Posts: 1,626
Threads: 66
Joined: Feb 2003
I was flipping through the most recent issue of Popular Science (a pretty decent mag, if you ask me; about $18 for twelve issues), and came upon this little bit in their How 2.0 section. Apparently one can re-use a "disposable" digital camera with a little ingenuity, though I wouldn't say it's going to come to close to meeting even entry-level digital cameras.
Clickit.
ArrayPaladins were not meant to sit in the back of the raid staring at health bars all day, spamming heals and listening to eight different classes whine about buffs.[/quote]
The original Heavy Metal Cowâ¢. USDA inspected, FDA approved.
Posts: 3,499
Threads: 412
Joined: Feb 2003
There have been several articles on Slashdot about these single use digicams and how to hack them.
link
I expect that this sort of thing (the disposable digicam, not the hacking of said digicam) will become more and more popular as digital camera prices continue to drop. Hell, I paid over $300 CAD for a 2 megapixel Kodak camera a year and a half ago, and I could get the same one for about $100 now. For $300 I could get a nice 5 mp these days.
Posts: 523
Threads: 27
Joined: Mar 2003
The price dropping on cameras is hilarious from my point of view. I sell cameras to people all the time who come in looking for a 4+ megapixel camera. When I ask them what they're going to do with it, they say "take pictures of the kids, maybe print out a few small pictures or email them to friends." Most of them don't believe that the only thing they're getting over a 2 or 3 megapixel camera is a price increase.
It's nearly as funny as the customers who argue with us when we tell them there's no bell mobility coverage in thunder bay.
You can buy a digital camera for under $50 nowadays, and get decent* pictures. However, a word of advice for anyone who's been looking at digital cameras and doesn't know much about them -- it's not just about the megapixels. Look at what else you get for the deal (and I don't mean what the salesperson is going to 'throw in' on the deal). I bought a 2 megapixel cannon last year because it was a tiny little camera with an included lithium rechargable battery -- for my needs, more megapixel or zoom would be wasteful. However, I have always been happy with my battery :). Oh, and the camera's pretty slick, too. :P
gekko
"Life is sacred and you are not its steward. You have stewardship over it but you don't own it. You're making a choice to go through this, it's not just happening to you. You're inviting it, and in some ways delighting in it. It's not accidental or coincidental. You're choosing it. You have to realize you've made choices."
-Michael Ventura, "Letters@3AM"
Posts: 3,499
Threads: 412
Joined: Feb 2003
gekko,Jun 13 2004, 11:07 PM Wrote:I bought a 2 megapixel cannon last year Cannon makes the best digital cameras. I'm absolutely serious. A picture taken from a 2 mp Cannon often looks better than one taken from a 5 mp competitor.
If anyone is in the market for a digital camera, look at Cannon first. Sonys are also pretty decent.
I own a Kodak, and they are so-so. The outdoor pictures look fantabulous, but anything that requires a flash is hit or miss.
Posts: 523
Threads: 27
Joined: Mar 2003
I'm also a big fan of fuji cameras, particularly for "newbie" digital photographers. We (sisters and I) bought my parents a fuji a few years back for christmas. It's a 2 megapixel camera, and, while a little chunky for my tastes, it takes some of the best pictures I've ever seen taken on full automatic in almost any kind of situation. The new A330 and A340 (3 and 4 megapixels, respectively) are a great choice for anyone who's just getting into the camera game and wants an easy to use, mid-range camera.
gekko
"Life is sacred and you are not its steward. You have stewardship over it but you don't own it. You're making a choice to go through this, it's not just happening to you. You're inviting it, and in some ways delighting in it. It's not accidental or coincidental. You're choosing it. You have to realize you've made choices."
-Michael Ventura, "Letters@3AM"
Posts: 272
Threads: 16
Joined: Feb 2003
I have a 340A.
The picture quality is good for most uses (blown up to fill my 17" screen you can see a lack of detail occasionally, but printed at 6x4 ish look better than film). Although it is a little slow to put the picture down onto the card, and very slow to switch between modes.
I like the fact that the movie mode takes a full minute at high res and 3 minutes! at low res, which is somewhat fantastical for what is still an entry-level 'proper' digital camera.
The LCD is suprising useful, but does leave little details out when lining up pictures (but for that drawback, I've still never eriously used the optical viewfinder) and it even means that when we went on holiday earlier this year we could leave my grandmother in the car listening to a tape, while we climbed a mountain or something, took some piccies, and then bring them back for her to look at straight away, which she enjoyed viewing on the way to the next Dartmoor beauty-spot O.o.
Hey, I bought the camera, a case, a 64Mb XD card (to go with the 16Mb one that came with the camera), a charged and 2 Ni-MH batteries for £130, which should have cost £260 - so I can't complain.
If anyone has some web storage that I could use I can upload some sample piccies if anyone wants to have a looksee, or I could sign up for a geocities account.
Dee,
Clever tactic, a malicious LurkerLounging of slashdot, that will learn them.
-Bob
Posts: 1,913
Threads: 47
Joined: Jun 2003
I have a SONY dscp50 (or something with 2.1 Mpix). It is a good camera for me at least. The biggest problem is not to move it while making pictures. (that's why I ussualy drink a few beers before making pictures). But anyway, I think you are right that for normal use 2 or 3 mpix is enough. If I succeed in not shaking the camera while making pictures, they are always perfect. However I paid for the camera, + 64 MB memorycard, + infolithium rechargeable battery with adapter and the camerabag, in total something like 750 euro. This was almost 3 years ago (and the camera itsself was tax free). Man what I would get now for that kind of money..........
|
