Slashdot Mirror

I recently went to the Goodwood FoS with a mate. I had a 4 year old Canon P&S (albeit a quite good one), he had the latest Samsung. He was astounded after the level of quality in my shots of fast moving cars.

The point and shoots and DSLRs take better pictures because they use larger sensors. Most phone camera sensors are 1/4" or smaller. The P&S sensors have several times the area. The DSLR and mirrorless sensors have several tens of times the area. More area means better low light sensitivity, better action shots, more capability to stop down before diffraction begins to blur the image, and (due to geometry) a narrower focal plane (good for generating bokeh in portraiture, bad for shooting close-ups). It also means you need larger lenses, which are heavier and more expensive.

No amount of talent in the world can get good shots out of bad cameras.

Not really true. A bad camera will limit a talented photographer, but won't prevent his talent from shining through. Back in the film days, one of the principal photographers for the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition would show up at shoots with a little Fuji point and shoot camera with a fixed 35mm lens (one of their first with an aspherical element). He said he used to use a DSLR, but as he got older his eyes got worse he was having a hard time focusing the DSLR. So he used the Fuji. Its autofocus was almost always spot on, the lens was very sharp across the frame, and the shots were taken in sunlight so he could use high resolution film which could be cropped down to appear the same as a telephoto. It was weird seeing a professional photographer conducting a shoot with a P&S camera, but Sports Illustrated couldn't argue with the results and published them.

Bulldust. You are being elitist, at best.

When I was a young lad and Moby Dick was a minnow, I studied special relativity. The math requires extracting a square root.

I was really frustrated because doing square roots with paper and pencil is a game whose quest is coming up with the same answer three times in a row.

When calculators with the square root function finally arrived, my learning accelerated because my goddamn objective was not to find square roots ... it was to visualize, through the math, what special relativity "looked like."

In that sense, the technical stuff you covet is a waste of a good photographer's time.

I learned photography on a .3Mp (not a typo ... POINT 3Mp) camera and even today, 13 years later, those old photographs tickle the eyeballs. It didn't have any knobs, so screw the technical bullshit like ISO and F-stop.

It's all about the photograph.

this is the best advise i've seen so far... the best camera to start out with is one that will always be with you.
WTF moderators, why did this get a low score?

OP, unless you're dedicated to becoming a photographer and don't mind carrying around a DSLR all the time, you'd be better off carrying a small compact point-and-shoot camera. get something in the $200 range(8-12MP, 3x optical zoom) they're all pretty comparable, but i've always been partial to the canon xilim or canon powershot series. my criteria was a camera OS that was usable as well as quick and responsive. i've spent time in several stores testing various brands for what i felt were important features: power on to shutter ready; switching capture modes; the ability to turn off startup sounds/animations; size or a pack of cigarettes; sd card. once you've got narrowed you choices down to a couple/three cameras, go to http://www.steves-digicams.com/ and compare your impressions against someone whose tested many evices.

IMHO, if you want to learn how to take photos, you do it by taking pictures. don't get an DSLR. don't get a micro 4/3. you can graduate to these later, when your comfortable taking pictures. don't buy a camera that you haven't actually touched and toyed with.

1) carry a camera with you all the time.
2) take lots of pictures. if you get a one good picture out of 20-36 exposures, you're doing well.
3) not every picture is sacred. capturing the moment with all it's flaws is better than to miss the moment.
4) keep taking lots of pictures
5) don't be afraid to edit out crap images
6) learn the various functions of your camera(night shot, red eye/no red eye, flash/no flash, etc)

i take between 6000-10000 pictures a year(the camera is with me all the time). i replace my camera every year or so(depends on how beat up it gets).
and i get surprisingly good images from a stupid little canon powershot. i have a lot of reject images, but i also more than my fair share of keepers. eventually i'll get a fancier camera, but in the meantime i'm looking at a new refresh(canon s100 is looking sweet) for my daily shooter.

most consumers buy benefits, not features.

You are provably wrong.

The endless list of would-be iPod/iPhone killers that touted better features but failed to have an impact in the market are evidence of this.

Evidence of what?

First, thanks for the link to the faq.

Now onto the quote you provide,"There are no "natural color" cameras aboard the Hubble and never have been. The optical cameras on board have all been digital CCD cameras, which take images as grayscale pixels." My question is why is NASA using a sensor with greyscale pixels? Both CCD and CMOS sensors use color filter arrays to capture color information. There was also the technology Silicon Film created. Using CMOS tech they created a sensor that could capture the 3 primary colors at each pixel site. Silicon Film closed operations and went out of business, but I'm surprised someone else didn't buy it's patents and release their own products using them.

Perhaps you know something I don't that makes the Silicon Film tech unusable, but I don't see why NASA couldn't use color filters.

Falcon

First, thanks for the link to the faq.

Now onto the quote you provide,"There are no "natural color" cameras aboard the Hubble and never have been. The optical cameras on board have all been digital CCD cameras, which take images as grayscale pixels." My question is why is NASA using a sensor with greyscale pixels? Both CCD and CMOS sensors use color filter arrays to capture color information. There was also the technology Silicon Film created. Using CMOS tech they created a sensor that could capture the 3 primary colors at each pixel site. Silicon Film closed operations and went out of business, but I'm surprised someone else didn't buy it's patents and release their own products using them.

Perhaps you know something I don't that makes the Silicon Film tech unusable, but I don't see why NASA couldn't use color filters.

Falcon

Steps: 1)Go through the list of cameras on the above site, and select one that has the specs you want (good resolution, zoom, etc.)

2)Check eBay or find a used one.

3)setup software and install camera where you want it.

4)Enjoy cheap but hi-res image security.

Many of the cameras on the list above go for less than $100 in good used condition, and offer many megapixels and good optical resolution. Many of them also have other features like low light mode, or other things that can be controlled by computer software. Good luck!

Let's see, 1 Ah == 1000 mAh

NiMH AA batteries typically have at least 2000 mAh.
The LiPoly cells used in phones often have 1500 mAh.

Mind you, you can't draw one amp out of any small battery for any length of time, much less an hour, but the units are convertible.

in sunlight.

Ah but if you can afford one of these solar power packs, you can also afford a hood or shader for a laptop as well.

solar battery chargers are already here:)
http://www.steves-digicams.com/icp_solar.html
good for keeping your batteries on charge or topped up:)

For IT-related stuff, it's Google or your favorite industry-specific newsgroups.

For general "gadget" related items, I typically check out The Gadgeteer first, then Google.

For digital cameras, it's Steve's Digicams all the way, then Google.

For cars, it's AutoTrend or Consumer Reports Autos, then Google.

For general household stuff, it's Consumer Reports, then Google.

And in pretty much every case, I check Google.

You didn't specify what kind of batteries the camera takes. But I'll assume it is AA.

I think the obvious choice will be some high capacity NiMH batteries. Now-a-days we have a wide choice of cells ranging from 1500 to 2700mAh. Obviously, higher capacity means longer run time.

You can find more info here: http://www.steves-digicams.com/nimh_batteries.html

You can easily use a flash with any digital point and shoot. You can purchase a optical slave designed for digital cameras, or you can purchase a flash with a built in optical slave like this one. http://www.steves-digicams.com/1280lens2.html#dsf- 1.

The newer 400d has most of the features of the 30d at a much lower price (and a few of its own, like the anti-dust). If you're a beginner it's a better buy.

However if you're an absolute beginner or don't use your camera often and don't need the features of an SLR, the compacts have never been better value. What you won't get out of a compact is fast shutter speed (if you're shooting anything moving quickly like wildlife or sports, go for the DSLR), light sensititivity. With the DSLR you don't get movie mode, and though beginners can take nice shots on auto mode in good conditions, there's a lot more to master.

One other thing to consider is availability of lenses, servicing and accessories. Nikon make good cameras but I've had awful service experiences from their agents. What's worse good lenses tend to be scarce compared to say Canon. The ergonomics of the Nikon are fantastic though.

Before you buy always check out the review sites (and their forums) for the latest info. Some of the best.

http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/
http://www.dcresource.com/

DSLRs are still a pricey investment when you consider total cost of ownership, accessories etc. Be aware the shutters don't last forever (a few tens of thousands of shots before you need a service). Also be aware that if you want to go pro, or take razor sharp pictures you're going to have to invest big money in glass , particularly for longer focal lengths (typically a few thousand dollars though you won't have to buy it all at once - I'm still using crappy consumer lenses for this reason). Bottom line is that there's no other kind of camera that is quite so versatile particularly for action/wildlife.

DSLR advantages:
- Very versatile, flexible
- Image quality fantastic with the right lens and once you learn to use the camera
- Must have for sports/action

DSLR disadvantages:
- Only one I'm aware of with a movie mode. Don't buy a DSLR if you want to do video clips
- Price (not just purchase price of camera, but accessories, maintenance)
- Not as light weight as some of the compacts

My Olympus 5060 Wide Zoom "point and shoot" takes FAR better pictures than all the Canon DSLT's that cost twice as much (my local camera shop let me take every camera I was considering out for a day to compare them). It also has fully manual controls, a hot shoe, a variety of lenses (0.7, 1.7, and 3.0) and the auto-focus is fast and accurate. In addition, thanks to the flip-out LCD, I can take shots that would otherwise be much more difficult (stuff like low-to-ground shots, or over-the-crowd shots). SLR's are simply far less agile than a PNS camera when it comes to taking pictures in the field.

Here's a gallery of shots taken on a 5060 Wide Zoom.

This is what I was going to say. I mean, looking at these batteries, they do seem like a big waste of money, especially compared against a regular charger and a regular set of batteries.

I bought http://www.steves-digicams.com/nimh_batteries.html #lacrossethis charger from Lacross Technologies. It works great. For $50 I got 8 batteries (4 AA and 4 AAA). I have since bought many more, which i always have a great supply of.

IMHO, the USBattery seems like a decent idea, but one that will a. have to come down in price and b. increase in capacity to really get in the market.

RonB

I don't know why you were spending $20 a week on batteries, but it's definitely a lot of money if you're going to be using a device with AA batteries. I ended up searching around online until I found Steve's Digicams that had great information on rechargeable batteries. I ended up spending about $50 or so on a Maha charger and 8 batteries but I think it was worth it as the charger is portable (works in my car) and has a "trickle charge" mechanism that means I can leave the thing in the charger and it will recharge the batteries slowly over time after they are full to keep the charge up and not kill the life by constantly charging. Even better, the batteries last longer than most of the batteries you find in radio shack or the drug store.

I don't know why you were spending $20 a week on batteries, but it's definitely a lot of money if you're going to be using a device with AA batteries. I ended up searching around online until I found Steve's Digicams that had great information on rechargeable batteries. I ended up spending about $50 or so on a Maha charger and 8 batteries but I think it was worth it as the charger is portable (works in my car) and has a "trickle charge" mechanism that means I can leave the thing in the charger and it will recharge the batteries slowly over time after they are full to keep the charge up and not kill the life by constantly charging. Even better, the batteries last longer than most of the batteries you find in radio shack or the drug store.

Cutting edge is not 2 mega pixel, it at least 3. Check out the SonyEricsson K790a, it has a 3.2 MP camera and is actually branded as a CyberShot digital camera. And phone. If you don't know it, CyberShot is Sony's digital camera brand. CyberShot cameras are generally good, but admittedly I haven't tried the new phone. Of course to review the cameras you have to do a thorough job.
I'd wait until someone like Philip Askey of dpreview.com or Steve's Digicams made a favorable review. At least if it's a camera you need ;)

go here
http://www.steves-digicams.com/digvideo.html#camco rders

run down the list looking for USB and no mention of 1394

there are quite a few reviews with pictures:
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_r1-revi ew/index.shtml
http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/review/sony/cybe rshot/dscr1.html
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/r1.htm l

This is the same idea as the FujiFilm S9000/S9500 i.e. a DSLR/compact hybrid.

1. Better understanding of the exposure: On an optical finder, the dynamic range of the eye automatically handles dark shadows and bright highlights that the camera cannot - its too easy to see a great picture that the camera can't get. An EVF gives me a better idea if I'm blowing out the sky or losing detail in the darkness. An EVF gives me instant visual feedback on what the picture will look like before I hit the shutter button.
2. Extensive programmable informational overlays: An EVF can overlay a huge amount of data about the image, the camera's mode, the user-interface state, image histogram, sighting lines, etc. Or I can turn it all off for an uncluttered view.
3. Instant post-shutter review: An EVF can display the actual picture taken immediately after the shot. I don't have to pull the camera away from my eye to check the results on an external screen (that's hard to see in day light anyway).
4. Magnification: With an EVF, one can zoom into a bit of detail in the live image to check the quality of the exposure or focus. It's like using a magnifier in a darkroom or a loupe on a print (the A2 offers 4X magnification). This is something that no optical finder can handle.
5. No viewfinder alignment/cutoff issues: Unlike an optical veiwfinder, an EVF shows exactly 100% of the image perfectly aligned and centered. Its more WYSIWYG than an optical finder.
6. Amplification in darkness: In low lighting conditions the EVF can boost the gain to provide a useful image. It's not night vision by any means, but it does help.

I'll admit that an EVF isn't perfect (even the A2's EVF needs more pixels), but I'll never go back to an optical viewfinder again. I look forward to better sensors and better EVFs

1. Better understanding of the exposure: On an optical finder, the dynamic range of the eye automatically handles dark shadows and bright highlights that the camera cannot - its too easy to see a great picture that the camera can't get. An EVF gives me a better idea if I'm blowing out the sky or losing detail in the darkness. An EVF gives me instant visual feedback on what the picture will look like before I hit the shutter button.
2. Extensive programmable informational overlays: An EVF can overlay a huge amount of data about the image, the camera's mode, the user-interface state, image histogram, sighting lines, etc. Or I can turn it all off for an uncluttered view.
3. Instant post-shutter review: An EVF can display the actual picture taken immediately after the shot. I don't have to pull the camera away from my eye to check the results on an external screen (that's hard to see in day light anyway).
4. Magnification: With an EVF, one can zoom into a bit of detail in the live image to check the quality of the exposure or focus. It's like using a magnifier in a darkroom or a loupe on a print (the A2 offers 4X magnification). This is something that no optical finder can handle.
5. No viewfinder alignment/cutoff issues: Unlike an optical veiwfinder, an EVF shows exactly 100% of the image perfectly aligned and centered. Its more WYSIWYG than an optical finder.
6. Amplification in darkness: In low lighting conditions the EVF can boost the gain to provide a useful image. It's not night vision by any means, but it does help.

I'll admit that an EVF isn't perfect (even the A2's EVF needs more pixels), but I'll never go back to an optical viewfinder again. I look forward to better sensors and better EVFs

I own the HP Photosmart 8450, the print quality is truly astounding.
It's an 8 colour (9 inks, two are black in seperate cartridges) printer.
It can do upto A4 size, prints on the glossy photo quality stuff are excellent. (I have a bunch of photos from holidays printed out on A4 and 10x15cm photo paper, HP premium plus photo paper glossy).. the grey shading also is very impressive.. ever notice the problems with lots of printers and grey colours? This doesn't have those problems. (it has grey a grey ink cartridge, 2 shades of grey and black)
My biggest gripe with the printer however is that the inks come in 3 seperate cartridges, so you get 3 inks per cartridge.. meaning whenever one cartridge runs out of a colour you'll need to buy a new cartridge (if you want to use that ink colour). Which as you can guess rakes in the cash for HP and annoys people who buy the damn things.

I'm not sure exactly why this is classed as a printer of 2005 (it was released in 2004), see here for a good review on it.

>I went to replace my sony camera I was so disappointed by
>the fact that sony didnt have a camera that had any reliable
>after market batteries etc and the life span for the digital
>cameras was woeful.

How about using standard AA, rechargeable, alkalyne or any other ?
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/w5.htm l

Damn, this does look cool... but Actually, I'm not so hot for AA's, since standard AA's aren't recylable, and NiMH rechargeables have bad power curves and frequent charge requirements.

However, if the AA case happens to support CR-V3 batteries, then I could add a rechargeable CR-V3 Lithium-Ion... which would probably take the battery life to stratospheric heights... not to mention the incredible shelf-life of lithium.

You will find good reviews of imaging hardware at http://www.steves-digicams.com/

I've personally used Apple, HP, Epson, Memorex (Artec), Microtek and Canon scanners. My personal scanner is a Canon CanoScan 8400F. There's probably a newer version.

The bundled software with this Canon does a wonderful job of descreening halftone images.

Last Christmas I gave my sister an Epson Perfection 2480 which included a partial-page feeder (business cards, checks, snapshots). The descreening on this one isn't as good and I wasn't able to associate the scanned images to Paint Shop Pro properly. However, the software does allow scanning multiple pages in a queue with a minimum of button clicks. Unless your sister is scanning single-page sheet music, she'll probably really benefit from this ability.

I don't know of any consumer-level sheet feeders. By that, I mean a scanner which retails for $100 or so won't have a sheet feeder option or accessory.

Another thing to consider is that scanners with their own power supply will yield higher contrast and brighter colors during the scan.

You should also look at the color of the pad on the underside of the cover. My Canon has a white cover. Yuck!! How Stupid!! Bright light will pass through paper which is being scanned and reflect back to the light sensors. It's far better to have a black pad so a ghost image of the opposite side of the paper is not detected. I have a full-sized hardcover book with a flat black cover which I use to block reflection and hold paper flat. Black construction paper won't work. The scanner's likght will bleach the paper.

A white pad does have some advantages but, in my opinion and experience, a black pad is far more useful.

Transcend has a couple of products in this space that I find relatively compelling: The Digital Album, and the PhotoBank.

I'm about to spend a few weeks in Britain, carrying a digital SLR and a few lenses. I'd love to take my iBook, but it's hard to justify the weight and space for a sightseeing trip where I'll be walking and taking the train a lot - given the weight and space I'm devoting to camera, I just couldn't see taking the laptop. I looked into a lot of devices - I really wanted to go the iPod route since I'll have that with me anyway, but those solutions are way slow and battery hungry. Some other products either seemed unappealing or were expensive compared to what I ended up purchasing - Transcend's Digital Album.

http://www.transcendusa.com/products/ModDetail.asp ?ModNo=29
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/digita l_album.html

I paid $350 for the Digital Album (from target.com - via Amazon, actually). It is a small, battery-powered device (claims 4-5 hours battery life on the preinstalled but apparently-replaceable rechargeable battery) with a 20 GB drive and a color screen for reviewing the photos. Can feed a TV (NTSC or PAL) and play slideshows. Handles U.S., European and British power with a funky power plug that converts for the target outlet. USB2 for talking to the computer (shows up as an external drive on Mac OS X; I believe it does the same on Windows). Has ports that supposedly handle a whole slew of card types. I've used it with CompactFlash - if I remember correctly, it took about 2 minutes or so to copy 200 MB from a fairly fast card (SanDisk Ultra II 512 MB card).

It seems to work pretty well, with a few UI disappointments (for instance, choosing to delete something prompted me with an alert that made me a bit nervous it was going to delete the entire drive). It can also record 10-second audio annotations for images. Can play MP3s, but frankly the interface made it look like that would be painful. I really wish it had more than 20 GB - it's not so hard to fill that over any extended period if you're taking lots of photos at a high pixel count, especially if you shoot RAW. I shoot some RAW but mostly JPEG, so I expect this to suffice for my immediate trips. Since I can view the photos on it, I'll be able to go through and prune some if I need the space.

Transcend also has their PhotoBank device, with similar basic feature set except that it doesn't have the color screen for reviewing photos, doesn't feed a TV, and doesn't do stuff like play MP3s. But it's cheaper at $250, and there is a 40 GB version for $340.

http://www.transcendusa.com/Products/ModDetail.asp ?ModNo=11
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/photob ank.html

I considered buying the PhotoBank, but decided I really liked the idea of being able to visually confirm that it had successfully copied the photos from my camera card, and I may want to show photos taken during the trip to people I visit while still on the trip, hence my decision to go with the Digital Album.

-andrew

Transcend has a couple of products in this space that I find relatively compelling: The Digital Album, and the PhotoBank.

I'm about to spend a few weeks in Britain, carrying a digital SLR and a few lenses. I'd love to take my iBook, but it's hard to justify the weight and space for a sightseeing trip where I'll be walking and taking the train a lot - given the weight and space I'm devoting to camera, I just couldn't see taking the laptop. I looked into a lot of devices - I really wanted to go the iPod route since I'll have that with me anyway, but those solutions are way slow and battery hungry. Some other products either seemed unappealing or were expensive compared to what I ended up purchasing - Transcend's Digital Album.

http://www.transcendusa.com/products/ModDetail.asp ?ModNo=29
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/digita l_album.html

I paid $350 for the Digital Album (from target.com - via Amazon, actually). It is a small, battery-powered device (claims 4-5 hours battery life on the preinstalled but apparently-replaceable rechargeable battery) with a 20 GB drive and a color screen for reviewing the photos. Can feed a TV (NTSC or PAL) and play slideshows. Handles U.S., European and British power with a funky power plug that converts for the target outlet. USB2 for talking to the computer (shows up as an external drive on Mac OS X; I believe it does the same on Windows). Has ports that supposedly handle a whole slew of card types. I've used it with CompactFlash - if I remember correctly, it took about 2 minutes or so to copy 200 MB from a fairly fast card (SanDisk Ultra II 512 MB card).

It seems to work pretty well, with a few UI disappointments (for instance, choosing to delete something prompted me with an alert that made me a bit nervous it was going to delete the entire drive). It can also record 10-second audio annotations for images. Can play MP3s, but frankly the interface made it look like that would be painful. I really wish it had more than 20 GB - it's not so hard to fill that over any extended period if you're taking lots of photos at a high pixel count, especially if you shoot RAW. I shoot some RAW but mostly JPEG, so I expect this to suffice for my immediate trips. Since I can view the photos on it, I'll be able to go through and prune some if I need the space.

Transcend also has their PhotoBank device, with similar basic feature set except that it doesn't have the color screen for reviewing photos, doesn't feed a TV, and doesn't do stuff like play MP3s. But it's cheaper at $250, and there is a 40 GB version for $340.

http://www.transcendusa.com/Products/ModDetail.asp ?ModNo=11
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/photob ank.html

I considered buying the PhotoBank, but decided I really liked the idea of being able to visually confirm that it had successfully copied the photos from my camera card, and I may want to show photos taken during the trip to people I visit while still on the trip, hence my decision to go with the Digital Album.

-andrew

Oh, if only there were a such thing as rechargeable batteries!

Sure, a linux kernel makes it easy to do stuff like this & also has a lot of potential to do other cool stuff. But PORTING software to foreign OSs that are more stripped down than embedded linux still has much more nerd appeal. My digital camera runs an all-but-forgotten proprietary DigitaOS. It has had MAME and DOOM ported to it for a while now.

The Canon S1 IS has 10X optical zoom, image stabilization, 30fps 640x480 movies, 3.2 MP still shots, and uses CF cards - all for around $300. Check out this review.

This is nifty news.

Because I have an XP computer. And an XP notebook.

And I just ordered me a Nixon CoolPix 8800 as my Christmas present to me.

Guaranteed delivery Friday, the man said. Of course, he had a Noo Yawk accent and sounded like he was smiling a little too hard...

So I may be spending Xmas day taking super-sharp pictures with "the Nikon touch" color balance and messing them up in a tool that doesn't take 8 clicks and a foray into a semantic hall of mirrors to find something as simple as the contrast and brightness controls.

[p.s. when ordering from "back-east" camera houses, CALL and ask what's in the box; if it weren't for a snafu with the shipping address, I'd never have talked to them, and I'd never have found out that the reason they offered it almost $150 below everyone else was that it was a "camera-only" OEM package, esentially reselling a warranty replacement distribution, without things like, oh, the special rechargable battery, lens cap, etc...and this year's models are coming without an included SD card or CompactFlash drive, probably because they were getting a lot of requests to delete those because by now most camera-hacks have a stack of nicer ones than the mfg's were shipping in the kit...]

Oh, and I just have to link this cool picture of the unpainted body: cool picture of the unpainted body from one of the reviews.

</brag>

This is nifty news.

Because I have an XP computer. And an XP notebook.

And I just ordered me a Nixon CoolPix 8800 as my Christmas present to me.

Guaranteed delivery Friday, the man said. Of course, he had a Noo Yawk accent and sounded like he was smiling a little too hard...

So I may be spending Xmas day taking super-sharp pictures with "the Nikon touch" color balance and messing them up in a tool that doesn't take 8 clicks and a foray into a semantic hall of mirrors to find something as simple as the contrast and brightness controls.

[p.s. when ordering from "back-east" camera houses, CALL and ask what's in the box; if it weren't for a snafu with the shipping address, I'd never have talked to them, and I'd never have found out that the reason they offered it almost $150 below everyone else was that it was a "camera-only" OEM package, esentially reselling a warranty replacement distribution, without things like, oh, the special rechargable battery, lens cap, etc...and this year's models are coming without an included SD card or CompactFlash drive, probably because they were getting a lot of requests to delete those because by now most camera-hacks have a stack of nicer ones than the mfg's were shipping in the kit...]

Oh, and I just have to link this cool picture of the unpainted body: cool picture of the unpainted body from one of the reviews.

</brag>

my canon pixma ip4000 (170 euro) can print on Specially coated cd's/dvd's just fine in full color. (printing has not the disadvantages of label that can make the dvd/ high speed cd unstable in the player)

And the same printer can print the inlay for the cover.

Epson also has a range of inktje prints (9000 series) that can print on cd/dvd's.

Why invent something new for something that already exists?

PS, please note that a badly applied label can damage your player, but printing directly on a cd does not have this disadvantage.

slow to start up and there's a lot of delay between pressing the shutter release and actually taking a picture. You can mitigate this by half-pressing the shutter release to pre-focus/meter, but that's a problem with a moving subject (like a toddler!).

Try setting the camera to "action" mode, so it continuously re-focuses while the shutter release is half-pressed.

Second issue: on camera flash is evil. Only a few compact cameras give you a hotshoe. DSLR's will give way better flash results with their bounce flash/diffuser capability. Almost every flash picture I have yields terrible red-eye. Photoshop Album can generally fix this, but not all the time. Even without red eye, you generally get a sterile, harshly lit result.

1. At Digital Photography Review I identified 24 non-SLR digital cameras between 3 - 6 megapixels and under $600 as having the ability to add an external flash either via hot-shoe or pc-sync connector. That seems like more than a few to me.
2. I've looked at a number of sample on-camera flash pictures at Steves Digicams, including ones for the A70, and see that it is possible to take pictures using the built-in flash without red-eye. Of course several factors affect whether or not red-eye will appear, so this isn't definative, but there are certainly camera configurations that make it less likely to be a factor.
3. That is assuming the user actually owns an external flash and a diffuser/bounce-unit, and is carrying it when the photo-op presents itself, and can manage to pull-out, mount, turn-on and charge the flash and associated diffuser/bounce-unit, and then frame and take the picture before said opportunity goes away (or, in the case of your toddler, decides to take a nap). But yes, if you have a DSLR and an external flash with a Lumiquest diffuser, particularly if its always mounted on a nice Stroboframe flip-flash bracket, the result will be much more pleasing than any direct-lighting flash setup, regardless of the camera its attached to.
4. I submit that virtually anyone who needs an article to decide between an SLR and non-SLR camera should start with a non-SLR. Likewise, anyone who isn't ready to buy an SLR because of the unnecessary cost, complexity and size is not going to buy and drag around another 5 lbs. and $300 of external flash, diffuser and flip-frame.
5. I find that most every photo editing program does an adequate job of red-eye removal, and this (or a black Sharpie brand marker) is a more convenient and appropriate option for most digital camera consumers.

As a former pro photographer, (newspaper, studio, wedding), I appreciate the advantages of an SLR, and how a pro or avid hobbyist benefit from these more costly, larger and more complex pieces of equipment. But a pro or avid hobbyist does not need to read this type of article. As for myself, I've grown too lazy and cheap to drag $2,000 and 8 lbs of camera gear around with me and go through the ritual of setting-up flash brackets and bounce cards anymore. If I need that stuff, I still have the gadget bag with over $5K of Canon gear. Instead, I use a Panasonic Lumix, which is still at the upper-end of size and weight for most consumers.

On the other hand, when the typical consumer asks "what's the best camera" what they really want to know, when questioned, is what's going to give them good snapshots of the kids and easily print quality 4x6 and maybe the occasional 8x10. For them, something with a good zoom range, relatively quick focus and release time, decent low-light capability, built-in flash that sits-up high enought to avoid red-eye in most cases, and at least 3 megapixels, coupled with a pl

For reviews:

http://imaging-resource.com/

http://steves-digicams.com/

http://dpreview.com/

http://dcresource.com/

All of these places have great and thorough reviews.

For those who don't want to go through the hassle of reviewing that much in depth information, My Product Advisor is a wonderful place to input fields of things you would like in a digital camera and then spits back cameras that match the closest. You can even say I like this camera, show me others like it. It's one of the best tools out there for users who are new to digital cameras and don't want to read a 10 page review.

http://www.myproductadvisor.com/mpa/camera/inputSu mmary.do

hope that helps someone out there.

You can try your hand at the Fuji Finepix s3000. It's small, cheap, and has a nice 6x optical zoom. They're about a year old, but still very popular, so you shouldn't have trouble finding one at most major retailers. I think it'll set you back about $200 or so (price from Circuit City).

http://www.steves-digicams.com
http://www.dpreview.com

I bought this camera specifially for it's video capabilities. It takes so-so pictures, but the video is excellent. It can record directly på MPEG which is a huge advantage. It can hold 30 minutes of high quality MPEG on the memorystick.
Just thought I wanted to show you an alternative. I have no stocks in Sony (wish I did though ;)

Already exists :)
see steves-digicams
Scroll down to "Image Storage Devices" for reviews of a bunch of them.

See also the Belkin iPod Media Reader for a device that'll let you transfer all the major flash media formats to your iPod.

.
Why does his "the best cameras" aka "pick of the litter" page have 10 (ten) cameras listed for each of the 12 categories? He says the "cameras are not listed in order of preference":

http://www.steves-digicams.com/best_cameras.html

I can see 2-4 choices per, but 10?

Digital camera reviews are no where near as technical and detailed as they need to be to be useful, compare this:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/exs3_s amples.html

with this:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?atta chmentid=118010&stc=1
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13 1193&page=7&pp=15
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?atta chmentid=180976&stc=1
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?atta chmentid=221673&stc=1

Note the "pre-printed form letter" the one guy gets back from his warranty servicing with the check mark beside the following paragraph:

"Your camera is operating according to factory specification in all modes. The phenomenon you have experienced (an orange halo visible in the bckground after taking some pictures) is not a defect in operation of your camera. It is a function of the geometry of the lens optics. Under certain lighting conditions this effect may be noticeable. Darker backgrounds will minimize or eliminate this effect."

You can no longer find the S3 or anything like it on the market, Casio has probably quietly removed it due to huge numbers of returns and warranty servicing costs. You can only find a few on eBay, and ALL are "open return" or "used return, not tested". NONE sold by happy users.

AFAIAC, digital camera reviews are nearly worthless, no matter who is doing the review.
.

.
Why does his "the best cameras" aka "pick of the litter" page have 10 (ten) cameras listed for each of the 12 categories? He says the "cameras are not listed in order of preference":

http://www.steves-digicams.com/best_cameras.html

I can see 2-4 choices per, but 10?

Digital camera reviews are no where near as technical and detailed as they need to be to be useful, compare this:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/exs3_s amples.html

with this:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?atta chmentid=118010&stc=1
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13 1193&page=7&pp=15
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?atta chmentid=180976&stc=1
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?atta chmentid=221673&stc=1

Note the "pre-printed form letter" the one guy gets back from his warranty servicing with the check mark beside the following paragraph:

"Your camera is operating according to factory specification in all modes. The phenomenon you have experienced (an orange halo visible in the bckground after taking some pictures) is not a defect in operation of your camera. It is a function of the geometry of the lens optics. Under certain lighting conditions this effect may be noticeable. Darker backgrounds will minimize or eliminate this effect."

You can no longer find the S3 or anything like it on the market, Casio has probably quietly removed it due to huge numbers of returns and warranty servicing costs. You can only find a few on eBay, and ALL are "open return" or "used return, not tested". NONE sold by happy users.

AFAIAC, digital camera reviews are nearly worthless, no matter who is doing the review.
.

Thinks he was first in posting a review.

His review is dated: Review posted on October 12 2004 16:38 GMT by Stuart Miles

Digicam Resource's review is dated: Originally posted: August 28, 2003

Steves-Digicams review is dated: Review posted 10/1/2004

It looks like stuart was third at best.

Here's a quicktime VR of the camera if you are interested:

360 view

LS

might be nice to actually link to the review?

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/ex-s10 0.html

Here's the direct link for the lazy... http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/ex-s10 0.html

There's a much better review at Steves Digicams

Might want to check that one out too.

I don't see how they were the first, when Steve's Digicam's has a review for this exact model dated two weeks ago. It's a much better and more thorough review as well, IMHO.