Opinions on P&S

John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:06:14 -0800 (PST), -hh
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
-hh wrote:
They made a mistake, but they've now not repeated that mistake for the
past 20 years.
It was a deliberate decision, and there's no evidence that Canon
considers it a mistake.
Ah, but *you* consider it to be a mistake.

We FD customers consider it a mistake. That makes it a mistake.

You and all the other Edsel owners must still be distraught at the
demise of tubed whitewall tires and leaded gasoline...

SMS 斯蒂文• � wrote:
Matt Ion wrote:
So the wife wants a nice little compact P&S... she's pretty much
narrowed her choices down to the Canon SD1000 or the Sony DSCT70.
Both are similar specs (7.1MP), similar price.

Plus for the Canon: uses SD memory, of which I already have several
cards. Plus for the Sony: she likes the look and the fact she can get
it in pink to match her RAZR phone rolls eyes.

Minus to both: proprietary rechargeable batteries, which seems to be
pretty much the only option to anything in this thin form-factor.

I know it's probably crazy asking in here, but I'm gonna solicit
opinions on one or the other of these two. I'll be sitting over in
the corner in my rose-colored shades and asbestos undies....

The only real negative about the SD1000 is the lack of IS. I got the
SD800 IS for this reason, as well as because it has a wide angle lens
which the SD1000 lacks (it's also 7.1MP).

I would definitely avoid the DSC-T70 at all costs. It's not in the same
league as the SD1000. It lacks an optical viewfinder. It uses those
gawd-awful memory sticks. It has less expandability, it uses more
expensive batteries, the list goes on and on.

So get the SD1000 and paint it pink. But consider the SD800 IS as well,
for the image stabilization and 28mm at the wide end. It's a bit more
expensive at around $239, but the extra cost is well worth it.

Thanks, the SD800 looks promising as well. I don't recall seeing one in
any of the stores, but then again, it was Boxing Day and a lot of stuff
was sold out. We'll give it a look when we're out shopping again.

Matt Ion wrote:

Thanks, the SD800 looks promising as well. I don't recall seeing one in
any of the stores, but then again, it was Boxing Day and a lot of stuff
was sold out. We'll give it a look when we're out shopping again.

It's still at
"http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=113"
but I think it's on the verge of being discontinued with the SD870 IS
being its replacement. I was quick to get an SD800 IS because I am
adamant about having an optical viewfinder.

Actually it's fallen in price again, it's now $230 at Amazon in the
U.S., see "http://tinyurl.com/3yk9v5"

BTW, I know how frustrating it can be when you ask a simple question on
Usenet, and you get people launching into diatribes against specific
companies for events that happened decades in the past. These people
need to get a life. I have some 110 cameras and I'm furious that 110
film is no longer available. At least the owners of Canon FD mount
cameras still have perfectly functioning cameras, and can buy film for them.

SMS ???. ? wrote:
[]
Better to the SD800 IS from Canon. The problem with Panasonic cameras
are that they are extremely noisy. If you look only at specs,
Panasonic is great.

The noise argument is over-stated. Sure pixel peepers can see noise, but
when kept at ISO 100 the results may well be fine for the OP's wife, with
images displayed on a computer monitor or at a relatively small print
size.

This is based on actually using Panasonic cameras, rather than just
reading reviews.

David

On 12/30/07 11:56 AM, in article sZQdj.51335$vd4.15618@pd7urf1no, "Matt Ion"
wrote:

John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:06:14 -0800 (PST), -hh
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
-hh wrote:
They made a mistake, but they've now not repeated that mistake for the
past 20 years.
It was a deliberate decision, and there's no evidence that Canon
considers it a mistake.
Ah, but *you* consider it to be a mistake.

We FD customers consider it a mistake. That makes it a mistake.

You and all the other Edsel owners must still be distraught at the
demise of tubed whitewall tires and leaded gasoline...
LOL!

SMS $B;[h\J8(B* $B2F(B wrote:
...

What's much worse is what Nikon has done by refusing to make a clean
break with a new lens mount. They now have to issue elaborate
compatibility charts to show which lenses will work on which cameras.

Thanks for mentioning this, as this happened to be one of the reasons
why I personally didn't continue to buy Nikon after the late 1990s,
despite already having a modestly hefty investment in Nikon: it was
confusing and just too much of a PITA to tolerate such bull****.
Since my Nikon gear is 35mm based and not digi-compatible with their
current products, I'm probably going to finally sell it sometime in
2008...maybe there's a few Edsel-esque affectionados who will are
willing to pay more than 10% of its original cost :-) although it has
had provided a long & honorable service, which is nothing to be
ashamed of.


-hh

In article , SMS
wrote:

-hh wrote:

ANd you hold this grudge against Canon despite your squandering of a 3
year transition period (1987-1990), as well as 17 more years to effect
a transition from old to new. You've had far too long of an
opportunity to adapt to change to garner any sympathy ... or
legitimacy ... for your Dead Horse.

There were two adapters available for those that wanted to use FD lenses
on EOS bodies. And of course all the FD bodies continued to work just fine.

the expensive adapter had an optic and acted as a weak teleconverter,
only working with a small subset of canon's lenses, and the other was
cheap ring and its use precluded infinity focus. hardly ideal.

What's much worse is what Nikon has done by refusing to make a clean
break with a new lens mount. They now have to issue elaborate
compatibility charts to show which lenses will work on which cameras.
You can get some lenses upgraded by third-parties to work with newer
bodies, but some bodies like the D40/D40x won't work with any of the
older lenses that require motor drive.

we've been through this before. it's actually very simple. old lenses
generally work on newer cameras and newer lenses generally work on
older cameras, but certain features may not be enabled, such as
stabilization won't activate on a camera that predates vr lenses.
there are a few exceptions, such as a fisheye lens that required mirror
lockup because of a protruding rear element. even back then, it was a
pain, so the lens was redesigned to not need that.

although the d40 omits the focus motor, it *does* provide for non-ai
lenses to be used without harm whereas other nikon cameras don't. and
it was a simple marketing decision -- nikon saw that most low end
customers didn't buy a whole lot of lenses, so why include a motor that
won't ever be used? it makes the camera lighter, smaller and less
expensive, all desirable things to a great many buyers.

Had Canon not made the change, they would no longer be in the SLR
business as the FD mount could not handle the functionality and optics
of many of their current lenses. Nikon is unable to manufacture certain
lenses because of the limitations of their lens mount.

once again, that's bull. nikon may not choose to manufacture expensive
f/1 lenses simply because they don't sell very well, and that's not the
same as being prevented from doing so. note that your beloved canon no
longer makes a 50mm f/1 lens, the one you appear to fixate over.

In article , SMS
wrote:

BTW, I know how frustrating it can be when you ask a simple question on
Usenet, and you get people launching into diatribes against specific
companies for events that happened decades in the past.

you mean, like you and your (misinformed) rants about nikon?

These people
need to get a life.

yes, they do.

In article
, -hh
wrote:

Thanks for mentioning this, as this happened to be one of the reasons
why I personally didn't continue to buy Nikon after the late 1990s,
despite already having a modestly hefty investment in Nikon: it was
confusing and just too much of a PITA to tolerate such bull****.

what did you find confusing?

Since my Nikon gear is 35mm based and not digi-compatible with their
current products,

of course it's compatible. there are very very few lenses that won't
work with current dslrs, such as the 6mm fisheye that required mirror
lockup. and with a little cleverness, it can even be made to work.

I'm probably going to finally sell it sometime in
2008...maybe there's a few Edsel-esque affectionados who will are
willing to pay more than 10% of its original cost :-) although it has
had provided a long & honorable service, which is nothing to be
ashamed of.

whatcha got to sell?

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:37:05 -0800, SMS ???• ? wrote:

BTW, I know how frustrating it can be when you ask a simple question on
Usenet, and you get people launching into diatribes against

Do as I say, not as I do, eh? g