Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan & Dimage 7 camera




----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Allen" <ktrout@hotmail.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan & Dimage 7 camera


> Steve wrote:
>
> >A Casio QV3500 + 340 MB microdrive (250 high res jpegs [and you can
delete
> >the bad ones to make way for more]) can be had for less than the price of
a
> >35mm camera with 28-70 zoom + half decent film scanner (Acer 2740).
>
> Isn't that a little *harsh*, Steve? I suppose the difference between "half
> decent" and "competent" isn't enough to argue over, but I'd submit that
Acer
> scans are at least 85% "decent," even though I belly-ache about them often
> enough. ;-)
>

Fair enough, poor use of English. What I really meant was that, judging by
opinion here, anything significantly cheaper is so poor in comparison that
it is not worth considering.

> Depending on what 35mm camera you're talking about (even so-so SLR's are
> around 200+ $US around here, body only), you're talking $600-850, which
will
> buy a *good* mid-range digital camera from any number of mfgrs, but not a
> Coolpix. Since I'm planning to get a DC for my daughter, I'm
> hyper-interested in the subject. Casio doesn't quite ring bells, but I
might
> very well be overlooking something.
>

I bought my Casio almost by "accident". There were the first round of 3MP
cameras being reviewed on the web ( I particularly like Steve's reviews
http://www.steves-digicams.com/ ). I decided I'd upgrade my JVC GCS1 which
was pretty awful (half-decent would be a gross exageration) but was still
good enough to get me hooked. I went for a browse round a few internet sites
to see how much the 2MP cameras had dropped in price when I happened across
the 3MP QV3000 for more than a 100 less than the cheapest price of the
equivalent 2MP model. I couldn't find the credit card quick enough. I have
always been delighted with the Casio. Sure the Nikon 990 has very marginally
better absolute image quality is probably a bit more solid and it has one of
those marvellous twisty lens designs (don't let anyone tell you otherwise)
but ultimately it was nearly twice the 430 price and you can't use the
wonderful microdrive.

Days after purchasing the camera I put these samples on the web (I was one
of the first owners).

http://www.greenbank.themutual.net/qv3000.htm

When I took the samples I was trying to induce the best known digital
problems jaggies and purple fringeing.

If there is significant interest here e-mail me off list and I will write a
mini review and post a few samples and expose what I have found to be the
significant problems with the QV3000 much of which applies to many 3MP
digicams.

In general it has been much better than I ever expected and I use it much
more than my two 35mm cameras. Kids in particular love it.

Steve

> OTOH, we might *both* be under our respective kitchen tables when this
> discussion hits the List. ;-)
>
> Best regards--LRA
>
>
>
> >From: "Steve Greenbank" <steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk>
> >Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> >To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan & Dimage 7 camera
> >Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:56:19 +0100
> >
> >A Casio QV3500 + 340 MB microdrive (250 high res jpegs [and you can
delete
> >the bad ones to make way for more]) can be had for less than the price of
a
> >35mm camera with 28-70 zoom + half decent film scanner (Acer 2740).
> >
> >On screen or in smaller prints there is little between them except the
huge
> >depth of field on the digicam pictures. Yes there are still some quality
> >problems with digicams but there are also some benefits no dust, no
> >scratches, no grain, no fingerprints, no human processing f**k ups,
> >immediate feedback, exposure latitude, slower shutter speeds can be hand
> >held, macro pictures are much easier to take, decent results out of the
box
> >unlike the damn scanner.
> >
> >I have little doubt that 35mm film quality will soon be surpassed in MOST
> >respects by prosumer digicams. Like with CD and vinyl some people will
> >maintain that analogue is better for quite some time, but ultimately 99%
> >will convert to digital.
> >
> >The original poster was talking about using one for web pictures - I'd
say
> >he'd be completely mad to use film.
> >
> >I'm just off to hide under the kitchen table ( as once advised by the UK
> >government in the event of nuclear attack!!).
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Rob Geraghty" <harper@wordweb.com>
> >To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> >Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 1:49 PM
> >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Minolta DiMAGE Scan & Dimage 7 camera
> >
> >
> > > "rafeb" <rafeb@channel1.com> wrote:
> > > > Oh, indeed.  I think digital cameras are closing fast
> > > > on 35 mm format.  In another year or two there really
> > > > won't be any reason left to shoot 35 mm film.
> > >
> > > Only if the prices also come down.  I can't see the point in buying a
> >3Mpix
> > > digicam when I can buy a good 35mm SLR for half the price.  The
digicams
> >at
> > > 35mm type resolution are going to be expensive for a while yet...
> > >
> > > Rob
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.