Frugal digital camera
Elaine Gallant
What is a good recommendation on a digital camera? I want to be able to
take close-ups of items for re-sale on e-bay.
They sell cheap ones for about a hundred bucks. The better quality cameras
run in the area of 3-4 hundred dollars.
Dan
I'm (once again) getting interested in digital cameras. Since I run
Linux on my laptop, I was concerned about getting various media the
digicams to work with it, and for a while, had resigned myself to the
idea of saving up for a Sony Mavica ($$$).
I just learned, though, that the CompactFlash cards many cameras use are
essentially MS-DOS filesystems, and with a cheap PCMCIA adaptor, I should
be able to mount them as drives on the laptop and read things off them.
Neat-o-keen. And those models are probably significantly cheaper.
Now I have to do tons of research. :)
-Dan
--
Dan Birchall - Palolo Valley, Hawaii - http://dan.scream.org/
GenXceptional Quaker ex-slacker hacker hiker 'rycher recycler
Addresses expire. If replies bounce, take out the hex stamp.
Kevin & Tracy Stanley
has one for $50. I'm seriously considering getting the Nickelodeon one..
Tracy
This sig space for rent! (But my AllAdvantage RefID is hxh112)
Elaine Gallant wrote:
> What I really wanna do is find a manufacturer who can produce nice cameras
> that can take good close-ups without a lot of bells and whistles. Nothing
> fancy, just good, straightforeward plastic merchandise. If I could find
> cameras like that, I'd sell them myself.
>
> Dan wrote in message ...
Dr. Goldie
"Elaine Gallant" <elaine....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> What is a good recommendation on a digital camera? I want to be able
to
> take close-ups of items for re-sale on e-bay.
> They sell cheap ones for about a hundred bucks. The better quality
cameras
> run in the area of 3-4 hundred dollars.
>
>
Don't be cheap! Deja before you BUY!
--
Gai tren zich,
Chancellor Leland Milton Goldblatt
http://goldblatt.faithweb.com/
http://ivygraduate.homepage.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Amy
> Well, I saw in Wal-Mart last night that Nickelodeon has one for $60, and Barbie
> has one for $50. I'm seriously considering getting the Nickelodeon one..
As a lurker may I jump in here? The JamCam is a much better deal for the dollar if
this is the range of cam you want... the Barbie Cam and Nick Cam only have a
resolution of 320x240 and the JamCam has a resolution of 640x480. Although it is
far from a professional camera, it takes decent (and I do only mean decent) shots
to be shared via web or email.. and they are somewhat reasonable if you have a
photo editing program (it comes with Microsoft PictureIt! 99) to decrease their
size by 50%.
I received a JamCam for a gift; my children received one of the toy cams for a
gift. I have experience with both.
For an entry camera, I have been mostly pleased with the JamCam, but had I been
spending my own cash, I would check into something a little more such as this:
http://www.800.com/prod.asp?T=319&C=319&P=2315
Here is a listing of some cams at 800.com
http://www.800.com/Search/frmSearchResults.asp?SearchMethod=QuickSearch&SearchText=digital+camera
And here is the JamCam URL http://www.gojamcam.com
HTH,
Amy
--
Computers allow you to make mistakes faster than any other
invention known to mankind with the possible exception of
handguns and tequila.
Bennet K. Langlotz
>As a lurker may I jump in here? The JamCam is a much better deal for the dollar if
>this is the range of cam you want... the Barbie Cam and Nick Cam only have a
>resolution of 320x240 and the JamCam has a resolution of 640x480.
Beyond.com also has Jam cam ver. 1.0 for 24.99 after rebate.
(320x240)
--
Bennet K. Langlotz
ne...@langlotz.com
Melody
Julie Lang wrote:
>
> I am no expert on digital cameras but ... I just bought my Mom and Dad an
> Afga 780c for $199 from amazon.com. I only played with it for a few days
> before Xmas but I felt that it was a good value. The camera and the
> software that came with it are easy to use - very important for novices
> like my parents. I am sure that the more expensive cameras take better
> quality pictures but the quality of the pictures from the Afga was good
> enough for them and me.
>
> OTOH, I had the opportunity to try out a Sony recently and it was pretty
> cool. Lets you adjust the lighting and stuff before you take the picture.
> With the Afga you have to wait until you download the photo to the computer.
> I would love to get the Sony but I can't justify the expense, around $500.1
>
> Julie
My Toshiba has a Macro Lens, 3x zoom lens, 640 x 480 or 1280 x 1024
resolution, 6 flash settings, optional time/date stamp, option for color
or black & white, rechargable battery (huge plus!), an 8mb smartmedia
card, and can also double as a video camera (must be plugged in to your
computer to record the video). I paid $399 for it which I think is an
incredible deal. We bought my grandmother a Kodack DC 220 ($799) for
Christmas & I actually like my Toshiba better than hers.
Melody
Julie Lang
Afga 780c for $199 from amazon.com. I only played with it for a few days
before Xmas but I felt that it was a good value. The camera and the
software that came with it are easy to use - very important for novices
like my parents. I am sure that the more expensive cameras take better
quality pictures but the quality of the pictures from the Afga was good
enough for them and me.
OTOH, I had the opportunity to try out a Sony recently and it was pretty
cool. Lets you adjust the lighting and stuff before you take the picture.
With the Afga you have to wait until you download the photo to the computer.
I would love to get the Sony but I can't justify the expense, around $500.
Julie
Amy
> My Toshiba has a Macro Lens, 3x zoom lens, 640 x 480 or 1280 x 1024
> resolution, 6 flash settings, optional time/date stamp, option for color
> or black & white, rechargable battery (huge plus!), an 8mb smartmedia
> card, and can also double as a video camera (must be plugged in to your
> computer to record the video). I paid $399 for it which I think is an
> incredible deal. We bought my grandmother a Kodack DC 220 ($799) for
> Christmas & I actually like my Toshiba better than hers.
I have my sights set on an Olympus 340R. The price has dropped to $299 since
Christmas and can be found for as low as $268 thru http://www.mysimon.com
I think I could live with that cam.. As I said before the JamCam is frugal, but
photos are not as good a quality. It's like using an outdoor only old 110 film
camera..
Mr. Bill
>> OTOH, I had the opportunity to try out a Sony recently and it was pretty
>> cool. Lets you adjust the lighting and stuff before you take the picture.
>> With the Afga you have to wait until you download the photo to the computer.
>> I would love to get the Sony but I can't justify the expense, around $500.1
>incredible deal. We bought my grandmother a Kodack DC 220 ($799) for
>Christmas & I actually like my Toshiba better than hers.
For around the $800 area....I would go with the Sony with removable 3.5" disc.
That feature alone is worth the camera especially if you are on vacation and
don't have the ability to download the pictures from your camera.
Visualize Financial Peace!
Jack
Mind if I jump in here and ask you a question?
My husband received a Jam Cam for Xmas, so far every picture has a pink tint to it. Do you have any
idea why and what he could do to eliminate the pink?
TIA,
Nancy
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:27:00 -0500, Amy <nojunkinm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Kevin & Tracy Stanley wrote:
>
>> Well, I saw in Wal-Mart last night that Nickelodeon has one for $60, and Barbie
>> has one for $50. I'm seriously considering getting the Nickelodeon one..
>
>As a lurker may I jump in here? The JamCam is a much better deal for the dollar if
>this is the range of cam you want... the Barbie Cam and Nick Cam only have a
Amy
> Mind if I jump in here and ask you a question?
Not a bit! I'm an old lurker, new poster here!
> My husband received a Jam Cam for Xmas, so far every picture has a pink tint to it. Do you have any
> idea why and what he could do to eliminate the pink?
Are these indoor pics? I've not experienced that outdoors, but have with indoor shots. If they are
indoor shots, it has to do with the indoor lighting (fluorescent lighting can be blue to yellow on
depending on the tint of the bulb. I supposed regular light bulbs are "pink."). If they are outdoor
shots, I would definitely look into something being not quite right...
Ross Clement
: Amy,
:
: Mind if I jump in here and ask you a question?
:
: My husband received a Jam Cam for Xmas, so far every picture has a pink tint to it. Do you have any
: idea why and what he could do to eliminate the pink?
: TIA,
: Nancy
Any simple image editing program should be able to tint the picture to remove
the pink tint. May take a while to learn how to do it.
Cheers,
Ross-c
Jack
I know he wanted to play more with the cam, but hasn't had the time.
Nancy
Jack
Hubby would have to do that as I am not that computer savvy.
Nancy
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:19:20 GMT, Bob Ward <rcw...@gte.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:15:49 GMT, Jack <ja...@ptd.net> wrote:
>
>>Amy,
>>
>>Mind if I jump in here and ask you a question?
>>
>>My husband received a Jam Cam for Xmas, so far every picture has a pink tint to it. Do you have any
>>idea why and what he could do to eliminate the pink?
>>
>>TIA,
>>Nancy
>>
>>
>
>Most any of the photo editing software available includes a color
>balance feature to adjust for just such a problem.
>
>Email me such a picture and I'll color correct it for you as an
>example.
>
Jack
Thanks,
Nancy
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:36:36 -0500, Amy <nojunkinm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Jack wrote:
>
>> Mind if I jump in here and ask you a question?
>
>Not a bit! I'm an old lurker, new poster here!
>
>> My husband received a Jam Cam for Xmas, so far every picture has a pink tint to it. Do you have any
>> idea why and what he could do to eliminate the pink?
>
Amy
>
> Not the brightness, the type. I've found the colors only really look
> right from the Polaroid digicam we got at work if taken in natural
> sunlight. Flourescents tint yellow, normal incandescents tint red. If
> you can illuminate your scene mostly with halogens it will come out a lot
> closer to natural but still not perfect.
>
You are so right...
Amy
> Hubby would have to do that as I am not that computer savvy.
>
Free, simple to use, multi purpose graphics viewer that has a few tricks up its sleeve: Irfanview
http://stud1.tuwien.ac.at/~e9227474/
After opening the image, you can do some adjustments from the Image*Color Balance menu.
Small and powerful...
Amy (aka the Software Junkie)
Norm
Another vote for Olympus 340R with 1.3meg resolution and great
features. I paid $299 in September. Norm
Amy wrote:
>
> Melody wrote:
>
> > My Toshiba has a Macro Lens, 3x zoom lens, 640 x 480 or 1280 x 1024
> > resolution, 6 flash settings, optional time/date stamp, option for color
> > or black & white, rechargable battery (huge plus!), an 8mb smartmedia
> > card, and can also double as a video camera (must be plugged in to your
> > computer to record the video). I paid $399 for it which I think is an
> > incredible deal. We bought my grandmother a Kodack DC 220 ($799) for
> > Christmas & I actually like my Toshiba better than hers.
>
> I have my sights set on an Olympus 340R. The price has dropped to $299 since
> Christmas and can be found for as low as $268 thru http://www.mysimon.com
>
> I think I could live with that cam.. As I said before the JamCam is frugal, but
> photos are not as good a quality. It's like using an outdoor only old 110 film
> camera..
--
Remove socks before Replying.
Roger P Williams
> yep, indoor shots. So, brighter lights maybe??
Not the brightness, the type. I've found the colors only really look
right from the Polaroid digicam we got at work if taken in natural
sunlight. Flourescents tint yellow, normal incandescents tint red. If
you can illuminate your scene mostly with halogens it will come out a lot
closer to natural but still not perfect.
This is, of course, a function of the "color temperature" of the light.
The sun is very hot and has a greater proportion of blue and green than
the relatively cool filament of an incandescent bulb, and the spectral
distribution of a flourescent is just plain unnatural, concentrated in
several bands which don't mesh well with the tricolor separation in the
CCD.
This same distortion occurs with film, but is usually corrected by the
photo processor. If you use slide film, it becomes an important
consideration to select "indoor" or "outdoor" balanced film as
appropriate.
--Roger
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What will people of the future think of us? Will they say, as
Roger Williams said of some of the Massachusetts Indians, that
we were wolves with the minds of men? That we resigned our humanity?
They will have the right. -- C.P. Snow
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sweet Gal
program should be able to adjust it for you. I think you can still download
a trial version of PaintShop Pro (frugalista Photoshop).
If the overall color intensity is fine, then just lower the magenta value.
If the color seems washed out, but too pink also, then try raising the cyan
and yellow. With PaintShop Pro you can play with qualities like luminosity
and saturation too. A very powerful program for the money (less than $100)
IMHO.
Paula
Jack <ja...@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:cdem7sgnsca8ofq9e...@4ax.com...
> Amy,
>
> Mind if I jump in here and ask you a question?
>
> My husband received a Jam Cam for Xmas, so far every picture has a pink
tint to it. Do you have any
> idea why and what he could do to eliminate the pink?
>
Jack
Thanks again Amy!
Nancy
Jack
Nancy
Great Atlanta Real Estate Agent
of choice. Also, doesn't this severely limit the programs (software) that you
can run on the system?
Dan wrote:
> Elaine Gallant <elaine....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > What is a good recommendation on a digital camera? I want to be able to
> > take close-ups of items for re-sale on e-bay.
> > They sell cheap ones for about a hundred bucks. The better quality cameras
> > run in the area of 3-4 hundred dollars.
>
Steve Blume
Steve
<ari...@pepper.eajenkins.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:slrn87st4f....@pepper.eajenkins.earthlink.net...
Elaine Gallant
We went ahead, and bought JamCam 2. I'll post some pics tomorrow. We are
real happy with it. It's plenty good enough to make pictures of stuff to
sell on e-bay.
Bev
>
> If only they had Quicken for Linux I'd change over.
You can use both. I use linux almost all the time (netscape, word
perfect, various graphics programs, editors, ... trying to figure out
just what I DO use it for, and I guess netscape is the big thing.
Star Office is an available highly-regarded office suite, but I just
don't do quicken-like stuff so I didn't install that this time. There
are fax facilities, but I haven't installed them yet.
What I don't have is Turbo Tax, drivers for my cheap parallel scanner,
and HANDY fax facilities. When I need this stuff I boot into win95
instead.
With one of the large linux distributions you get just about
everything you might ever think of needing. SuSE is $35 or so and
seems to have the most extensive collection of applications programs
included. The hardest part of the installation is deciding what you
DON'T want :-). There is, however, LOTS of stuff that my captive
wizard has to help me with, so a knowledgeable friend is a definite
advantage. If you have such a friend, install the distribution that
(S)HE uses.
> <ari...@pepper.eajenkins.earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:slrn87st4f....@pepper.eajenkins.earthlink.net...
> > On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:37:07 -0500, Great Atlanta Real Estate Agent
> > <burr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >Is Linux difficult to run. I see it posted quite a bit as the operating
> > >system of choice. Also, doesn't this severely limit the programs (software)
> > >that you can run on the system?
Remember, much of the windows software exists only to plug the holes
in windows itself!
ObSubject: My son bought an Olympus digital camera for $300 (don't
know the number, but there can't be many!) and is very happy with it.
1024x768 pix, and he downloads to his linux-running computer. He and
my husband flatly refuse to soil their hands with winshit...
--
Cheers,
Bev
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Little Mary took her skis upon the snow to frisk.
Wasn't she a silly girl her little * ?
ari...@pepper.eajenkins.earthlink.net
<burr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Is Linux difficult to run. I see it posted quite a bit as the operating system
>of choice. Also, doesn't this severely limit the programs (software) that you
>can run on the system?
We have linux on our operating system, and my husband is the
computer expert and huge Linux fan in this house. What he has to say
about Linux is basically that yes, it can be challenging to run, and
it can limit the software available to you. BUT, he is a strong
anti-Windows guy and feels that Linux runs more reliably and faster,
even on older computers like a 486. He also mentions that there are
new distributions due out for Linux that are supposed to be more
user-friendly... like Corel, I think. And my husband says there is
quite a bit of software out there, perhaps more than most people realize.
Anyway, he'd sooner eat the modem than switch to Windows. ;)
As for me, I'm no computer expert and prior to this, had only
used Windows. Linux does seem a great deal more reliable, not as
buggy, etc. I mostly use the computer for word processing, e-mail and
websurfing, and I can tell you it works very well for those purposes,
it just takes some getting used to.
Ariane
Steve Blume
the drive isn't all that big. I did get a chance to try out StarOffice.
Interesting, the way all is integrated, including a web browser.
Steve
"Bev" <bas...@ktb.net> wrote in message news:387E9F7B...@ktb.net...
cascade
How expensive was the camera? Did you have to buy any additional
software to create your pictures for ebay? I am considering doing the
same thing.
Thanks
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dan
> Is Linux difficult to run. I see it posted quite a bit as the operating
> system of choice.
I wouldn't say it's difficult to _run_ - it's far less likely to crash
than Windows. And as far as using it, once you've got it set up with
a nice graphical environment, you can pretty much point-and-click just
like you would on anything else.
Historically, installation was not for the faint of heart, but Corel
and some other companies apparently offer easier installers now. I
haven't gotten to try them, though.
I don't personally find Linux to be any harder to install than Windows
95, but most folks buy computers with Windows already installed; fairly
few places sell computers with Linux already on them.
> Also, doesn't this severely limit the programs (software) that you
> can run on the system?
Yes - though again, not as much as it used to. :) Obviously, you
can't run software for Windows (unless you use an emulator or VMware).
But every week more software is coming out for Linux, so the gap is
narrowing. There are still plenty of gaps and areas where there aren't
many applications, but it's getting to the point now where seeing
products from companies like Netscape, WordPerfect and Adobe on Linux
is not surprising.
I'd suggest taking a look at http://www.linux.com/ if you're curious.
-Dan
--
Dan Birchall - Palolo Valley, Hawaii - http://dan.scream.org/
GenXceptional Quaker ex-slacker hacker hiker 'rycher recycler
Mumble mumble http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=HAJ047
Katie Bretsch
figure this out for myself, the consensus was stick to Sony, Oly or
Kodak, with votes in about that order. Sony saves to floppy disk,
concievably a big savings. Also has video camcorder type batteries
which are apparently very much more frugal than conventional types.
I have had a bad experience with my Agfa -- chosen because it seemed
reasonably priced and had USB connectivity built in, so I didn't need
to buy a separate card reader. Paid $399, plus a bunch more for the
accessories (extra memory card, macro filter and AC adapter) but have
lately seen it listed for under $300. Mine eats batteries like crazy
and has now apparently been crippled by a Y2K bug.
In one article I looked at, someone suggested that the Barbie digicam,
available in toy sections for $70 or less, would do fine for putting
simple pix on the net.
I have also lately seen lots of "free with purchase" digicam offers.
For instance, I think Earthlink has one, at present.
Steve Blume
resolution, 2mb memory. I haven't used it and have found no reviews on the
web or comments in deja, but for $50... Also, for bargain hunters, I might
suggest www.salescircular.com. They comb the Sunday newspaper ads and
catagorize the bargains. Worth a look.
Steve
Doug Elston
We bought the Polaroid 320 camera for $50....and then realized that it
wasn't worth it - even as a "toy". We took it back to Best Buy for a
refund. The main problem was that the resolution was so low, the pictures
looked grainy. Also, there is not a built in flash - so pictures were dark
unless taken outside on a bright day. I would recommend spending the
$230-300 for a camera with better resolution and a flash....
Steve Blume <sbl...@REMOVEmediaone.net> wrote in message
news:GWlg4.18902$L4.41...@rmnws01.ce.mediaone.net...
Steve Knight
wrote:
>Sunday and Monday BestBuy is selling the Polaroid 320 for $50. 320x240
>resolution, 2mb memory. I haven't used it and have found no reviews on the
>web or comments in deja, but for $50... Also, for bargain hunters, I might
>suggest www.salescircular.com. They comb the Sunday newspaper ads and
>catagorize the bargains. Worth a look.
try to get a good price on a kodak dc 120 or so. even a dc 50 is a good camera.
but do not go lower in price then about 160.00 you just get junk.
Knight's Toolworks & Custom Furniture Galoot Made Products-
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://home.pacifier.com/~stevek/webpics
For prices and ordering instructions.
Records and tapes turned into CD's Save your vinyl and still enjoy it
Visit Http://www.pacifier.com/~stevek/ for details.
Don Sterner
<sbl...@REMOVEmediaone.net> wrote:
>Sunday and Monday BestBuy is selling the Polaroid 320 for $50. 320x240
>resolution, 2mb memory. I haven't used it and have found no reviews on the
>web or comments in deja, but for $50... Also, for bargain hunters, I might
>suggest www.salescircular.com. They comb the Sunday newspaper ads and
>catagorize the bargains. Worth a look.
240x320 is horrendus resolution. Even at $50, it's overpriced, in
my opinion. Today's digital cameras are at least 768x1024 or
better.
Try taking some of your favorite digitized images and using
software like Paint Shop Pro to change them to 240x320 and see
what you think.
SteveR
wrote:
> On the digital photography newsgroup I looked at a few days ago to
>figure this out for myself, the consensus was stick to Sony, Oly or
>Kodak, with votes in about that order. Sony saves to floppy disk,
On rec.photo.digital? A consensus for Sony? I don't think so! Those
Mavicas are crap. The floppy is the worst possible storage medium.
Low capacity, hard to handle, big, fragile. Ugh.
>concievably a big savings. Also has video camcorder type batteries
>which are apparently very much more frugal than conventional types.
>
>I have had a bad experience with my Agfa -- chosen because it seemed
>reasonably priced and had USB connectivity built in, so I didn't need
>to buy a separate card reader. Paid $399, plus a bunch more for the
>accessories (extra memory card, macro filter and AC adapter) but have
>lately seen it listed for under $300. Mine eats batteries like crazy
>and has now apparently been crippled by a Y2K bug.
What kind of batteries? If you're using ordinary alkalines, it's
gonna run through them like the proverbial hot knife through butter.
"Frugal" isn't always buying the cheapest, you know. In this case, a
set of good NiMH cells and a quality charger is definitely the
lowest-cost way to go, not to mention the far better performance. Of
course, if all you're looking at is the price sticker on the
package....
A Y2K bug???? No way. The camera couldn't care less what year it is.
Agfa has no reports of Y2K problems on their consumer camera lines. A
few issues of their camera-related software may require no-charge
updates. Get a set of decent batteries and it will probably come back
to life.
>In one article I looked at, someone suggested that the Barbie digicam,
Barbie -- now there's a name sure to set the world of digital
photography on fire. Look out, Nikon! Watch it, Kodak! There's a
new player in town and she's big and baaaad!
SteveR
m.a.i.l.t.o.:
s.r.r.2 a.t r.c.n d.o.t c.o.m
Steve Blume
better passed by. Good to hear from someone who's had hands-on experience.
Steve
Melissa
saw a review or advertisement in a computer magazine. We have an HP C30,
which is great for online auctions pictures and basic use. The zoom isn't so
hot but it takes great regular pictures. I didn't go with a Sony because I
didn't want to have to keep track of so many floppies.
Melissa
Bob Ward wrote in message ...
>On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:20:11 -0500, SteveR <ple...@see.sig> wrote:
>
>>On 15 Jan 2000 21:46:46 GMT, Katie Bretsch <kata...@spiritone.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> On the digital photography newsgroup I looked at a few days ago to
>>>figure this out for myself, the consensus was stick to Sony, Oly or
>>>Kodak, with votes in about that order. Sony saves to floppy disk,
>>
>>On rec.photo.digital? A consensus for Sony? I don't think so! Those
>>Mavicas are crap. The floppy is the worst possible storage medium.
>>Low capacity, hard to handle, big, fragile. Ugh.
>
>Or cheap, easy to store, readily available... depends on your point of
>view. In my experience, the Mavica is just about perfect for Real
>Estate and property management, saving thousands of dollars per year
>in processing costs over conventional film and processing.
>
>If Sony ever adds the LS120 120 MB superFloppy to the Mavica line,
>they will be harder to beat.
Katie Bretsch
drive. I agree that that is a pretty attractive option.
I have the advantage of using the Oly and Mavica both at work. Oly
seems to have somewhat nicer picture quality. However, I like the
convienience of the floppy very much. No special software or cables
needed. No delay to speak of in getting your shots where you can start
to work with them.
I'll stand by my assertion on what I believe to be a Y2K problem with
what I've got. It has a very unmistakable problem holding dates, since
the turnover. They revert to 1990 and it doesnt' want to take new pix.
I will say the company is responding very well. I've taken it up via
the support function on their web site. If they follow through as well
as they've started, I expect to end up happy.
Good point on the batteries. Will try the NiMH.
David Meyers
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 00:20:11 -0500, SteveR <ple...@see.sig> wrote:
> >On rec.photo.digital? A consensus for Sony? I don't think so! Those
> >Mavicas are crap. The floppy is the worst possible storage medium.
> >Low capacity, hard to handle, big, fragile. Ugh.
>
> Or cheap, easy to store, readily available... depends on your point of
Floppies are pretty silly. Ya, cheap, readily available,
and generally far less reliable and fragile, not to mention
much more fragile mechanisms - spinning mechanical disks vs.
solid state, no-moving-parts devices. It's not like you
are going to store the pics on the floppies long-term
anyway - just like with smartmedia or compact flash,
you are going to copy from the removeable media to your
hard drive.
My toshiba camera (which I got cheap, but wouldn't
recommend, mostly because it doesn't have a flash, and
the delay after pressing the shutter button is too
long) uses the smartmedia cards and I love them. I got
a device (about the size of a pack of cards) which plugs
into my USB port and takes both CF and Smartmedia - you
just pop the card into the device and the thing shows
up on the desktop like a disk. Very cool and very fast.
I loved my Kodak, but it was one of their very first
consumer models - a DC40 - before they were using any
removeable media and the serial line was a pain.
There don't really seem to be any digital cameras that
are well worth buying new now for under, say, $300.
If you can't spend that much, I'd suggest sticking
with film and when you get it developed, either get
copies on disk or, for under $100, you can get a
scanner. In the long run, if you take a lot of pictures,
this works out to be _more_ expensive, especially if
you don't really need the quality of photos one gets
with a decent film camera and just want to put pics
on the web or something.
--d
Great Atlanta Real Estate Agent
about. I have heard of red hat and some of the other subjects. I've decided
to get a book on it from my local library. Thanks for the site referral
though. I'll use it when I know more about the subject. Did I mention that I
know very little about my computer and feel that at my advanced age, I should
just concentrate on expanding areas that I have "real" interest. Real estate
and the next place for the family vacation. I do try to keep up with things
that are "HOT" and Linux keeps cropping up. Your explanation I could follow.
Thanks again.
Bix1
the USB cable to work. Their tech-support never responded to emails. So this
camera is just sitting there.
I then went through a 6 month, pre-shopping research process. I lurked on
rec.photo.digital, and asked questions. I read reviews, and did comparison
shopping. I did searches on the Internet.
There are some good, basic cameras for around $200. Each has it's own peculiar
strengths and weaknesses. I decided that I would be happier by buying a
quality camera for around $500 because it had more bells and whistles, and I
thought that it would keep me happy for a longer time. I waited and saved my
pennies and bought an Olympus 450Z, batteries and charger, and a smartmedia
reader.I have been very happy with my decision. That JamCam experience left a
bad taste.
You can buy an Olympus 340R at Wal-Mart for around $250, and it takes excellent
pictures.
Nancy
> What is a good recommendation on a digital camera? I want to be able to
>take close-ups of items for re-sale on e-bay.
> They sell cheap ones for about a hundred bucks. The better quality cameras
>run in the area of 3-4 hundred dollars.
Nancy Bixby
bix1n...@aolnospam.com Feel free to remove the 'nospam' from my address
to reply.
Nick Knight
Try the UMAX Astracam. It has a PalmPilot-like cradle that
you sit the camera in and it uploads (Via USB) instantly to your
computer. Has 4 mb of memory that can store 46 pics at low
(640x480) res. Two drawbacks; No flash and you must really hold the
camera steady and the subjects cannot move or you get a blurry
picture. Picked mine up at Buy.com for $169