance performance under artificial light
# Pretty noisy at any sensitivity above ISO 200 (decent detail retention though)
# Some highlight clipping
# Some noise reduction detail blurring even at base ISO
# Viewfinder so tiny as to be virtually pointless
# Lens a little soft at the long end
Overall conclusion :
Our rather minor complaints aside, in conclusion the SD1100 was designed
as a point and shoot camera and it performs well as such. It's got an attractive
design, it is small enough to always carry it with you and reliably produces
good out the box results. If that's what you are after go for it. If you are
looking for manual controls, a real wide angle, new groundbreaking
features or class-leading image quality then you better keep browsing
dpreview.com a little longer, if you want an a simple, well made pocket camera,
go for it.

The SD1100 IS is a perfectly good camera, if a little dull, and has that
redeeming quality common to most Canon compacts; it can be relied on
to take attractive pictures in a wide range of shooting situations with true
'point and shoot' simplicity. It's the camera you'd buy your mum.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/cano...0is/page10.asp

The SD800 did less well :
Cons :
* AiAF focus a bit unpredictable - turn it off
* Very little manual control
* ISO 200 and 400 suffer from the effect of noise reduction and loss of low contrast detail
* ISO 800 and 1600 of limited use
* Still no exposure information for shutter speeds over 1/60 sec
* Some corner softness and some highlight clipping
Overall conclusion :
Of course nothing in life comes for free, and there have obviously been
some compromises involved in designing and manufacturing a 28-105mm
equiv. lens in such a small form factor - and in squeezing even more pixels
onto a 1/2.5-inch CCD. The excellent edge-to-edge sharpness we saw with
the SD700 IS has gone; the SD800's more ambitious lens range means that
there is a slight, but noticeable drop off in sharpness towards the edges
and corners in some circumstances.
. . .
I was also disappointed to see the new DIGIC III processor's heavy noise
reduction blurring away fine, low contrast detail at ISO 200 and 400.
This is the curse of modern compacts (for the more serious user), but it's
unusual for a Canon to exhibit noticeable NR artefacts. I wouldn't use
anything other than ISO 80 for any shot with lots of fine detail (such as
landscapes), but again, the typical casual/social snap shooter simply won't
have an issue with it, particularly in prints.
. . .
So then, what Canon gives with one hand - the wider lens, better screen
and other tweaks - it takes away with the other (reduced image quality).
. . .
The SD 700 IS was an easy 'Highly Recommended', this one doesn't
quite make the grade simply because here at dpreview we put a lot of
weight on image quality, which is the one area where the SD 800 IS
can't compete with the older model.
. . .
Image quality 7.0
Optics 7.0
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd800is/page11.asp

ASAAR wrote:

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:08:33 -0500, H.S. wrote:

SMS ???• ? wrote:
. . .
The A570 IS has a 35 - 140 mm lens, while the A720 IS has a 35mm - 210
mm lens. The A570 IS is a better choice in terms of image quality, with
a better lens and less noisy sensor.

Ah, thanks. The latter is probably due to the lower number of pixels in
A570 than in the other one (I believe they both have the same sized sensor)?

Both cameras us a 1/2.5" sensor, 7mp for the A570 IS and 8mp for
the A720 IS. Image quality is not that easy to generalize. With
fewer pixels, the noise advantage should go to the A570 for shooting
in dim light @ high ISO. But in good light at low ISO, the
advantage could go to the A720 based on its greater number of
pixels. [I just checked some of DPReview's tests, which confirms
this].

heavily edited for brevity

Hello, ASAAR:

Why are you reacting to such an ANCIENT article (dated November 28,
2007), man? It's over seven months old! ;-)


Cordially,
John Turco

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:37:03 -0500, John Turco wrote:

Why are you reacting to such an ANCIENT article (dated November 28,
2007), man? It's over seven months old! ;-)

Good question, no good answer. Tuli asked me to say "It crawled
into my hand, honest".

ASAAR wrote:

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:37:03 -0500, John Turco wrote:

Why are you reacting to such an ANCIENT article (dated November 28,
2007), man? It's over seven months old! ;-)

Good question, no good answer. Tuli asked me to say "It crawled
into my hand, honest".


Hello, ASAAR:

Who the hell is "Tuli," eh?


Cordially,
John Turco

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:28:20 -0500, John Turco wrote:

Good question, no good answer. Tuli asked me to say "It crawled
into my hand, honest".


Hello, ASAAR:

Who the hell is "Tuli," eh?

Kupferberg. Or you could google :

Tuli "crawled into my hand"

which is guaranteed to be more enlightening.

ASAAR wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:28:20 -0500, John Turco wrote:

Good question, no good answer. Tuli asked me to say "It crawled
into my hand, honest".


Hello, ASAAR:

Who the hell is "Tuli," eh?

Kupferberg. Or you could google :

Tuli "crawled into my hand"

which is guaranteed to be more enlightening.


Hello, ASAAR:

C'mon, out with it! If I'd wanted to "Google" everything, I wouldn't be
on Usenet, to begin with. g


Cordially,
John Turco

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:36:08 -0500, John Turco wrote:

Who the hell is "Tuli," eh?

Kupferberg. Or you could google :

Tuli "crawled into my hand"

which is guaranteed to be more enlightening.


Hello, ASAAR:

C'mon, out with it! If I'd wanted to "Google" everything, I wouldn't be
on Usenet, to begin with. g

Who do you think I am, Barney Google? Oh well, just this one
time, but fess up. You don't know how to use it, because the last
time you "googled" anything was with Alta Vista.

Album Review: It Crawled into My Hand, Honest
Release Date: 1968

Having attained a professional rock-band sound on
Tenderness Junction, the Fugs seemed determined
to further expand their arrangements (aided, perhaps,
by a major-label budget) on It Crawled into My Hand, Honest.
Indeed, the album is ridiculously eclectic. There's stoned
psychedelic folk-rock ("Crystal Liaison"); cry-in-your-beer
country music with vehemently satirical or surrealistic lyrics
("Ramses II Is Dead My Love," "Johnny ****off Meets the
Red Angel"); grand, sweeping classical orchestration ("Burial
Waltz"); a Gregorian chant about "Marijuana"; down-home
gospel with lyrics that no preacher would dare enunciate
("Wide Wide River," with the line: "I've been swimming in this
river of sh*t/More than 20 years and I'm getting tired of it");
and, almost buried along the way, the kind of tuneful,
countercultural folk-rock Tuli Kupferberg contributed to
earlier albums ("Life Is Strange"). Choral backup vocals
abound, and the mere presence of a half-dozen outside
arrangers testifies to how much the group's attitude toward
exploiting the studio had developed since the bare-bones ESP
albums. Generally, the songs (most written by the core trio of
Sanders, Kupferberg, and Weaver) are more concerned with
deft poetry and humor than political statements, although the
customary social satire and calls for sexual freedom and drug
use are present in diminishing degrees. Although side one is
five discrete tracks, side two is a side-long cut-and-paste of
tracks varying in length from three seconds to four minutes,
the stylistic jump-cuts similar to those employed by the
Mothers of Invention in the same era. It's an impressive and,
usually, fun record, but it's also less-lyrically cogent and
powerful than their early albums. One senses that the Fugs'
personality and individuality were ultimately somewhat
muted by the more ambitious production values and
frequent use of external musicians and arrangers.
~ Richie Unterberger, All Music Guide

http://www.answers.com/topic/it-craw...my-hand-honest