----- 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
). 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).
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
>
>
