Post by: Sandwich on July 19, 2003, 11:58:25 pm
Some highlights:
- 5.0 megapixels
- 4x optical zoom
- Infrared nightvision sight
- Movie (with sound) mode at 640x480 resolution, no minute limit
- Hologram laser AF assist
Post by: Knight Templar on July 20, 2003, 12:26:35 am
you can die now. :p
Post by: YodaSean on July 20, 2003, 12:28:12 am
Post by: RangerKarl on July 20, 2003, 12:29:31 am
Post by: Sandwich on July 20, 2003, 12:36:27 am
Yoda, it uses Sony's Memory Schtick, err... Stick. I simply use the "old" 128Mb stick I bought for my older Sony DSC-P20. But it's not quite as big with 5 megapixels as it was with 1.3 :p
Post by: Gloriano on July 20, 2003, 12:36:47 am
Post by: WMCoolmon on July 20, 2003, 01:50:45 am
Question: Is that 5 Megapixels for real? I remember my parents were looking into buying a new digital camera and found that sometimes the Megapixel label was inflated by use of interpolation and the like.
If it is, :eek:
Post by: J.F.K. on July 20, 2003, 05:17:29 am
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
The Sony DSC-V1 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscv1/)
Some highlights:
- 5.0 megapixels
- 4x optical zoom
- Infrared nightvision sight
- Movie (with sound) mode at 640x480 resolution, no minute limit
- Hologram laser AF assist
I HATE you! :eek2: In a good way, of course. That camera is both Eddie and I's dream camera... wow, how much did cost you?
PS. WMCoolmon, that's are definitely genuine 5MP. A few months ago there were a bunch of 6MP and 12MP cameras that achieved that res by interpolation - in reality they were closer to 4MP and 9MP in terms of detail and sharpness.
Post by: Turnsky on July 20, 2003, 05:29:08 am
Post by: Fineus on July 20, 2003, 05:41:38 am
Post by: Shrike on July 20, 2003, 05:50:04 am
Post by: J.F.K. on July 20, 2003, 05:56:57 am
Quote
Originally posted by Kalfireth
How much is that beauty?!
In Australian eBay, the best price I could find was AUD$950. Retail is about AUD$400 more than that. Ermm... where's a currency converter?
Post by: Fineus on July 20, 2003, 06:54:08 am
About £550...
Post by: Carl on July 20, 2003, 07:41:00 am
Post by: mikhael on July 20, 2003, 10:10:15 am
Post by: an0n on July 20, 2003, 10:44:14 am
Where's the challenge when no matter what you point it at you're going to get an image with perfect scaling, lighting, texturing and shape?
It's like having a bike-making contest and giving each contestant a fully automated Harley Davidson factory.
Post by: Sandwich on July 20, 2003, 12:37:33 pm
Quote
Originally posted by an0n
Pfff. Photo's are for fags.
You say sumthin'?
Post by: Zeronet on July 20, 2003, 12:40:36 pm
Post by: Sandwich on July 20, 2003, 12:47:50 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Zeronet
Nothing like Self-propelled Artillery. :D
Especially when it's kitbashed onto an old Sherman hull. :D
Post by: tEAbAG on July 20, 2003, 01:25:43 pm
Post by: an0n on July 20, 2003, 01:27:11 pm
Quote
Originally posted by SandwichYes. I said large guns have always been associated with the male penis and homo-eroticism.
You say sumthin'?
Post by: Martinus on July 20, 2003, 01:48:11 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Carl
that's about 95 cents in human money, right?
[color=66ff00]Provided you're not talking about american cents. :p
[/color]
Post by: EdwinDLT on July 20, 2003, 05:18:06 pm
Quote
Originally posted by an0n
Pfff. Photo's are for fags.
Where's the challenge when no matter what you point it at you're going to get an image with perfect scaling, lighting, texturing and shape?
It's like having a bike-making contest and giving each contestant a fully automated Harley Davidson factory.
YES! Someone else who understands the greatness of oil painting!
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 20, 2003, 08:12:21 pm
Also, I can take more than 40 pictures (technically, more than 200 on the AE-1) before I have to change film. You can do, what, five?:p
Still not bad, but I'll hold out for the EOS-1 DS.
Post by: Sandwich on July 20, 2003, 09:50:53 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Also, I can take more than 40 pictures (technically, more than 200 on the AE-1) before I have to change film. You can do, what, five?:p
On a 128Mb stick, I can take just shy of a 100 5 MP images. Unlike the ~250 I used to be able to take with my old 1.3 MP camera on the same stick. ;)
Of course, I can lower the quality to VGA (640x480) and fit around 2,500 pictures.... :D
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 20, 2003, 09:52:53 pm
However- I can drop my camera, and it is likely to survive the experience. Or take it through sandstorms, or into choppy seawater. Digital cameras cannot make this claim.
I've done all of those, incidentially.
Shut up.
Post by: Sandwich on July 20, 2003, 10:02:31 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Poo.
However- I can drop my camera, and it is likely to survive the experience. Or take it through sandstorms, or into choppy seawater. Digital cameras cannot make this claim.
I've done all of those, incidentially.
Shut up.
Bar.
You may be able to drop your camera, but I can keep a hold on my camera. :D
Seriously now, face it - you're envious, and are searching madly for the negative aspects of digital photography. All I have to say is:
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 20, 2003, 10:34:10 pm
Post by: J.F.K. on July 21, 2003, 04:05:57 am
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
I'd be more impressed if it were a Canon EOS-1DS. That's the only digital camera I'm spending money on. 11.1 mega pixel baby, and standard Canon EF lens mount. Why buy anything less?
The 1DS is definitely a superior piece of equipment, but my gripe is size. I've handled a V1 in my hands, and well... personally, I find it solid but not overwhelming. Fits in my school blazer pocket quite comfortably (we considered sneaking away with it while trying it at the camera shop, but that would have been wrong). :)
Post by: mikhael on July 21, 2003, 09:50:57 am
Quote
Originally posted by J.F.K.
The 1DS is definitely a superior piece of equipment, but my gripe is size. I've handled a V1 in my hands, and well... personally, I find it solid but not overwhelming. Fits in my school blazer pocket quite comfortably (we considered sneaking away with it while trying it at the camera shop, but that would have been wrong). :)
If it fits in your pocket, its a toy, not a camera.
Post by: Krackers87 on July 21, 2003, 10:05:59 am
(http://pedropoint.com/pacificacam/images/Big-Camera.gif)
4 pixels!
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 21, 2003, 11:02:39 am
Post by: Krackers87 on July 21, 2003, 11:09:05 am
Post by: J.F.K. on July 22, 2003, 09:32:46 pm
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
If it fits in your pocket, its a toy, not a camera.
Why? Why does something have to be larger than the confines of a pocket to be taken seriously? :nervous:
Post by: Deepblue on July 22, 2003, 09:42:58 pm
(http://www.sibinfo.ru/news/02_09_28/13115.jpg)
Post by: Gortef on July 23, 2003, 03:42:18 am
I suppose from now on that camera is going to be with you allways. What could be more fun than take good pics out of allmost anything one encounters during a walk for example :nod:
Post by: mikhael on July 23, 2003, 11:59:56 am
Quote
Originally posted by J.F.K.
Why? Why does something have to be larger than the confines of a pocket to be taken seriously? :nervous:
Because cameras that fit in your pocket have **** for focus, zoom, or flexibility.
Post by: J.F.K. on July 24, 2003, 04:18:18 am
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
Because cameras that fit in your pocket have **** for focus, zoom, or flexibility.
I concede that larger cameras are superior in those areas (zoom obviously, but then again, what about that Panasonic 12x Lumix digital? That's equivalent to a 40mm telephoto lens or so, isn't it?). But being less capable than others doesn't seem to justify them being either a toy or ****, to me. Is it just that you don't like having any less than the very best? Because really, what these miniaturised models offer seems to be far better than how you describe them (you're the first voice of protest to such a degree I've heard), to every other photography enthusiast I know.
Post by: Shrike on July 24, 2003, 05:00:42 am
Quote
Originally posted by J.F.K.It's Freudian thing.
Why? Why does something have to be larger than the confines of a pocket to be taken seriously? :nervous:
Post by: Sandwich on July 24, 2003, 05:19:50 pm
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
Because cameras that fit in your pocket have **** for focus, zoom, or flexibility.
DSC-V1:
Focus: definable area focus (center, top, bottom, left, right, center-wide, spot) or user-definable distance (0.1m to 15m to infinity)
Zoom: 4x optical (it's a pocket-sized camera, for pete's sake! :p)
Flexibility: Doesn't bend a bit due to metal construction. Oh, wait, you mean flexability of use? :p Well, originally, I was going to get the DSC-F717 (the one with the big swivel barrel lens attached to one side). But I eventually went for the V1 for it's size... I have a friend who has a DSC-F707 (same size as the F717), and he rarely carries it along with him. I figure I'[ll get more use out of the smaller camera, not being a journalist, than I would have a big one.
Plus, it has shutter priority, aperture priority, and complete manual control modes. ISO from 100-800 plus auto, EV +/- 2, and various preset white balance modes, as well as a "point-at-a-neutral-color-and-set-the-white-balance" mode.
It's quite versatile. :D
Post by: mikhael on July 24, 2003, 07:20:07 pm
Quote
Originally posted by J.F.K.
I concede that larger cameras are superior in those areas (zoom obviously, but then again, what about that Panasonic 12x Lumix digital? That's equivalent to a 40mm telephoto lens or so, isn't it?). But being less capable than others doesn't seem to justify them being either a toy or ****, to me. Is it just that you don't like having any less than the very best? Because really, what these miniaturised models offer seems to be far better than how you describe them (you're the first voice of protest to such a degree I've heard), to every other photography enthusiast I know.
I'm not an enthusiast. I just like to have one camera that does everything I need in a photo camera. If I need 'snapshots' (which I generally hate) I borrow someone's polaroid. For pretty much everything else that I would actually care enough to take a photo, nothing less than a proper SLR, on a tripod, will do.
Besides, I need a real camera to make up for my utter lack of skill. ;)
Post by: Sandwich on July 24, 2003, 07:32:13 pm
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
I'm not an enthusiast. I just like to have one camera that does everything I need in a photo camera. If I need 'snapshots' (which I generally hate) I borrow someone's polaroid. For pretty much everything else that I would actually care enough to take a photo, nothing less than a proper SLR, on a tripod, will do.
Besides, I need a real camera to make up for my utter lack of skill. ;)
Meh - you'd be amazed at what a semi-flat surface (for general support) and the wrist strap (for precise angle adjustments) can do in place of a tripod. :D
And from what I understand (I don't claim to know everything, but my dad is a photography buff), the advantage of film SLR's are twofold: one, you see what the film will capture through the eyepiece, and two, the lenses are interchangeable.
With the vast majority of digital cameras (all those with LCD screens), what you see on screen is exactly what the digital "film" will capture (framing-wise, that is - apparent exposure levels vary depending on the screen type, ambient lighting on the screen itself, and the angle between the screen and your eyes).
Therefore, the only advantage (that I know about) of a digital "SLR" (Single Lens Reflex) is the lens interchangeability. The V1, while not providing true lens interchangeability, does provide a way to attach wide- and telephoto lenses. :)
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 24, 2003, 08:28:08 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
Meh - you'd be amazed at what a semi-flat surface (for general support) and the wrist strap (for precise angle adjustments) can do in place of a tripod. :D
No I wouldn't. I know exactly what you can't do without a tripod. It's quite a lot if you're going beyond the basic snapshot. Which is fine if you're not gonna do much else- I do everything else pretty much to the exclusion of the snapshot, so a solid tripod and a way to carry it without my profile making cops shoot at me ("Uh, dur, it was kinda long and thin and black, it musta been an assault rifle!")are kinda important.
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
And from what I understand (I don't claim to know everything, but my dad is a photography buff), the advantage of film SLR's are twofold: one, you see what the film will capture through the eyepiece, and two, the lenses are interchangeable.
Pretty much. Also, you get light leaks and there are only about two really quality-made rangefinders (one's a Hasselblad, which is a handheld God of photography so long as you don't mind expensive medium-format film, and the other I don't think they make any more... what are Leicas? Maybe I'm thinking of those...)
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
...Therefore, the only advantage (that I know about) of a digital "SLR" (Single Lens Reflex) is the lens interchangeability. The V1, while not providing true lens interchangeability, does provide a way to attach wide- and telephoto lenses. :)
It's not an SLR if it's got the LCD screen. However, as I said, most of the really good camera makers focus on SLRs for their nice cameras, and the digital cameras reflect that. Digital cameras are, generally speaking, built pretty much like their 35mm/28mm counterparts.
Post by: Sandwich on July 24, 2003, 09:38:47 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Stryke 9
It's not an SLR if it's got the LCD screen.
Meaning exactly what? I mean, I agree that SLR is meaningless in the world of digital photography, but people generally have associated the term SLR with higher-end cameras with a certain construction (changeable lens, solid and largish right-hand grip, etc).
But the Canon EOS-1/10D series' are built like SLr, just digital inside... with an LCD screen. ;)
Post by: Stryke 9 on July 24, 2003, 09:47:58 pm
Post by: Sandwich on July 24, 2003, 10:16:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Stryke 9
If it was an SLR, the LCD would go black when the camera was taking pictures. The mirror flips up and exposes the film, while blocking the viewfinder- with digital light-sensors, there's no need for that function, as the sensors don't have to be "on" all the time. It would be just plain stupid, and I have yet to see Canon do something really stupid.
Exactly - it's simply the problem of people associating an "SLR" with the high-end cameras that makes them call models such as Canon's EOS 1xD line "Digital SLR"'s. Whatever. I have a nice camera, and that's all I care about.
Oh, the 256Mb Memory Stick Pro I just got helps, too. ;)
Post by: J.F.K. on July 25, 2003, 04:37:03 am
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
Besides, I need a real camera to make up for my utter lack of skill. ;)
Bah, the truth comes out at last :D
The V1 is still going to stay at the top of my wish list. Sorry. ;)