Best 5 - 6 MP current model

if you think memory sticks are expensive, check out the prices on XD cards.
But it doesn't matter after all, just get a X-drive and don't pay for extra
proprietary cards.



"Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message
...
It's pretty silly to take someone to task for "possibly" quoting hearsay
and
then closing with a statement starting with "From what I've heard".
Presumably your photo skills are better than your reasoning skills.

At the risk of being burned at the stake for my own heretical opinion,
I'll
venture that anyone truly serious about photography should first consider
companies with a significant history of designing and building serious
cameras and not film companies or consumer electronis outfits who try to
assemble them from other peoples parts. Which would lead me to look at
Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Olympus and Pentax and away from Kodak, Sony, Fuji,
Casio, HP, Panasonic, Toshiba, Samsung.

OTOH, I couldn't agree more that Sony continues to try and lock people
into
their proprietary memory sticks, just like they've done before with
products
like Betamax and MD disks. They've always been great innovators with
killer
products like the VCR, Walkman, Vaio notebook computers and most recently
in
the Palm OS world, but they really don't want to fit in with anyone else.
I
think they are as much to blame as any other single company for there not
being a unified DVDR standard either, although they can share some of the
blame there with a few others.

Tom P.


"Wolverine" wrote in message
From what I heard, this camera is not bad at all, it just needs the
operator to really know what he is doing. Default settings are not the
best settings.

I love posters who have all the answers but no names.

Me, I think the digital camera differs from a film camera only in the
storage medium really. From a functional aspect they are very much the same.
And the same ergonomics apply to both as well; the ability to easily and
intuitively control the many aspects of photography. If you only want to
take snapshots, a good AF and exposure system and an easy to reach shutter
button are all that really matter, but for more serious efforts design and
engineering play an important role, and I believe companies who have a
significant experience in those areas generally make more usable products.
Not always, but more often than the newcomers.

Panasonic does have Leica lenses. They even make the Digilux for Leica. They
don't have any appreciable market share though, so apparently most of us
weren't convinced. Sony has Zeiss lenses, but most serious photographers
making the switch to digital are buying interchangeable lens DSLRs, not the
717/828. Megapixels are great for the "mine's bigger than yours" crowd, but
I think the advanced amateurs and certainly pros want the flexibilty of a
camera SYSTEM, with lots of lens choices, flashes and other useful stuff,
not some all-in-one solution with screw-on Titanium fish-eye attachments.
You didn't mention it, but Kodak has Schneider optics, but I'll take a
Powershot or Coolpix any day to a Kodak.

Don't get me wrong, Sony, Fuji and others make some very usable products
with some nifty features. But if you're serious about photography, you
should be pragmatic in your choice of manufacturer. At least that's my
opinion.

Tom P.


"Enter Your Full Name" wrote in message
...
You're probably best also not listening to the opinions of dinosaur's too
much. The digital camera is very different to film cameras, not only that
but business is different. Alot of the cameras user the same
manufacturer's
sensors. Panasonic cameras have Leica lenses, Sony have Zeiss. It isn't
that
important who makes the camera - decide on what features you need,
identify
which models satisfy those requirements, read several reviews and owners
opinions, and most important - go to a shop and try them out.

DSLR certainly is the way to go if you are serious and if you have the $$$.
But I don't see why a powershot or coolpix is certainly better than a
F707/717/828. I am not say G3 or 5700 are not great cameras, but I am not
thrilled with a small lens rotating out every time you turn on the camera,
and I am not thrilled with their built qualities either. Most times,
non-major brands cameras are not worth a try, but F707/717/828 are
exceptions. Yashica T4 was a great P&S although Yashica is not a big player
either.


"Tom Pfeiffer" wrote in message
...
I love posters who have all the answers but no names.

Me, I think the digital camera differs from a film camera only in the
storage medium really. From a functional aspect they are very much the
same.
And the same ergonomics apply to both as well; the ability to easily and
intuitively control the many aspects of photography. If you only want to
take snapshots, a good AF and exposure system and an easy to reach shutter
button are all that really matter, but for more serious efforts design and
engineering play an important role, and I believe companies who have a
significant experience in those areas generally make more usable products.
Not always, but more often than the newcomers.

Panasonic does have Leica lenses. They even make the Digilux for Leica.
They
don't have any appreciable market share though, so apparently most of us
weren't convinced. Sony has Zeiss lenses, but most serious photographers
making the switch to digital are buying interchangeable lens DSLRs, not
the
717/828. Megapixels are great for the "mine's bigger than yours" crowd,
but
I think the advanced amateurs and certainly pros want the flexibilty of a
camera SYSTEM, with lots of lens choices, flashes and other useful stuff,
not some all-in-one solution with screw-on Titanium fish-eye attachments.
You didn't mention it, but Kodak has Schneider optics, but I'll take a
Powershot or Coolpix any day to a Kodak.

Don't get me wrong, Sony, Fuji and others make some very usable products
with some nifty features. But if you're serious about photography, you
should be pragmatic in your choice of manufacturer. At least that's my
opinion.

Tom P.


"Enter Your Full Name" wrote in message
...
You're probably best also not listening to the opinions of dinosaur's
too
much. The digital camera is very different to film cameras, not only
that
but business is different. Alot of the cameras user the same
manufacturer's
sensors. Panasonic cameras have Leica lenses, Sony have Zeiss. It isn't
that
important who makes the camera - decide on what features you need,
identify
which models satisfy those requirements, read several reviews and owners
opinions, and most important - go to a shop and try them out.

In article ,
says...
DSLR certainly is the way to go if you are serious and if you have the $$$.
But I don't see why a powershot or coolpix is certainly better than a
F707/717/828. I am not say G3 or 5700 are not great cameras, but I am not
thrilled with a small lens rotating out every time you turn on the camera,
and I am not thrilled with their built qualities either. Most times,
non-major brands cameras are not worth a try, but F707/717/828 are
exceptions. Yashica T4 was a great P&S although Yashica is not a big player
either.



The Sony 707 had color problems that are almost as bad
as the D9, but it seems to have been corrected in the
717 (with judicious use of manual white balance).

The 828 is a real gamble for two reasons:

1. It is a totally new sensor, untried by anyone except
Sony.

2. Its going to sell for $900 (US).

Dont miss-understand me, I TRULY LOVE my 717, but I
wouldn't put my trust in SONY for even a FEW dollars.
They have blown it before in other areas, they could
very well blow it with digital cameras.

Raising the bar to 8 mp doesn't impress me all that
much. I've said it before and repeat it now, I dont
count pixels, I look at the pretty pictures.

I dont mind spending a long hot humid day at a horse
show (12 to 14 hours somedays) just to get a few good
shots of a champion doing his (or her) thing, its part
of the price of getting a good picture.

I do mind spending dollars I've earned on an untried
camera that is over-priced to begin with.

The price point of the 828 is well into the range where
you could be shopping for a DSLR, and unless the 828 can
do something no other camera can do, its priced too high
by about $300 (US).

If, after a few months on the market the 828 shows me
anything, and the price drops (a lot) I might consider
one, 'till then, its just so much smoke & mirrors, and
I'll continue to look for my first DSLR.

IMHO if the 828 were all that great they'de have done
what it takes to get it to market by Christmas. Stalling
the release as they have, Sony is sending me a message.
I could be wrong but to me the message says "There is a
fatal flaw in this camera, we are trying to do a last
minute fix". "Last minute fixes" are for hay balers, and
lawn mowers (stuff you can work on with a hammer and
wrench) NOT for digital cameras.
--
Larry Lynch
Lasting Imagery
Mystic, Ct.

PS: to all
you may well have noticed, I have NO BRAND LOYALTY WHAT-
SO-EVER.

"Larry Lynch" wrote in message
. ..

The Sony 707 had color problems that are almost as bad
as the D9, but it seems to have been corrected in the
717 (with judicious use of manual white balance).
True. every model has some flaws, especially at this price. For example, G3
has AF issue and G5 is just noisy.


The 828 is a real gamble for two reasons:

1. It is a totally new sensor, untried by anyone except
Sony.
Every new technology is untried.


2. Its going to sell for $900 (US).

It will come down. Buy the F717 (for $550 or even less) if you are price
sensitive.

Dont miss-understand me, I TRULY LOVE my 717, but I
wouldn't put my trust in SONY for even a FEW dollars.
They have blown it before in other areas, they could
very well blow it with digital cameras.
I think the Fxxx series has been a success so far. I don't know what you
mean by "blow it". I haven't and will not touch Sony MD stuff or their PC or
laptop. But a non-DSLR digital camera is just a camera. There is no
continuition, no long-term compatibility issue to consider. Just like G3,
G5, 5700, 5050, or all other non-DSLR digital cameras, you replace it whole
once they get outdated. You are not making any long-term commitment by
buying them. So just make your decision on whether you like to features on
the model you are looking at.


Raising the bar to 8 mp doesn't impress me all that
much. I've said it before and repeat it now, I dont
count pixels, I look at the pretty pictures.
Agree.


I dont mind spending a long hot humid day at a horse
show (12 to 14 hours somedays) just to get a few good
shots of a champion doing his (or her) thing, its part
of the price of getting a good picture.

I do mind spending dollars I've earned on an untried
camera that is over-priced to begin with.
Only the rich consumers buy new models right after they are marketed. If you
don't want untried camera, then don't get the 300D because it is the first
sub $1000 DSLR, and the lens in the package is the first of that format in
the Canon line.



The price point of the 828 is well into the range where
you could be shopping for a DSLR, and unless the 828 can
do something no other camera can do, its priced too high
by about $300 (US).
Wrong. Only 300D is available at a bit over that price. However, if you want
to get the same focal coverage, you need to get another tele lens, a quality
one will be $300+ extra. 828 and 300D are for different types of consumers.
I believe a lot of people are "one-lens-for-all" type and they won't
appreciate 300D.



If, after a few months on the market the 828 shows me
anything, and the price drops (a lot) I might consider
one, 'till then, its just so much smoke & mirrors, and
I'll continue to look for my first DSLR.

Just keep waiting, everything will be cheaper.

IMHO if the 828 were all that great they'de have done
what it takes to get it to market by Christmas. Stalling
the release as they have, Sony is sending me a message.
I could be wrong but to me the message says "There is a
fatal flaw in this camera, we are trying to do a last
minute fix". "Last minute fixes" are for hay balers, and
lawn mowers (stuff you can work on with a hammer and
wrench) NOT for digital cameras.
--
It could be one of so many other reasons, such as clearing F717 inventory,
timing holiday season, etc.


PS: to all
you may well have noticed, I have NO BRAND LOYALTY WHAT-
SO-EVER.
I have been a long time Canon user, although I have used a couple of Nikon,
Leica, and own a Sony now.

In article ,
says...
It could be one of so many other reasons, such as clearing F717 inventory,
timing holiday season, etc.


PS: to all
you may well have noticed, I have NO BRAND LOYALTY WHAT-
SO-EVER.
I have been a long time Canon user, although I have used a couple of Nikon,
Leica, and own a Sony now.



I see you are much like I am then.

What I meant by Sony "blowing it" was the way they
treated video tape when it was really the only viable
home video system.

They didn't license out the "beta" format 'till way too
late in the game, while JVC licensed out VHS to
literally EVERYONE!

Picture quality wise BETA was better, but being locked
into only one manufacturer for a long time may well have
helped kill it.

I only ever remember ONE other brand of BETA recorder
TOSHIBA.

The 828 has a totally new (totally unseen) image sensor
using r(ed)g(reen)b(lue) e(merald) color sensors. I'll
have to SEE how it works.

When I mentioned the $900 dollar price point, I was
including "Used" gear, but I'm having second thoughts
about that, remembering some of the "used" film cameras
Ive bought over the years.

--
Larry Lynch
Lasting Imagery
Mystic, Ct.

I only ever remember ONE other brand of BETA recorder
TOSHIBA.
Sanyo and Marantz as well.

I have A 5700 and it takes great pics. It is my first digital and a bit
complicated when indoors since you have to play with settings in order to
get a great med - low light picture but a external flash helped greatly!!
worth considering!

"Q. Lu" wrote in message
...
"Allen Worthington" wrote in message
...

If you're partial to Nikon and can wait six months or so, Nikon plans
to release a lower priced SLR using the same 6mp sensor as the D100.
John

Wait for the Nikon. They are far superior when it comes to lens
selection
than Canon ever was. I would spring for the D100 if you can swing it.

I am not sure about the "far superior" remark. Nikkor lenses may have a
slight edge over Canon in terms of selection (maybe even quality as some
people would argue), but not by much. Nikkors are more expensive that I
know. If you are willing to go third parties, then there are plenty of
selections with either brand.