Finally a P&S that isn't a piece of crap?

"Mr. Strat" wrote in message
...
In article , Chris Malcolm
wrote:

And the *camera* being ugly might not be a disadvantage. The only
camera that has ever caused me to be offered sex in exhange for
photographs was the butt-ugly R1 :-)

I used to get babes all the time with my Hasselblad EL. (not really)

And I'm sure those babes asked if that was a zoom lens in your pcoket or
were you just...

In article , Pete Stavrakoglou
wrote:

I used to get babes all the time with my Hasselblad EL. (not really)

And I'm sure those babes asked if that was a zoom lens in your pcoket or
were you just...

On more than one occasion, I had people ask if the Hasselblad was a
movie camera.

On Mar 8, 9:49 am, Rich wrote:
This has possibilities.

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/dig...pix_s100fs/spe...

A late addition - firstly, may I clarify my much lambasted 'ugly
camera' comment.. The DSC-R1 *felt* ugly in my hands when I played
with one - in other words, the design of it just didn't feel right.

And frankly, it *is* an ugly camera!. I'll happily admit there are
some designs that would prevent me buying the camera. Interestingly,
I think the ugliest DSLR series, by an absolute country mile, is the
1DS with those sad drooping shoulders and over-rounded prism. Yeuch.
Sure, it might take reasonably good images, but what's important
here???? (O:

And a little more on topic, having seen some of the images from early
adopters of the S100FS, I think it is likely to get poor reviews for a
not very good lens, and higher than expected noise levels - the high
ISO shots I have seen are comparable to my S9000, and sadly, that
isn't very good. It looks to me like Fuji are having a lot of trouble
repeating (let alone improving) the high iso performance they managed
in the F20 family.

Pity. And I'll wait for the reviews, but I think they have missed the
boat again.

wrote:

A late addition - firstly, may I clarify my much lambasted 'ugly
camera' comment.. The DSC-R1 *felt* ugly in my hands when I played
with one - in other words, the design of it just didn't feel right.

And frankly, it *is* an ugly camera!

The first time I saw it I thought it was attractive. The first time I
picked it up, it felt attractive. Now that I've had for nearly a year
and got used to its more esoteric modes of operation I'm impressed
with the way that so many of the controls fall so easily to hand when
holding it. A rather good example of ergonomic design. Of course the
reason I think that is probably that I've come to think the same way
about using it as the engineers who designed it. And the reason I
think it looks attractive is probably because aesthetically I have
modernist tendencies, the idea that beauty of form follows functional
design, and so on.

In fact overall the R1 has so impressed me with its many virtues that
when next I come round to looking for a new camera, I shall look with
particular interest and benevolence on Sony cameras.

Ugliness does seem to be in the eye of beholder :-)

[I do strongly disapprove of Sony's corporate marketing tactics. In
some cases have seriously hobbled the otherwise excellent engineering
of their products. If their engineering wasn't so good, their
marketing tactics would be more than enough to make me turn my back on
anything Sony.]

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On 14 Mar 2008 10:31:54 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:

In fact overall the R1 has so impressed me with its many virtues that
when next I come round to looking for a new camera, I shall look with
particular interest and benevolence on Sony cameras.

Ugliness does seem to be in the eye of beholder :-)

One might say that ugliness can also be skin deep. Some of their
products are poorly (cheaply) designed, but their MD players and
recorders 'just keep on ticking' and are beautifully designed,
although not always ergonimically.