From: Joachim Oppenheimer (jo.achim@verizon.net)
Date: 06/26/03-10:02:01 PM Z
I evesdropped on your advice and I am getting the bug. Any thoughts on the
Cannon G5 - specifically, do you think it's too little for a "real" digital
camera and, at about a pound, too clunky for a compact? I appreciate your
judgment. Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: FDanB@aol.com [mailto:FDanB@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 1:55 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: also digital camera question
You said in your message...
>Finally, any new wisdom on digital cameras? I want one light enough to
>stick in my purse and carry EVERYWHERE, but with enough pixels to make
>negatives 16 by 20. A friend in the biznez says Canon is now ahead of
>Nikon technically....Tho I'm not sure I want the latest bells & whistles.
>Maybe that's another e-mail? Well, not at 3:11 AM.... Sorry again.
Well Judy, how big is your purse?
Really nice 16x20s are only going to come from a higher resolution camera
and they are neither compact nor inexpensive. And yes, Canon is (for the
time being) in the lead.
If a "really sharp" 16x20 isn't on your wish list, there are some nice
compact cameras that do amazingly well. Canon's 4MP 400S is pretty sweet.
I'm using a tiny (fits in an Altoids tin with the lid closed) Pentax
Optio S. This little jewel is only 3.2MP but it's also just 4 oz. and
truly small enough to fit in a shirt pocket. It boots quickly and has
lots of features that I actually use. It's the handiest camera I've ever
owned.
For very good reviews of digital cameras click on the "reviews" link at
the following:
www.dpreview.com
Good luck!
Dan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 07/09/03-08:31:13 AM Z CST