wrote in message
A couple weeks ago I bought a new HP camera. I also had to buy a new
card for it. because my older cards are no longer used (smart media).
This new camera is a 6.2MP. I am extremely dissatisfied with this
camera, and intend to return it next week. 1. The pictures are all
grainy, and just not clear and crisp like the ones I got on my older
camera. 2. This camera takes 2 AA batteries. I have gotten at most,
20 pictures from a pair of new alkaline batteries. My Olympus would
take hundreds of pictures from 4 AA batteries. (and I tried a
different brand of battery). 3. It has no viewfinder. Ya. it has the
digital screen, but I've never owned a camera without a viewfinder and
taking pictures at arms length is just uncomfortable is not weird.

So I have more than twice the MPs I had on my last camera, and the
pictures are terrible in comparison. I hate evereything about this
new camera, which is a HP M547.

I bought a Nikon Cook Pix. It is mediocre at best. The main feature that I
like is it fits in my shirt pocket.

Most marketers are selling megapixels and using crappy lenses. The
unknowing public knows that more MP is better, but they don't know why or
have any clue as to lens quality. I see many people viewing through he
screen and not the viewfinder. Holding the camera a foot away, inducing a
lot of shake, and wonder why the photo is blurry. Eliminating the
viewfinder makes for a smaller camera and saves money. Good enough for a
shot of the kids opening their gifts on Christmas morning, but far short of
that 16 x 20 portrait you want.

If you want good quality, don't mind the size, get a DSLR for $800 and up.
When I want to take serious photos, I get out my Olympus OM-2

In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

wrote in message
A couple weeks ago I bought a new HP camera. I also had to buy a new
card for it. because my older cards are no longer used (smart media).
This new camera is a 6.2MP. I am extremely dissatisfied with this
camera, and intend to return it next week. 1. The pictures are all
grainy, and just not clear and crisp like the ones I got on my older
camera. 2. This camera takes 2 AA batteries. I have gotten at most,
20 pictures from a pair of new alkaline batteries. My Olympus would
take hundreds of pictures from 4 AA batteries. (and I tried a
different brand of battery). 3. It has no viewfinder. Ya. it has the
digital screen, but I've never owned a camera without a viewfinder and
taking pictures at arms length is just uncomfortable is not weird.

So I have more than twice the MPs I had on my last camera, and the
pictures are terrible in comparison. I hate evereything about this
new camera, which is a HP M547.

I bought a Nikon Cook Pix. It is mediocre at best. The main feature that I
like is it fits in my shirt pocket.

Most marketers are selling megapixels and using crappy lenses. The
unknowing public knows that more MP is better, but they don't know why or
have any clue as to lens quality. I see many people viewing through he
screen and not the viewfinder. Holding the camera a foot away, inducing a
lot of shake, and wonder why the photo is blurry. Eliminating the
viewfinder makes for a smaller camera and saves money. Good enough for a
shot of the kids opening their gifts on Christmas morning, but far short of
that 16 x 20 portrait you want.

If you want good quality, don't mind the size, get a DSLR for $800 and up.
When I want to take serious photos, I get out my Olympus OM-2

I'll second the crappy lens issue. There's more to quality than
megapixels. And I'll second the shake issue, too. People are always
amazed by the quality of the pictures I get from my 2 megapixel
point-and-shoot Fuji. Here's my secret formula: I *always* use a tripod
and the self-timer, and *never* use the flash. (It also helps to think
about basic photographic concepts like camera angle!)

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

wrote in message
A couple weeks ago I bought a new HP camera. I also had to buy a new
card for it. because my older cards are no longer used (smart media).
This new camera is a 6.2MP. I am extremely dissatisfied with this
camera, and intend to return it next week. 1. The pictures are all
grainy, and just not clear and crisp like the ones I got on my older
camera. 2. This camera takes 2 AA batteries. I have gotten at most,
20 pictures from a pair of new alkaline batteries. My Olympus would
take hundreds of pictures from 4 AA batteries. (and I tried a
different brand of battery). 3. It has no viewfinder. Ya. it has the
digital screen, but I've never owned a camera without a viewfinder and
taking pictures at arms length is just uncomfortable is not weird.

So I have more than twice the MPs I had on my last camera, and the
pictures are terrible in comparison. I hate evereything about this
new camera, which is a HP M547.

I bought a Nikon Cook Pix. It is mediocre at best. The main feature
that I
like is it fits in my shirt pocket.

Most marketers are selling megapixels and using crappy lenses. The
unknowing public knows that more MP is better, but they don't know why or
have any clue as to lens quality. I see many people viewing through he
screen and not the viewfinder. Holding the camera a foot away, inducing
a
lot of shake, and wonder why the photo is blurry. Eliminating the
viewfinder makes for a smaller camera and saves money. Good enough for a
shot of the kids opening their gifts on Christmas morning, but far short
of
that 16 x 20 portrait you want.

If you want good quality, don't mind the size, get a DSLR for $800 and
up.
When I want to take serious photos, I get out my Olympus OM-2

I'll second the crappy lens issue. There's more to quality than
megapixels. And I'll second the shake issue, too. People are always
amazed by the quality of the pictures I get from my 2 megapixel
point-and-shoot Fuji. Here's my secret formula: I *always* use a tripod
and the self-timer, and *never* use the flash. (It also helps to think
about basic photographic concepts like camera angle!)

Another issue is the digital zoom. Based on my admittedly small sample of 4
people who've used my camera, 75% don't understand why digital zoom should
be turned off forever.

I got sears.com to match bestbuy's $140 for the Canon A560. With 1 gb sd card
and tax, 'twere $160 against my sears gift cards.

Picked it up last nite. Seems to be a good solid little cam.
Lots to learn, 'tho.

This was a very helpful thread. Much thanks to all respondents.

Cheers,
Peetie

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 18:32:21 GMT, Peetie Wheatstraw wrote:


Years ago I bought a cheapo Digital Concepts camera for $15 - 10 rebate.
Didn't even have a flash. Still works, but it's more a toy than a cam.

I'm strapped for cash, but I've got $150 in Sears gift cards. Figger
I'll buy myself a real beginners digcam for Xmas.

What's good? What's bad? I once asked an Office Max sales guy about
their display of maybe 20 cams and got blank, blank stares.

It's just me and my crazy dawg here. Do any beginners cams (bc's) have
something more sophisticated than 2 and 10 second shutter delays?

I assume they all have software that'll allow USB 2.0 downloads
to .jpg files and the like ...

The only bc's I've seen with as much as 1 yr warranty are Canon.

Sears has Canon PowerShot A560 7mp for $150. Anybody know anything about that
make/model? Know of anything better for comparable $?

Thx,
Peetie

In article , "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

If you want good quality, don't mind the size, get a DSLR for $800 and up.
When I want to take serious photos, I get out my Olympus OM-2

I own and love my DSLR but it's absolutely not necessary
in order to capture good pics.

Take a look at Wilson Tsoi's work with a crappy Canon
point-'n-shoot:

http://photo.net/photodb/presentatio...tion_id=317651

and then weap ;-)

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Malcolm Hoar" wrote in message
Take a look at Wilson Tsoi's work with a crappy Canon
point-'n-shoot:

http://photo.net/photodb/presentatio...tion_id=317651

and then weap ;-)

He proves that the most important piece of photo equipment is the human eye
and brain. Great stuff.

In article ,
Smitty Two wrote:

I *always* use a tripod

That sure takes "candid" and "spontaneous" out of the equation.

There's nothing quite like using 21st century equipment
with 19th century technique.
--
sigh
JR

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

75% [of users] don't understand why digital zoom should
be turned off forever.

Those are the same folks that probably print directly from the memory card
with no computer post production. In such cases, digital zoom is probably
appropriate.
--

JR

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:52:54 -0800, Smitty Two wrote:

I'll second the crappy lens issue. There's more to quality than
megapixels. And I'll second the shake issue, too. People are always
amazed by the quality of the pictures I get from my 2 megapixel
point-and-shoot Fuji. Here's my secret formula: I *always* use a tripod

Check.

and the self-timer,

Check.

and *never* use the flash.

Has it got 'auto' setting? Do you use it?
If not, what settings do you use.

(It also helps to think
about basic photographic concepts like camera angle!)

and lighting/glare/etc.

Thx,
Peetie

"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Smitty Two wrote:

I *always* use a tripod

That sure takes "candid" and "spontaneous" out of the equation.

There's nothing quite like using 21st century equipment
with 19th century technique.
--
sigh
JR

I don't do it "always" but in some cases, it certainly can make a better,
sharper, exposure. Especially in low light conditions or using moon light
for illumination.

"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Smitty Two wrote:

I *always* use a tripod

That sure takes "candid" and "spontaneous" out of the equation.

There's nothing quite like using 21st century equipment
with 19th century technique.


There's nothing 19th century about a tripod, and "candid" is not an issue
for certain types of photographs.

In article ,
Peetie Wheatstraw wrote:

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:52:54 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

I'll second the crappy lens issue. There's more to quality than
megapixels. And I'll second the shake issue, too. People are always
amazed by the quality of the pictures I get from my 2 megapixel
point-and-shoot Fuji. Here's my secret formula: I *always* use a tripod

Check.

and the self-timer,

Check.

and *never* use the flash.

Has it got 'auto' setting? Do you use it?
If not, what settings do you use.

It has an auto flash setting, but I get *much* better pictures without
the flash. So, I use the "flash off" setting. Keeps the shutter open
longer of course -- all the more reason for the tripod and self-timer.


(It also helps to think
about basic photographic concepts like camera angle!)

and lighting/glare/etc.

Thx,
Peetie

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Smitty Two wrote:

I *always* use a tripod

That sure takes "candid" and "spontaneous" out of the equation.

There's nothing quite like using 21st century equipment
with 19th century technique.


There's nothing 19th century about a tripod, and "candid" is not an issue
for certain types of photographs.

Exactly. For a point-and-shoot, there's no such thing as an action shot.
The camera just isn't designed for it.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

There's nothing 19th century about a tripod

"*always*" using a tripod was a requirement of 19th century photography.

and "candid" is not an issue for certain types of photographs.

Agreed. Portraiture comes to mind. Some of my best work was captured with my
camera atop a tripod.
--

JR

In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

I don't do it "always"

OK. I misunderstood the emphasized meaning of "*always*". A tripod is an
excellent tool but not very practical in most situations.

While I agree that, with even the best of today's P&S (POS?) cameras,
candid/spontaneous/action photography isn't practical. On the other hand, by
the time one gets the shot set up with the tripod, the subject has fallen
asleep, wandered away or wilted.

Fortunately, shutter lag is being gradually improved in entry-level, digital
cameras. To reduce shutter lag, turn OFF red-eye reduction and force the
flash to either ALWAYS fire or to NEVER fire. Although I don't know for sure,
I expect that turning off "face detection" and other such frills can only help
reduce shutter lag.

but in some cases, [a tripod] certainly can make a better, sharper, exposure.
Especially in low light conditions or using moon light for illumination.

Agreed. A tripod and cable release (or self timer) is essential when
capturing something like this, a couple, hundred feet from sho

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2217/2017810519_9911049622_b.jpg

....or this less-than-spectacular, spooky woods, winter shot:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2151/2102098449_b9cf374bb5_b.jpg

Here's one of my all-time faves. I "burned-down" over half a roll of 36
exposure film to capture this "perfect" shot using a tripod and my camera's
motor drive. I told my friend that, when he hears the shutter release, take
his shot. "I don't care if you hit anything, just shoot."

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2039/2018608932_587f0d1a42_o.jpg
--

JR

Canon EOS 20D

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:07:10 -0600, Jim Redelfs wrote:

Here's one of my all-time faves. I "burned-down" over half a roll of 36
exposure film to capture this "perfect" shot using a tripod and my camera's
motor drive. I told my friend that, when he hears the shutter release, take
his shot. "I don't care if you hit anything, just shoot."

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2039/2018608932_587f0d1a42_o.jpg

From what I can see in the pic, it looks like either of my cap 'n ball
Hawken kit-guns.

If he were shooting at game, and happened to miss with the ball, he'd
stand a fair chance of asphyxiating the game with the smoke. :-)

Good shot. With the cam, of course. g

Peetie