On 28/10/2011 08:18, Steerpike wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:34 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:49:36 +0100, Paul Corfield

wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:03:52 +0100, JakeNospam@invalid wrote:

Posting to thank all those who gave advice in response to my post a
while ago about acquiring a new digital camera.

I took my time (and a lot of time of a very helpful chap in one of the
stores of a certain national chain) and ended up with a Canon
Powershot G12 (which I bought online). I thought that 342 with an
extra battery, case, SD card and mini tripod was a reasonable price so
please don't tell me I could have got it cheaper!

Who did you buy from at that price?

A rioter?

Looks like you've got a good
deal.

--

Martin

If money is an issue but you are interested in high quality results
you would have been far better of with a used DSLR, rather than a G12.
These cameras are just fine for anyone with limited photographic
ambitions, but the fact that you cannot change the lens, means they
are far from ideal for more serious photography.

Depends whether those spiders are in your own back yard or whether
you'll be lugging loads of equipment around on your impromptu walks.

On 28/10/2011 09:36, stuart noble wrote:
On 28/10/2011 08:18, Steerpike wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:34 pm, wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:49:36 +0100, Paul Corfield

wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:03:52 +0100, JakeNospam@invalid wrote:

Posting to thank all those who gave advice in response to my post a
while ago about acquiring a new digital camera.

I took my time (and a lot of time of a very helpful chap in one of the
stores of a certain national chain) and ended up with a Canon
Powershot G12 (which I bought online). I thought that 342 with an
extra battery, case, SD card and mini tripod was a reasonable price so
please don't tell me I could have got it cheaper!

Who did you buy from at that price?

A rioter?

Looks like you've got a good
deal.

If money is an issue but you are interested in high quality results
you would have been far better of with a used DSLR, rather than a G12.

It would have to be a used SLR *and* a decent quality macro lens for the
sort of close-ups that he wants to do. The advantage for the SLR would
be that you can use a ring flash easily on the physically larger body.

I don't know if anyone does a LED or flash addon intended for P&S
cameras. They are available for SLRs for a range of prices.

eg http://www.srb-griturn.com/led-macro...ght-1710-p.asp

These cameras are just fine for anyone with limited photographic
ambitions, but the fact that you cannot change the lens, means they
are far from ideal for more serious photography.

Depends whether those spiders are in your own back yard or whether
you'll be lugging loads of equipment around on your impromptu walks.

Sometimes it is more important to have a small camera with you and get
the shot than have a bag full of gear in the car. I use a slim Ixus
100IS as my always with me camera - it replaces an ageing IxusV.

The only thing where P&S really falls down is on shutter lag compared to
the hair trigger and repetition rate of a full DSLR.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

These cameras are just fine for anyone with limited photographic
ambitions, but the fact that you cannot change the lens, means they
are far from ideal for more serious photography.

Depends whether those spiders are in your own back yard or whether
you'll be lugging loads of equipment around on your impromptu walks.

Sometimes it is more important to have a small camera with you and get
the shot than have a bag full of gear in the car. I use a slim Ixus
100IS as my always with me camera - it replaces an ageing IxusV.

The only thing where P&S really falls down is on shutter lag compared to
the hair trigger and repetition rate of a full DSLR.


I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really
felt the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-)

"stuart noble" wrote in message
...

These cameras are just fine for anyone with limited photographic
ambitions, but the fact that you cannot change the lens, means they
are far from ideal for more serious photography.

Depends whether those spiders are in your own back yard or whether
you'll be lugging loads of equipment around on your impromptu walks.

Sometimes it is more important to have a small camera with you and get
the shot than have a bag full of gear in the car. I use a slim Ixus
100IS as my always with me camera - it replaces an ageing IxusV.

The only thing where P&S really falls down is on shutter lag compared to
the hair trigger and repetition rate of a full DSLR.


I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really felt
the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-)

I have a Fuji 6 Megs which slips into my shirt pocket when we are cruising.
Got it in the first instance when we went on a World Cruise and it has
served us well on subsequent cruises. When we cruised to the Arctic, my wife
used this one.

For more detailed and professional use I have a Samsung GX10 which I use for
photo shoots. I use this one for all the Theatre shots, especially if they
are going into the local press. I had one in last week's paper and another
one this week. It's a bit bulky though and if I take a lens change, battery
and spare card, then I need a shoulder bag. This is the one I now take
cruising. Have to be careful where we go ashore though, some places are
'iffy' so I leave that one back on board.

Mike


--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................

In article , 'Mike'
writes
I have a Fuji 6 Megs which slips into my shirt pocket when we are cruising

I guess I'm probably the only one that got a very unpleasant image from
that sentence...

--
regards andyw

"news" wrote in message
...
In article , 'Mike'
writes
I have a Fuji 6 Megs which slips into my shirt pocket when we are cruising

I guess I'm probably the only one that got a very unpleasant image from
that sentence...

--
regards andyw


No doubt the regulars on this newsgroup/forum (urg/gardenbanter) will manage
to add some rubbish to this posting. They usually do take every opportunity
to have a dig ............ the gardening connection :-)) ............ at me.
Although I must say it is the urg contributors who are the normal ones to
have a go.

You just watch :-))

Mike

--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................

On Oct 28, 12:27*pm, news wrote:
In article , 'Mike'
writes

I have a Fuji 6 Megs which slips into my shirt pocket when we are cruising

I guess I'm probably the only one that got a very unpleasant image from
that sentence...

--
regards * andyw

The idea of a 75 yr old cruising between the public toilets of the IOW
is not that nice a thing to think about............lol

"Steerpike" wrote in message
...
On Oct 28, 12:27 pm, news wrote:
In article , 'Mike'
writes

I have a Fuji 6 Megs which slips into my shirt pocket when we are
cruising

I guess I'm probably the only one that got a very unpleasant image from
that sentence...

--
regards andyw

The idea of a 75 yr old cruising between the public toilets of the IOW
is not that nice a thing to think about............lol
.................................................. ........
.................................................. ........



""""No doubt the regulars on this newsgroup/forum (urg/gardenbanter) will
manage
to add some rubbish to this posting. They usually do take every opportunity
to have a dig ............ the gardening connection :-)) ............ at me.
Although I must say it is the urg contributors who are the normal ones to
have a go.

You just watch :-))

Mike"""


..............................


Right again wasn't I?

:-)))))

They slink off with their tails between their legs, then pop up from time to
time :-))

Kindest regards

Mike

--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble
wrote:



I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really
felt the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-)

I remember reading not that many years ago that 5 megapixels was about
the same definition as "professional" "film" cameras (remember those?)
and there was no need to go any higher.

OTOH, I have a magazine somewhere from the latter half of the 80s
which maintained that 64K of memory and 120 megabytes of hard disk
capacity would be enough to see me through my lifetime of computing
needs!

I've taken (what I think are) better shots with the 3.5 megapixel
camera in my mobile phone than with a 10 megapixel camera that the G12
has now replaced. I think there's a lot more to life than megapixels.

Cheers, Jake
================================================== ===========
URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about
the same moisture-wise as the more wet end.

The cat's web site is at www.pillie.me.uk.

On 29/10/2011 13:04, Jake wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble
wrote:



I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really
felt the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-)

I remember reading not that many years ago that 5 megapixels was about
the same definition as "professional" "film" cameras (remember those?)
and there was no need to go any higher.

OTOH, I have a magazine somewhere from the latter half of the 80s
which maintained that 64K of memory and 120 megabytes of hard disk
capacity would be enough to see me through my lifetime of computing
needs!

It's the motorway principle. The more capacity the more traffic

I've taken (what I think are) better shots with the 3.5 megapixel
camera in my mobile phone than with a 10 megapixel camera that the G12
has now replaced. I think there's a lot more to life than megapixels.


I missed the annual starling visit yesterday. By the time I had one hand
on the camera they had stripped an elderberry tree and were on their way.

On Oct 29, 1:04*pm, Jake Nospam@invalid wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble

wrote:

I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really
felt the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-)

I remember reading not that many years ago that 5 megapixels was about
the same definition as "professional" "film" cameras (remember those?)
and there was no need to go any higher.

OTOH, I have a magazine somewhere from the latter half of the 80s
which maintained that 64K of memory and 120 megabytes of hard disk
capacity would be enough to see me through my lifetime of computing
needs!

I've taken (what I think are) better shots with the 3.5 megapixel
camera in my mobile phone than with a 10 megapixel camera that the G12
has now replaced. I think there's a lot more to life than megapixels.

Cheers, Jake
================================================== ===========
URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about
the same moisture-wise as the more wet end.

The cat's web site is atwww.pillie.me.uk.

The number of pixels is to a large extent a good sales gimmick, and in
general you would find that a 5 meg DSLR which is optically superior
to an 8 meg PAS, will produce much better pictures!

Seems strange that no one much seems to have grasped this, and also
seem unaware of the size that pics would be if printed at full
resolution.

But then again if you bought from one of the chains, you will have
certainly have had to listen to bullshit about a PAS with more pixels,
being superior to a DSLR with less..............

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 06:54:46 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike
wrote:



But then again if you bought from one of the chains, you will have
certainly have had to listen to bullshit about a PAS with more pixels,
being superior to a DSLR with less..............

I didn't and no, there wasn't any. I used a store merely to get hands
on comparison between cameras and the shop chap knew from the start
that I was over 100 miles from home with time to kill and wouldn't be
buying anything that day or, indeed, ever from that shop. Maybe he was
bored but whatever.

I discounted DSLR on the simple ground of bulk without any help from
the assistant (but having thought long and hard about comments made in
response to my post a while back).

I chose the camera I did simply because I preferred it to the others I
played with in the store, and all credit to the assistant for allowing
me loads of time to get touchy feely with the various cameras. And to
be fair he said something about megapixel count being one of the last
things I should think about.


Cheers, Jake
================================================== ===========
URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about
the same moisture-wise as the more wet end.

The cat's web site is at www.pillie.me.uk.

"Jake" Nospam@invalid wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 06:54:46 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike
wrote:



But then again if you bought from one of the chains, you will have
certainly have had to listen to bullshit about a PAS with more pixels,
being superior to a DSLR with less..............

I didn't and no, there wasn't any. I used a store merely to get hands
on comparison between cameras and the shop chap knew from the start
that I was over 100 miles from home with time to kill and wouldn't be
buying anything that day or, indeed, ever from that shop. Maybe he was
bored but whatever.

I discounted DSLR on the simple ground of bulk without any help from
the assistant (but having thought long and hard about comments made in
response to my post a while back).

I chose the camera I did simply because I preferred it to the others I
played with in the store, and all credit to the assistant for allowing
me loads of time to get touchy feely with the various cameras. And to
be fair he said something about megapixel count being one of the last
things I should think about.


Cheers, Jake
================================================== ===========
URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about
the same moisture-wise as the more wet end.

The cat's web site is at www.pillie.me.uk.

Jake, don't try and argue with Chris. He is a mental case and will have the
last word. Just let him get on with it. He is an expert in everything except
giving praise to anybody because he knows best.

If you want to wind him up, mention Freemasonry.

Now watch him come back and have a go at me.

He's a sad case.

Mike


--

....................................

Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive.

....................................

On Oct 29, 3:32*pm, Jake Nospam@invalid wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 06:54:46 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike

wrote:

But then again if you bought from one of the chains, you will have
certainly have had to listen to bullshit about a PAS with more pixels,
being superior to a DSLR with less..............

I didn't and no, there wasn't any. I used a store merely to get hands
on comparison between cameras and the shop chap knew from the start
that I was over 100 miles from home with time to kill and wouldn't be
buying anything that day or, indeed, ever from that shop. Maybe he was
bored but whatever.

I discounted DSLR on the simple ground of bulk without any help from
the assistant (but having thought long and hard about comments made in
response to my post a while back).

I chose the camera I did simply because I preferred it to the others I
played with in the store, and all credit to the assistant for allowing
me loads of time to get touchy feely with the various cameras. And to
be fair he said something about megapixel count being one of the last
things I should think about.

Cheers, Jake
================================================== ===========
URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about
the same moisture-wise as the more wet end.

The cat's web site is atwww.pillie.me.uk.

Thats good to hear! An awful lot of people actually believe BS about
pixel count, which is in reality complete nonsense.

"Jake" Nospam@invalid wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble
wrote:
I've taken (what I think are) better shots with the 3.5 megapixel
camera in my mobile phone than with a 10 megapixel camera that the G12
has now replaced. I think there's a lot more to life than megapixels.


Canon reduced the megapixel count from the G10 to 10mpxl on the G11 to
improve the noise when using high ISO ratings.

You are right when you say there is more to life than megapixels.

Bill