Kodak DX3700 Special Deal
david
"mhlife" <mhl...@clara.net> wrote in message
news:101319383...@eurus.uk.clara.net...
> For those whom I enticed to buy the blasted Kodak 'offer' camera - I'm
truly
> sorry!
>
> It's rubbish, garbage, junk, crap - barely worth the 100 quid.
>
Mine as yet to come.
But I have been into the correct camera NG's and the folks there would not
agree with you to that extent. Yes they would agree at £299 it is
overpriced, but at £100 they say it is indeed a bargain.
It seems it is a begineers camera of the piont and shoot variety. I asked
a lot as I had heard it did have problems and wondered wether not to bother
last week when Kodak changed thier mind.
The thing that seems to make it not worth £299 is that it is a digital zoom
and not optical zoom.
Also it is heavy on batteries, but it seems you have to ensure they get a 2
hour initial charge and not go by the indecator which goes out early. You
have take it out of the dock and put it back, repeat so it gets 2 hours.
Also to buy spare sets of these MiMH batteries.
--
Regards,
David
<><
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
secondhand. I regard it as the equivalent of the GBP 9.99 35mm compact
camera trash you'd find in the catalogues or going as a free gift.
--
Yours,
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
.......................................................
Try not to spam. Your server's admin
might get annoyed.
"david" <da...@npark.takeout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a41f7j$5tb$2...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Ron Hunter
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
--
Yours,
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
.......................................................
Try not to spam. Your server's admin
might get annoyed.
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3C65FA27...@charter.net...
Ron Hunter
Pictures are like art. What is trash to you may be treasure to another. I
have seen pictures made by professional photographers that I wouldn't hang on
the wall of a doghouse. So, it is JUST an opinion.
Ian Burley
things a) perhaps there is a good reason why you aren't one any more and b)
your expectations of something as basic as a DX3700 are way above what the
DX3700 was designed to be and what its target market expects.
An F1 driver might thing a Ford Fiesta was boring to drive but it does an
excellent job of getting you from a to b.
Ian
--
Digital Photography Now
UK-based digital photo Web magazine
www.dp-now.com
"Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox" <bill....@microsoft.con> wrote in
message news:a4646l$aeh$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
responsibility), should go in for character attacks over somebody's opinions
and experiences. I haven't actually seen "Digital Photography Now" but
having had a personal attack from the editor, I am unlikely to consider
looking at it. Also, others who view this exchange on the newsgroups might
be of the same opinion.
As I'm sure most people are aware, people change careers voluntarily. When
one has explored all the facets of a career and done everything several
times over, it's often time for a new challenge. At one time, I taught
English abroad. The reason I do not do that (or recommend that anybody else
does) is that the money is incredibly poor. It is, however, an excellent way
of learning or practicing foreign language skills. Having explored teaching
english as I learnt my foreign languages, I went on to photography. Having
explored that (profitably) I moved on to my current career (even more
profitable - and more interesting).
Regarding digital cameras: For an equivalent sum one could buy a decent 35mm
compact camera and a scanner. The argument that developing film is more
expensive than producing prints via a PC doesn't really hold, in my opinion.
Let's look at the facts:
35mm Kodak Gold 100ASA = approximately 30 million pixels.
A secondhand Olympus XA3 (my compact of choice) GBP30. A flash to go with it
GBP10.
A DX3700 £100 (if bought during Kodak's blunder).
Difference - already a deficit of GBP80 and approx 25,000,000 pixels.
In use:
D&P for 36 exposures GBP3.99
1 roll of film GBP2.50
Total expendature for film (approx) GBP 7.50
Digital photography requires a PC (GBP 600)
Digital photography requires a decent printer (GBP 100+)
Digital photo paper (price varies according to brand) - about GBP 6 (this is
a guess - I use glossy unbranded A4 as it's cheaper) for a box of 25 sheets
of 6x4
Colour ink (GBP 30 - Epson). I'm not sure how long this lasts as I don't
print photos - I leave them on disk.
CD for storage of digital photos (50p for a full sized CD, GBP1.50 for an
8cm CD)
So, we'll summarise:
Digital photography needs more expensive equitmpent, is more expensive to
run (if you need prints) and is of lower quality.
That's the crux of my argument. Now don't come at me with more personal
attacks or I'll send them straight to abuse@ 217.34.251.91 (your ISP)
--
Yours,
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
.......................................................
Try not to spam. Your server's admin
might get annoyed.
"Ian Burley" <in...@dp-now.com> wrote in message
news:2xx98.5942$HC4.63438@NewsReader...
John Fitzgerald
>
> That's the crux of my argument. Now don't come at me with more personal
> attacks or I'll send them straight to abuse@ 217.34.251.91 (your ISP)
>
>
> --
> Yours,
>
> Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
> .......................................................
It's Slartibartfast
and
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
bitterly so I put the correct spelling *G*
"John Fitzgerald" <jfsc...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:z0D98.3491$xe7.24...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Des O'Donoghue
"Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox" <bill....@microsoft.con> wrote in
>[snip]
> Let's look at the facts:
> 35mm Kodak Gold 100ASA = approximately 30 million pixels.
> A secondhand Olympus XA3 (my compact of choice) GBP30. A flash to go with
it
> GBP10.
> A DX3700 £100 (if bought during Kodak's blunder).
> Difference - already a deficit of GBP80 and approx 25,000,000 pixels.
Am I missing an important step - What is GBP100 - GBP40 ? I think it is
GBP60 and not GBP80...
Des
Ian Burley
dig. Though I have to say the ferocity of your sensitivity sure does suprise
me.
But, to the the main crux of your digital photogrraphy argument - it simply
misses the point by a mile.
You casually write off digital cameras below an arbitrary price of £500
(about US$700) and you expect to justify that? I'd guess the overwhelming
majority of posters here have cameras in that price range and are very happy
with them.
You can lecture all you like using the technical assumptions you have made
but it completely misses the point.
If you feel all of us are dumb for being content with what you feel are
substandard cameras - you are of courese entitled yo your opinion. And we
are entitled to ours and I don't think I need to elaborate more on what that
opinion is.
Ian
By
--
Digital Photography Now
UK-based digital photo Web magazine
www.dp-now.com
"Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox" <bill....@microsoft.con> wrote in
message news:a46esc$vkr$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
david
this DX3700, following the negative gettinfg at me yesturday.
I have been out this pm and obtained a UniRoss 3-5 hours Fast charger c/w 4
NiMH batteries for £6-99! My local Woolworths have them reduced from
£14-99, then £9-99 now £6-99.
I only went in for 4 of these batteries, which were also reduced to £3-99
for 4. Think I've got the charger+4 for the normal price of 4 batteries.
A question on the batteries they are rated at 1300 mAh, I had thought the
rating was 1800 mAh on these types, am I mistaken or do capacities vary make
to make?
--
Regards,
David
<><
Ian Burley
you do find problems with your Uniross batteries, try Camlink or Jessops own
brand. These are usually at least rated at 1500MaH. The very best are
Japanese Maxell, Sanyo, Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba, etc. 1800MaH or now even
1900MaH cells, but these aren't that easy to find in the UK and can be quite
a bit more expensive.
Ian
--
Digital Photography Now
UK-based digital photo Web magazine
www.dp-now.com
"david" <da...@npark.takeout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a48k0e$6lc$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Ron Hunter
> compact camera and a scanner. The argument that developing film is more
> expensive than producing prints via a PC doesn't really hold, in my opinion.
You qualify your statements with the provision 'if you need prints', as if
need for prints is the deciding factor. Isn't it really a question of HOW
MANY prints you need. If I send a roll of 35 mm to the photo lab, I get back
the developed film, and 1 print (for the sake of argument). If there were
unexposed or unusable frames, I still pay the same. If there are pictures
that are substandard, they still get printed.
There are some places that don't require you to pay for unsatisfactory prints
(but I don't have the brass to do that). Assuming yours doesn't, or like me
you feel that a bad picture is YOUR fault and you should pay for their work,
then you pay for a print for each exposed frame.
In the case of digital, most people don't print any large portion of the
pictures they snap (except for my brother who prints all that pass the review
on his LCD). I submit that printing only the pictures you NEED printed, or
which pass muster when examined on the computer, can save enough to more than
offset the difference in printing costs.
But maybe you do a better job than I do at getting the better quality shots
every time.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
david
"Ian Burley" <ian.b...@dp-now.com> wrote in message
news:ifR98.12902$HC4.85109@NewsReader...
> Unfortunately, David, my experience with Uniross is not very positive. If
> you do find problems with your Uniross batteries, try Camlink or Jessops
own
> brand. These are usually at least rated at 1500MaH. The very best are
> Japanese Maxell, Sanyo, Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba, etc. 1800MaH or now even
> 1900MaH cells, but these aren't that easy to find in the UK and can be
quite
> a bit more expensive.
>
except Jessops who have thier own as well.
When the time comes will try thiers, and also keep my eyes open.
Thanks
David
Ron Hill
http://www.budgetbatteries.co.uknews:a48u9h$mki$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
You spotted the fact that my maths gets a little hairy at weekends.
--
Yours,
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
.......................................................
Try not to spam. Your server's admin
might get annoyed.
"Des O'Donoghue" <par...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:a474qb$1coq26$1...@ID-62314.news.dfncis.de...
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
failures that were not usable in some form or another. Typically, I get 27
pictures out of a roll of 24 or 39 out of a roll of 26. If two pictures fail
because they're fogged or wrongly clipped, that leaves plenty. As an
example, I went to Spain and used my 35mm compact. I used 4 rolls of film
and I think I had a total of 5 shots that weren't as good as could be hoped.
Regarding paying for prints: Maybe I'm lucky but I have a printing house
locally that only prints the good frames and will develop a film without
doing any prints if so required. Doing it that way, I could have negatives
and run the negatives through a negative scanner.
My gripe about doing things on the computer is that the anciliary equiptment
tends to cause problems: what you see on the screen isn't usually what you
see when the printer's finished. For example: I ran a lovely seascape
through (taken on a digital). On the screen, it looked a wonderful
blue-grey. Printing on ordinary paper it came out a little too blue.
Printing on photo-style paper, it came out quite brown. If I'd done it as a
black and white image then a brown tint would have been fantastic.
--
Yours,
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
.......................................................
Try not to spam. Your server's admin
might get annoyed.
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3C67E57E...@charter.net...
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
OK. I'll try to justify the "casually" writing off digital cameras
costing under GBP 500.
I have looked at and tried digital compacts costing under GBP 500. I
can't say that they impress me at all. I think the best I've seen has been
the Olympus C1400L (1.4mp). As far as I can see, it's probably the best of
the compacts. If it had more pixels then it would be a lot better. The
upmarket version - the C1400XL has a zoom that's a lot too long for stable
hand-holding. This is offset by an image stabiliser but... image
stabilisation reduces the effective pixels, I believe.
Perhaps I'd better state what model I use as a measure of a good digital
compact. IMO, a good digital compact has:
1. Smart Media (because it's flatter, lighter and generally easier to carry
in bulk and because it's commonly available).
2. A zoom lense of between 2 and 3 times.
3. A flash that can be physically switched off and which will remain
switched off until physically switched on.
3. A tripod screw.
4. A hotshoe/pc socket.
5. A remote release.
6. It must take AA or AAA batteries. If you're outside Wormwood Scrubbs and
there's a riot going on just as your battery dies, you want to be able to
nip into a shop to get batteries in order to get the pictures and flog them
to the nationals.
7. It must be of a reasonable size. So far, only the Kyocera seems to be
reasonably small but that fails as it uses a really wierd card and because
it has a wierd battery.
8. The focussing must work properly or be completely absent.
If the compact has all these then I'd say it has a chance. Granted, the
Olympus C1400L is a great big brute but on the other hand, it is virtually
an SLR. I currently use an Olympus C820L as I only need 640x480 for my
business.
In terms of quality, I can get pictures that are quite acceptible from a
GBP9.99 compact. To get the same picture quality from digital, one must pay
more than GBP500. As I said before, I regard my 820l as a GBP9.99 compact
(or even a 5.99 throw-away camera). I thus don't consider any digital camera
under GBP500 is worth buying as it's definitely not as good in quality as my
GBP9.99 compact. Going up scale to the GBP4000 D1X etc, one is finally
reaching passably good quality. Having said that, it's overpriced by a
factor of 10 (pretty much as digital compacts are).
Conclusion: I still don't think digital compacts under GBP 500 represent
either good value or a good camera - unless 640x480 web/programming work is
all you're doing (like me).
--
Yours,
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
.......................................................
Try not to spam. Your server's admin
might get annoyed.
"Ian Burley" <ian.b...@dp-now.com> wrote in message
news:gBM98.35125$bP3.306727@NewsReader...
Ron Hunter
> blue-grey. Printing on ordinary paper it came out a little too blue.
> Printing on photo-style paper, it came out quite brown. If I'd done it as a
> black and white image then a brown tint would have been fantastic.
>
>
> --
> Yours,
If your blue turned to brown, something is BADLY out of adjustment.... I have
seen colors get a bit off, but it isn't usually anything of that nature.
Maybe your monitor driver is faulty.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
photo-quality paper. The paper mad ethe difference.
--
Yours,
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
.......................................................
Try not to spam. Your server's admin
might get annoyed.
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3C68413E...@charter.net...
Danny Clarke 舶安
"Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox" <bill....@microsoft.con> wrote in
> 1. Smart Media (because it's flatter, lighter and generally easier to
carry
> in bulk and because it's commonly available).
> 2. A zoom lense of between 2 and 3 times.
> 3. A flash that can be physically switched off and which will remain
> switched off until physically switched on.
> 3. A tripod screw.
> 4. A hotshoe/pc socket.
> 5. A remote release.
> 6. It must take AA or AAA batteries. If you're outside Wormwood Scrubbs
and
> there's a riot going on just as your battery dies, you want to be able to
> nip into a shop to get batteries in order to get the pictures and flog
them
> to the nationals.
> 7. It must be of a reasonable size. So far, only the Kyocera seems to be
> reasonably small but that fails as it uses a really wierd card and
because
> it has a wierd battery.
> 8. The focussing must work properly or be completely absent.
> If the compact has all these then I'd say it has a chance. Granted,
the
Sounds like you are describing my excellent Ricoh RDC5300 :-)
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
(ordinary copier paper) and browner on photo quality paper by Epson.
--
Yours,
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
.......................................................
Try not to spam. Your server's admin
might get annoyed.
"Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox" <bill....@microsoft.con> wrote in
message news:a49j5n$v6c$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
12.50 - a computerised Chinese thing. It does quite well although I've just
taken some scaldingly hot batteries out of it.
--
Yours,
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
.......................................................
Try not to spam. Your server's admin
might get annoyed.
"david" <da...@npark.takeout.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a492os$g7b$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Ron Hill" <bee...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:7yT98.30008$as2.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > If you are looking for 1800 Nimh batteries try
> > http://www.budgetbatteries.co.uk
>
> Yes, £2-10 each.
> Trouble is with small value like 2 or 4 the delivery will nearly double
the
> cost.
> Will see how I go with these 1300 ones at £1 each.
> Thanks.
> --
> Regards,
> David
> <><
>
>
Ron Hunter
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox wrote:
>
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
--
Yours,
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
.......................................................
Try not to spam. Your server's admin
might get annoyed.
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3C68DD93...@charter.net...
Harrogate
in Curry's. Meets all your criteria, has uncompressed TIF output, wll take
an external flash, and has a remote control at an extra 19.99 (included in
the box in the USA but not over here.) It may be a slightly strange shape
but is easy and comfortable to hold, fairly light, and produces IME good
results.
And my normal snappy camera is an Olympus Mju - or a Nikon 601 or Yashica
124G for more serious stuff.
--
Woody
"Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox" <bill....@microsoft.con> wrote in
message news:a499sa$ksv$2...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
an optical viewfinder - hence I'm not so keen on the C1400XL.
--
Yours,
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
.......................................................
Try not to spam. Your server's admin
might get annoyed.
"Harrogate" <harr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Aida8.46917$H37.6...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Harrogate
Oly doing a free 64Mb card with it by claim at present
--
Woody
"Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox" <bill....@microsoft.con> wrote in
message news:a4bqrl$fqh$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Ron Hunter
Blue0grey to brown is quite a stretch.
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
paper has somat to do with it. I've seen B&W pictures done by somebody else
with the same brownish tinge. It's quite good on B&W prints.
BTW. I used same ink cartridge, Epson glossy paper, same printer/image
settings and had a browny tinge; same on copier paper and had a grey tinge;
same on ultra-smooth epson paper and had a normal result. Epson no longer
make the ultra smooth paper.
--
Yours,
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
.......................................................
Try not to spam. Your server's admin
might get annoyed.
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3C697F45...@charter.net...
Ron Hunter
> settings and had a browny tinge; same on copier paper and had a grey tinge;
> same on ultra-smooth epson paper and had a normal result. Epson no longer
> make the ultra smooth paper.
>
> --
> Yours,
>
> Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
If you are trying to sell me an Epson printer, you aren't making any
progress. Grin.
--
Ron Hunter rphu...@charter.net
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
of a 16 page document so I hhad to print the whole thing from the beginning
again. Yesterday it quit half way through paghe 2 of a 2 page document. That
document I could restart from page 2. Quite honestly, my experience of
printer is:
1. Citizen - dreadful
2. Epson - bad
3. HP - Excellent.
4. Commodore - Unbelievably awful but they work.
--
Yours,
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
.......................................................
Try not to spam. Your server's admin
might get annoyed.
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3C69A5BD...@charter.net...
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
--
Yours,
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
.......................................................
Try not to spam. Your server's admin
might get annoyed.
"Harrogate" <harr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:EJea8.38630$as2.6...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
James
It has all the attributes you say you require in a camera, plus it is a lot
less than your target price. On the 'subject' of printers, my own
'subjective' view is that HP are awful, Epson are brilliant, and Mannisman
Tally are not worth the box they come in. But as you say, all opinions vary,
depending upon personal experience.
James
"Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox" <bill....@microsoft.con> wrote in
message news:a4emrk$3rv$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
should be able to see through the lense. It's easier to compose and do macro
shots that way.
BTW: has abybody else found that the C820L's maco facility only works on
flat surfaces? I tried to do a close-up of a flower today and it focussed on
the wall 10 yards behind!
--
Yours,
Slartibardfast & Zephod Beeblebrox
.......................................................
Try not to spam. Your server's admin
might get annoyed.
"James" <ja...@bullett.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3c6ea...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
Paul Currie
unfortunately not much lately about the original topic
"James" <ja...@bullett.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3c6ea...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
Matt
<p...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Can we get back to the original topic? Lots of great stuff mentioned here,
>unfortunately not much lately about the original topic
Sure, back on topic....
Got mine now, first reports:
1. Charging was FINE - watched it like a hawk for two hours.
(I guess if I'd left it, THEN it would have cut out)
2. Takes ok pictures, and the flash is reasonable at most distances
within it's specified range.
3. STUPID lack of self timer - I would have thought they'd be standard
in the programming for ANY digital.
4. Digital zoom does NOT invent pixels that weren't there - it CROPS
the image, with reduced pixel count and file size, compressed
according to the set quality.
5. No video clip / webcam features
6. Toy lenscap, and generally flimsy feel to the battery and memory
access doors - and the docking port should really have a spring-loaded
auto-flap instead of a slide.
STICK A LABEL ON YOUR BASE - "OPEN THE DOCKING PORT!"
Or one day, you'll be wondering why the camera will not seat in the
dock!
At £299, this would be a very poor camera - at £100 with accessories,
it's really rather good.
It didn't work with my cheap USB hub -
then I found my USB hub just didn't work anyway!
Other users HAVE reported USB hub incompatibility under more
controlled conditions!
PS. Kodak have now added a "CYA" clause to their T's&C's, granting
themselves blanket exception from errors, to stop this ever happening
again.
--
I may be dozzzy, but take the ZZZ's out to mail me
http://www.junkroom.freeserve.co.uk/jvc2080.htm - That's me
And from IC24 too! - I finally got NTLWORLD!
Temporary sig, for recognition purposes....