canasia.org

I checked for it on one of the review sites and it looks fairly bulky and doesn't look like a compact type camera like a Kodak CX 7530 for example or even the Sony I was telling you about. It looks more like a professional type camera. I am beginning to wonder if lots of people on this NG are photographers or serious amateur photographers.  It does look like one of the pro cameras but it isn't really. Its not that much more money here, taking into consideration the difference in our dollars. Our dollar dropped a lot last week because the US dollar strengthened more than it had in a while. It's sort of an optical illusion.  You see what it looks like and your mind, _base_d on past experience makes you think big camera . But it's quite small, actually, only 4/5 wider and taller than Canon's new A520.  But since its lens doesn't completely retract and it has a slightly larger than typical grip on the right side, it's quite a chubby little camera.  Even someone with fairly small hands can almost hide the entire camera by holding it in one hand. It looks kind of bulky though. the shape of it I mean. Actually it weighs 10.1 oz and the Fuji E510 is 6.2 opz. - most compact cameras weigh from 6-8 oz, not including the ultra compacts. so it does weigh more than most compacts, but still would be OK. It has a lot of good features. the 1.5 LCD would put me off, but you are probably some young guy with good vision and no glasses. I wear glasses which is such a nuisance.  There seems to be a large number of photographers or serious amateurs, but they're probably only the tip of the iceberg.  You don't see the majority of the less experienced camera users because they're not prolific posters like some of the more familiar names you see.  The largest group is probably made up of less-than-serious amateur photographers, but that's a category broad enough to include even newbies that just discovered that even inexpensive digital cameras can take much better pictures than they ever realized, once they learn a few simple basics. Well, you seem to have been here for a while so probably see all the comings and goings of people. I think there are so many helpful people here who are also very nice. I have a hard time keeping up with all the messages though. I download about 300 messages a day, but of course I only look at some messges, but even that takes me a while. I download other newsgroups but none of them come even close to the volume of messages on this NG. But its quite interesting. I have mainly only taken indoor family photos and when I went to Scotland two years ago and took tons of pictures, but its not like I am going to be travelling a great deal, though wish I was. I don't recall seeing your camera on my travels, though I haven't been looking at a camera that size. Looks like a good camera.  It's a fairly model.  When I got it last December it had just replaced the similar S5000.  But if you were looking for a large camera you would have missed 'em. I was looking for a less bulky shaped one, so DID miss it I was looking at a review of the Sony S60 I told you about and there is the S90 which came right after but is 2.5 compared to the S60 which is 2 . I saw the S60 in the store, but for some reason, it doesn't look like its 2 LCD. I saw another camera which was 2 and looked bigger. I can see a lot better with 2.5 LCD. I think the 2 LCD would be ok, as long as the viewfinder was fairly accurate and not too small like some of them are. The S60 I mentioned has a fairly small viewfinder, so maybe I need to get 2.5 LCD if its to be right for me. The problem is, what I want in a camera is more money than I can justify spending and maybe I should wait till prices come down some, if its not too long. Indoor family photos aren't that easy to do well with little cameras.  There's the redeye that you're already familiar with.  Flashes on the little cameras are usually very underpowered, which caused several problems. Yes, the infamous red eye. I still think a 35 mm causes less problems with red eye and the flashes one some 35 mms are quite strong. The one on my camera which was just a cheap camera,  goes quite far. But I don't have a digital camera to compare. Low power means the aperature needs to be open wider, reducing the depth of field.  If you have many people in the picture, they're usually arranged in a straight line, making the ones in the center closer to the camera than the people on the left and right sides.  People usually focus on those in the center, so the ones on the edges end up being a little blurrier.  In addition, if you're using flash, the ones in people in the center will get a disproportionately large amount of the flash's light, so once again the people on the edges suffer.  That's why I like the idea of an external flash, even with small, compact cameras.  It allows you to get further away from the people you're taking the pictures of, minimizing the effects of the two problems I just mentioned.  I don't have one yet myself, but that will be remedied soon, probably within a few months. I don't think I would ever get that much into photography , but a lot of people do. Well, the winter is over here now and yesterday it was 85F here. It gets hot too soon and created a lot of rain today, but it was warm rain like in the summer. But in a couple of days it is going back to 50, then it will jump up one of these days to 85F and more till September. So for cold weather, it will be next December or some years its January.  Same here (New York).  It was very cool until today when the temp. reached the 80's.  Flowers are blooming, and I can see it'll only be a few days before the annual attack of the tree pollen lays me low. It's almost worth it though.  Almost. When I watch the TV weather in the winter and summer, I notice that a lot of times New York city is many times similar to what it is in southern Ontario. After all, its only 9 hour drive from New York to here. haha. I have been in New York state many times years ago, in the Adirondacks around Lake Placid. It is beautiful there. I was in New York city about 30 years ago. I was much younger then Cathy I was also much younger 30 years ago.  Grin. My 'serious amateur' photographer days were more like 45 years ago.  Now I am one of those who has 'been there, done that', and developing and printing film doesn't appeal to me any more than does repairing my own cars.  I can still apply some of the knowledge I gained back then to make my pictures look pretty good, if I have time, though.  I used to program my own computers too, but those days are long past also. Neither does the thought of building my own catch my interest like it used to.  Does that mean I am getting old, or have I just passed that phase? I know my wife is glad I don't have electronic parts monopolizing the dining room table any more..  Grin.

It looks kind of bulky though. the shape of it I mean. Actually it weighs 10.1 oz and the Fuji E510 is 6.2 opz. - most compact cameras weigh from 6-8 oz, not including the ultra compacts. so it does weigh more than most compacts, but still would be OK. It has a lot of good features. the 1.5 LCD would put me off, but you are probably some young guy with good vision and no glasses. I wear glasses which is such a nuisance.   The larger displays are nice, but what would you use it for?  Even if the camera had one of the really large 3 displays I wouldn't use it to take the pictures.  I only use it to view the pictures after they've been taken.  If I want to check a picture to see if it was focused properly, the small 1.5 display is no problem because the picture can be zoomed (up to 14.2x) and scrolled left, right, up and down,  making it equivalent to a 21 display.  Much more than enough to see pretty fine detail.  I have glasses but never use them unless I'm in a car, as without them most small signs would be to blurry to read, especially at night.  I suspect that I'm a little older than you but it depends on which side of 1945 you happen to be on. Well, you seem to have been here for a while so probably see all the comings and goings of people. I think there are so many helpful people here who are also very nice. I have a hard time keeping up with all the messages though. I download about 300 messages a day, but of course I only look at some messges, but even that takes me a while.   Oh, I go back quite a ways.  All the way back to January of this year.  Before long we'll both seem like old timers if not quite old pros to some of the newbies that haven't yet wandered in.  Don't worry about not keeping up with all of the messages.  Many deserve to be skipped.  I tend to read threads that have interesting subjects, and automatically retrieve messages from a few of the people that consistently provide good information or are interesting. I can see a lot better with 2.5 LCD. I think the 2 LCD would be ok, as long as the viewfinder was fairly accurate and not too small like some of them are. The S60 I mentioned has a fairly small viewfinder, so maybe I need to get 2.5 LCD if its to be right for me. The problem is, what I want in a camera is more money than I can justify spending and maybe I should wait till prices come down some, if its not too long.   Again, I'm not sure what you'd be using the LCD for.  Most people are more comfortable taking pictures using the viewfinder.  Would you be using the LCD display to compose the picture or to get an idea of what it would look like, and then take the picture using the viewfinder, or something else? Yes, the infamous red eye. I still think a 35 mm causes less problems with red eye and the flashes one some 35 mms are quite strong. The one on my camera which was just a cheap camera,  goes quite far. But I don't have a digital camera to compare.   The 35 mm cameras only cause less redeye because they're larger, and can afford to place the flash farther from the lens.  There have been a few really small 35 mm cameras, and if they had flashes as close to the lens as compact digitals, they'd be just as bad with redeye.  It's nothing mysterious.   This is one thing you don't need a review to tell you which camera will better or worse with respect to redeye.  Bring a small ruler with you when you go to compare cameras.  Compare the distance from the center of the lens to the flashtube and you'll know which camera will be better and which will produce more redeye.  This also works if you want to compare 35mm to digital cameras.  It's the distance between the lens and the flash that matters.  The expensive pro digital cameras don't have much of a redeye problem, but they're either much larger, or use external flashes that move the flash even further from the lens. I was in New York city about 30 years ago. I was much younger then   Hey, me too!  I haven't yet had the pleasure of visiting Canada. Maybe someday, before or after Mexico. Unless you intend to go pretty far into Mexico, Canada is prettier.  If you can visit Victoria, you might not want to even think of the northern parts of Mexico again!  B. C. rivals Hawaii for beauty per square mile!

Well, a proprietary JPG format where you need Sony software to create might bother me. Most videos on point and shoot cameras seem to run with Avi, Media p_layer_, Quick time or jpgs. With the two Sonys I looked at, the both say on the de_script_ion on the net, that they do jpgs with stills and Mpeg with video, so I guess they mean audio and video is Mpeg. I don't know much about mpeg. I know its used for audio files, but I never download music files, so don't know if I have it on my computer or not or if it would cause inconvenience if it is proprietary software used only by Sony. Cathy Uhhh, have you ever watched a DVD movie?  Mpeg. Only on my DVD p_layer_ going to my TV. I have Quicktime, Media p_layer_, avi, wav on my computer. I don't watch DVD movies on my computer. If I had to use Mpeg from a camera video, how would I do that unless with the Sony software which was mentioned. If that is the only way it can be viewed of course.. Cathy Many different programs, including, I believe, Quicktime handle the format.  It IS the usual DVD format for movies. Besides, if you buy a Sony camera, they will provide the Sony software, if you want to use it.

<snip I think the camera you have is the _style_ with the lens at one end and the flash nearer the other. Thats probably good for not having much red eye. But the two new Sonys I looked at, are a different _style_ than the older _style_, and the lens and flash are closer than on the P200. I saw a P100 Sony a few months ago. It was red. I liked it, but I was just learning about digital cameras then. We don't seem to get many colored cameras here, though I don't know why. I quite like them. Cathy Yeah, colorful things like that appeal to the female mind.  I was looking at the new lines of cameras yesterday and found several that were quite small, and easily would fit into pocket or purse.  Of course the smaller they get, the closer the flash gets to the lens. You can't have everything. Well, maybe I liked the red one because it was different, and there doesn't seem to be many color cameras. They are mostly all silver, except one blue Sony I saw recently which I like. I have no idea if other females like color cameras or not. My car is red though. I want to be seen on the road by the nut cases driving around   Cathy Did you know that red cars are also favorites for being stopped by the police?  They get more speeding tickets than other colors.  Maybe it is because of the personality type that usually buys them.  As for being seen, the ONLY car I ever backed into (I was a teenager) was red.  It belonged to my brother... The color didn't help....