Jusoda Kid 1 Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 much about them. Want something for taking decent photos from a distance, say from Spillers on the quayside to Peasepud's apartment or the Tyne Bridge. Will this do the trick and is it any good? http://www.comet.co.uk/comet/html/cache/615_267732.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 much about them. Want something for taking decent photos from a distance, say from Spillers on the quayside to Peasepud's apartment or the Tyne Bridge. Will this do the trick and is it any good? http://www.comet.co.uk/comet/html/cache/615_267732.html 33812[/snapback] Now thats some zoom lens! Emmmm I hope Comets shut cos I sure dont want you takin any pictures tonight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted September 15, 2005 Author Share Posted September 15, 2005 much about them. Want something for taking decent photos from a distance, say from Spillers on the quayside to Peasepud's apartment or the Tyne Bridge. Will this do the trick and is it any good? http://www.comet.co.uk/comet/html/cache/615_267732.html 33812[/snapback] Now thats some zoom lens! Emmmm I hope Comets shut cos I sure dont want you takin any pictures tonight 33815[/snapback] Tranny night is it? Don't forget to take that nail varnish off for work in the morning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip2388 0 Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 (edited) I got a Sony T7 for 200 quid on holiday and its quality. Should also mention when you buy a camera you will normally get a 32MB which doesn't hold much, get a 256 or higher depending on how many pictures you take. One 4million pixel picture is roughly 1MB Edited September 15, 2005 by chip2388 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally 0 Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Me Dad just bought this ridiculous thing http://www.comet.co.uk/comet/html/cache/615_257001.html Waste of money or what?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 Almost all the named brands are good - especially those made by camera manufacturers -you need to look at the lens (much as you would for a conventional one) eg what zoom you get etc Also get as much memory as you can - and you'll need two cards to swap them out when one is full - plus something to download them with of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 2934 Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 They are the polaroid of the new millenium, good for home made porn and that's about it! But if you must, just as others have said and this applies to all cameras, it is about the lens. The better the quality the better the picture. If you must and can afford it try here: happy snappy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 35528 Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 They are the polaroid of the new millenium 33903[/snapback] Cobblers. They're here to stay as the mainstay of consumer-level photography. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 2934 Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 (edited) They are the polaroid of the new millenium 33903[/snapback] Cobblers. They're here to stay as the mainstay of consumer-level photography. 33905[/snapback] Did you just say cobblers???? Gemmill yes and no. The thing about digital cameras is that most people buy cheap and below average quality because they don't know any better. Do you remember 110 film? It was the stills version of 8mm and although it was film the quality was average because of the size of the film. Plus as I stated most people won't worry about the lens and no matter what the actual back is if the lens is cheap and nasty that is what you get, just like with the 110 cameras. The company I work for also has a stills department and I can tell you that the move to digital cameras at a professional level has been very tentative. A professional camera back costs 10k Australian plus and the lens they use are the same they have for their 35mm cameras - all rather costly. Most people won't go to half that level, hence the polariod comment. People are happy to buy a cheap, fixed focal length digital camera or even worse one with a digital zoom. Which is fine and dandy if you just want to look at it on the lcd at the back of the camera or on your computer monitor but if you want to print it and hang it on your wall, well good luck. Edited September 16, 2005 by sammynb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 I bought this one and I've had really good results of landscapes in the Lakes and Scotland. It's got all the manual functions but you can just use it as a point and click too(if you know nowt about photography, like me): http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B...9421282-8001441 You'll have to buy a memory card too though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 A mate of mine is the UK Sales Director for a major Japanese camera company - he seels cameras to the Popular Press, Scene of Crime, Scientific as well as the usual suspects He backs the traditional format for SERIOUS portrait, landscape phototgraphy and htinks that it will be 5-10 years before they go digital On the Sports/action/Journo front he reckons the trad cameras have more options (lenses, motor drives etc) which gives them an edge - but only for now He beleives that so far digital has just been a REPLACEMENT for film - no-one (yet) has come up with a camera which uses half the capability of digital recording but people in the Far East have some very interesting ideas............................ For 75% of the population digital is fine - and will give most people better results than film Anyway no-one ever looks at their photos more than about twice on average............................................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 The comment about digital being the new polaroid is nonsense. Digital photography is effectively free once you have bought the equipment and that is what appeals to most punters. The level of resolution is now at a level where normal size photos are as good as you'll need. I just bought this as it has enough "point and shoot" ease of use but with some features I can explore as I get better at photography. http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=1863 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammynb 2934 Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 The comment about digital being the new polaroid is nonsense. Digital photography is effectively free once you have bought the equipment and that is what appeals to most punters. The level of resolution is now at a level where normal size photos are as good as you'll need. I just bought this as it has enough "point and shoot" ease of use but with some features I can explore as I get better at photography. http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=1863 34025[/snapback] Read my comment for what it is, a comment on digital camera's quality of image. Man some people! As for your second comment, yeah foreskin your computer monitor will look great hanging on the wall so you can display it because your crappy point and shot will never give you the opportunity to print anything bigger than a postcard size image. As Mr T once said, I pity the fool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asprilla 96 Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 The comment about digital being the new polaroid is nonsense. Digital photography is effectively free once you have bought the equipment and that is what appeals to most punters. The level of resolution is now at a level where normal size photos are as good as you'll need. I just bought this as it has enough "point and shoot" ease of use but with some features I can explore as I get better at photography. http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=1863 34025[/snapback] Read my comment for what it is, a comment on digital camera's quality of image. Man some people! As for your second comment, yeah foreskin your computer monitor will look great hanging on the wall so you can display it because your crappy point and shot will never give you the opportunity to print anything bigger than a postcard size image. As Mr T once said, I pity the fool! 34445[/snapback] Yes, I always remember enlarging all the old photographs we used to take. Photo albums in my house were for losers. Huge great blow ups of our holidays would cover entire walls in our home. Wallpaper? Get away, here's a massive blown up photo of me on my first bike. Do you see? I never said I wanted to enlarge the images, nor do most people. In time, I'm sure that will be what they market 20 megapixel cameras as being able to do. For most people, it will be overkill. Like watching Coronation Street through your surround sound home cinema. Now, go back to your hi-tec world of blue tooth brushes and leave me alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 18049 Posted September 17, 2005 Share Posted September 17, 2005 The comment about digital being the new polaroid is nonsense. Digital photography is effectively free once you have bought the equipment and that is what appeals to most punters. The level of resolution is now at a level where normal size photos are as good as you'll need. I just bought this as it has enough "point and shoot" ease of use but with some features I can explore as I get better at photography. http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=1863 34025[/snapback] Read my comment for what it is, a comment on digital camera's quality of image. Man some people! As for your second comment, yeah foreskin your computer monitor will look great hanging on the wall so you can display it because your crappy point and shot will never give you the opportunity to print anything bigger than a postcard size image. As Mr T once said, I pity the fool! 34445[/snapback] I've got a Canon Ixus 400, which has 4.1 megapixels - had it for two years now and I'm still happy with it. Together with my high quality printer, I can assure you it will print perfect A4 size prints - no pixellation or blurring visible, even with a magnifying glass. Like I said this was two years ago. The present model is cheaper than when I bought it and now has a 7 megapixel array. I am sure this will be easily good enough for the vast majority of casual photographers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted September 18, 2005 Share Posted September 18, 2005 you guys are arguing over completely different things............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now