Canon S3 or Sony H7

Simple question, all...

Canon S3 or Sony H7? And why?

=)

"Ravi" wrote in message
oups.com...
Simple question, all...

Canon S3 or Sony H7? And why?

=)


I recently chose the Canon S3IS over a Sony H5 for three reasons: 1) the
articulated LCD 2) $100 cheaper 3) 4AA batteries vs. 2 AA batteries (longer
power).

On Tue, 15 May 2007 20:45:10 -0700, Ravi wrote:

Simple question, all...

Canon S3 or Sony H7? And why?

=)

Suggest you look at the Kodak P series. It is about the same price range,
possibly less when you look for refurbs on the Kodak online store. Has
features beyond the canon s31s e.g. shoots raw, tiff, jpeg; full manual
mode; twice as many pixels in the EVF so it's much better to use.

"Ravi" wrote in message
oups.com...
Simple question, all...

Canon S3 or Sony H7? And why?

=)


I bought a Canon S3 IS in late March, and these were my comments then:


"Image stabilization, mega-zoom, and a flip-out articulated LCD monitor were
all must-have features for me. I bought a Canon PowerShot S3 IS last week
and it's a joy to use. The small LCD monitor doesn't bother me as much as I
thought it would. My pre-purchase research prepared me for noise at ISO 200
and above, but I can live with that. Image quality at ISO 80 and 100 is
excellent. The only disappointment was the short neck strap that put the
camera at chest level. Being farsighted, I need the LCD monitor at waist
level, so I had to pirate a longer strap from one of my medium format
cameras. The IS on this camera is superb. I took about 400 shots at a
festival Sunday, a sunny day, and got great results shooting at ISO 100 with
the lens racked-out all the way. I also like to do wide angle, up-close
candids and the S3 is the perfect camera for that type of shooting. With
the camera dangling at my waist, I was about to frame my shots with a glance
at the monitor and snap away without my subjects having a clue that they
were being photographed, even though the S3 was just a few feet away from
them. This camera is extremely quiet in use and is ideal for street
photography and the build quality is outstanding."

After using it for a few weeks, I still think it's a great camera. I nearly
always have it with me.

SW

On May 17, 9:49 pm, "Summer Wind" wrote:
Being farsighted, I need the LCD monitor at waist level...

Why is the society geared toward far-sighted people ? I am short-
sighted (miopic), and I am always amused (actually, bewildered), when
I see "reading glasses" on sale in the shops. _I_ cannot use these
glasses for reading. And, _I_ do not need to hold the camera on the
stretched hands to have a peek into the LCD screen of a digital
camera. Why should the manufacturers take the care of the far-sighted
people at the expense of other people ? Are they special ?

Author, run quickly, and throw yourself against the wall. Hopefully,
you will get killed.

On May 18, 12:05 pm, carrera d'olbani wrote:
On May 17, 9:49 pm, "Summer Wind" wrote:

Being farsighted, I need the LCD monitor at waist level...

Why is the society geared toward far-sighted people ?

Good question, doesn't seem to make much sense.

And, _I_ do not need to hold the camera on the
stretched hands to have a peek into the LCD screen of a digital
camera. Why should the manufacturers take the care of the far-sighted
people at the expense of other people ? Are they special ?

Good point.

Perhaps photography/cinematography is simply a favorite hobby among
the older generation, who are in turn most likely to be presbyopic.

Just a speculation.

Dear Carrera,

What is your question?

Would you like a minus lens sold off-the-shelf, (with a trial-lens
test)
so you could obtain a "correct" minus that way?

Otis


On May 18, 7:05 am, carrera d'olbani wrote:
On May 17, 9:49 pm, "Summer Wind" wrote:

Being farsighted, I need the LCD monitor at waist level...

Why is the society geared toward far-sighted people ? I am short-
sighted (miopic), and I am always amused (actually, bewildered), when
I see "reading glasses" on sale in the shops. _I_ cannot use these
glasses for reading. And, _I_ do not need to hold the camera on the
stretched hands to have a peek into the LCD screen of a digital
camera. Why should the manufacturers take the care of the far-sighted
people at the expense of other people ? Are they special ?

Author, run quickly, and throw yourself against the wall. Hopefully,
you will get killed.

William Horatio Bates wrote:


Perhaps photography/cinematography is simply a favorite hobby among
the older generation, who are in turn most likely to be presbyopic.

Just a speculation.



I am 78; I am near-sighted.

About the OP's problem: As far as I know there is nothing that would
prevent his holding the camera _closer_ to his eyes; farther encounters
the problem of arm length, etc.
Allen

Dear Carrera,

As these majority-opinion ODs like to point out (and I agree) there
is an advantage to having a SLIGHT negative refractive STATE
for your natural eyes as you go above 45 years old.

You can get a very weak minus (and use only for driving),
and pass the 20/50 line on the Snellen. (Or a refractive
STATE of about -1 diopter.)

But what this means, with a depth-of-field of about +/- 1 diopter,
and some accommodation is that you never need a
plus lens for reading. (Except for dark restaurants.)

So, if you are about -1 diopter, you have the
best of both "worlds".

Just one man's opinion.


Otis




On May 18, 7:05 am, carrera d'olbani wrote:
On May 17, 9:49 pm, "Summer Wind" wrote:

Being farsighted, I need the LCD monitor at waist level...

Why is the society geared toward far-sighted people ? I am short-
sighted (miopic), and I am always amused (actually, bewildered), when
I see "reading glasses" on sale in the shops. _I_ cannot use these
glasses for reading. And, _I_ do not need to hold the camera on the
stretched hands to have a peek into the LCD screen of a digital
camera. Why should the manufacturers take the care of the far-sighted
people at the expense of other people ? Are they special ?

Author, run quickly, and throw yourself against the wall. Hopefully,
you will get killed.

Hi,

Many cameras have prefered correction for miopians (like -3...+2 correction
for the eypiece/viewfinder, whatever term is closer to you). If there is no
correction for your particular eyesight (as may be the case with cheapest or
opposite cameras), take on your glasses. We do understand, this may not be
convenient, but we are kind of disabled persons too...
Killed?? What do you mean?

Sasha

"carrera d'olbani" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 17, 9:49 pm, "Summer Wind" wrote:
Being farsighted, I need the LCD monitor at waist level...

Why is the society geared toward far-sighted people ? I am short-
sighted (miopic), and I am always amused (actually, bewildered), when
I see "reading glasses" on sale in the shops. _I_ cannot use these
glasses for reading. And, _I_ do not need to hold the camera on the
stretched hands to have a peek into the LCD screen of a digital
camera. Why should the manufacturers take the care of the far-sighted
people at the expense of other people ? Are they special ?

Author, run quickly, and throw yourself against the wall. Hopefully,
you will get killed.