Steve'sDigicams

dariob · Sep 28, 2004, 2:58 PM

I bouhgt my HP735 on July 2003 for about 250 euros. Of course it is less expensive now, because there are several new models from HP and others. Hoever I think you got a real bargain!

Dario

dennisl · Oct 1, 2004, 12:02 PM

I have been using my HP Photosmart 735 3.2MP digital camera for just about 10 months now. I find that the picture quality is good. I find that night pictures on fully automatic settings do come out a little grainy. I use a tripod, and manually adjust settings on the camera to compensate for this. Use ISO 100, adjust the EV settings to slightly overexpose the picture, use the flash, or turn it off for a longer exposure time. If you are indoors taking a picture in low light the camera has a setting for "night" photos which will cause the flash to fire multiple times in order to light the background and subject for a clearer shot. If you aren't an idiot and don't have a deffictive camera then you should be able to adjust the settings to correct the pictures. If you would like some help with the settings feel free to email me and I'll help you out.

Dennis

Clive Barker · Oct 12, 2004, 6:50 PM

visit www.fotohp.it.st to see samples pictures taken with HP 735. The outdoor results are 90% of Canon or Sony for the same resolution (Canon PS A75 and DSC P-72). For indoors you will need external light, flash is not enough for better results.

The Steves` samples posted on his site taken with Pentax Optio 30 (3.2 MP), Nikon 3200, Kodac, Minolta-Konica (all 3.2 MP models) are below HP 735 (more noise, blurring).

Clive Barker · Oct 12, 2004, 6:54 PM

visit www.fotohp.it.st to see samples pictures taken with HP 735. The outdoor results are 90% of Canon or Sony for the same resolution (Canon PS A75 and DSC P-72). For indoors you will need external light, flash is not enough for better results.

The Steves` samples posted on his site taken with Pentax Optio 30 (3.2 MP), Nikon 3200, Kodac, Minolta-Konica (all 3.2 MP models) are below HP 735 (more noise, blurring).

Clive Barker · Oct 18, 2004, 5:45 PM

28 outdoor pictures of HP735 can be seen on
www.fotohp.it.st
The outdoor pictures taken by HP735 and any other HP above are great, only Canon and Sony are better. But the indoor pic are poor, only in range of 1m it work fine.

proton · Aug 18, 2005, 10:23 AM

http://members.lycos.nl/freddievtb/ahoy1.jpg

http://members.lycos.nl/freddievtb/ahoy2.jpg

http://members.lycos.nl/freddievtb/keulen1.jpg

These were made WITHOUT Flash using sports/action mode!

Occasion: QUEEN+Paul Rodgers concers in Rotterdam(Holland) and Cologne (Germany). April and July 2005.

So I can't complain about low light pix, they can be quite good with an HP735!

paleopterix · Jun 8, 2006, 9:09 AM

I tend to agree with sertac: the Hp 735 camera is the worst camera someone can spend his money on

. I think Hp should have never sold this camera, because now they've destroyed their reputation. I won't touch any camera made by Hp, because of the disapointment named hp735, even if, as I've heared, they've made improvements in their new models. BAD bad bad indoor pictures - the flash only works within the 2m range; grained outdoor ones (just try to take a picture of the sky, for instance - you'll get steps of different shades of blue instead uniform colour. At 100% magnification, pictures look like mediocre oil paintings, unless takenunder very good lighting conditions. I've seen 1.3 megapixels cameras taking clearer photos than this one.

So, proton, really man! to say hp 735 is even an acceptable digital camera means either to be blind or to have never seen any other digital camera in your life. Or perhaps they've sold you some kind of prototype :G. You are not an HP employee, by the way, are you?

paleopterix · Jun 8, 2006, 9:18 AM

It's me again, can't help it. Clive Baker was kind enough to provide this link:http://www.fotohp.it.st. And still he says pictures taken with hp735are good!! Just take a look at the first photo for example, and examine the sky in it. It should have been continuous, not full of dark pixels and gradients of blue.Many cheap cameras can achieve that. I cannot disagree that you can use an editing software after taking the photo, but this doesn't mean that the photo's are good.

nesaso26 · Apr 9, 2007, 6:38 PM

i got hp 735.can i use it as a webcam for broadcasting?tnx

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Sep 28, 2004, 2:58 PM	#51
dariob Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 32	I bouhgt my HP735 on July 2003 for about 250 euros. Of course it is less expensive now, because there are several new models from HP and others. Hoever I think you got a real bargain! Dario

Oct 1, 2004, 12:02 PM	#52
dennisl Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 3	I have been using my HP Photosmart 735 3.2MP digital camera for just about 10 months now. I find that the picture quality is good. I find that night pictures on fully automatic settings do come out a little grainy. I use a tripod, and manually adjust settings on the camera to compensate for this. Use ISO 100, adjust the EV settings to slightly overexpose the picture, use the flash, or turn it off for a longer exposure time. If you are indoors taking a picture in low light the camera has a setting for "night" photos which will cause the flash to fire multiple times in order to light the background and subject for a clearer shot. If you aren't an idiot and don't have a deffictive camera then you should be able to adjust the settings to correct the pictures. If you would like some help with the settings feel free to email me and I'll help you out. Dennis

Oct 12, 2004, 6:50 PM	#53
Clive Barker Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 7	visit www.fotohp.it.st to see samples pictures taken with HP 735. The outdoor results are 90% of Canon or Sony for the same resolution (Canon PS A75 and DSC P-72). For indoors you will need external light, flash is not enough for better results. The Steves` samples posted on his site taken with Pentax Optio 30 (3.2 MP), Nikon 3200, Kodac, Minolta-Konica (all 3.2 MP models) are below HP 735 (more noise, blurring).

Oct 12, 2004, 6:54 PM	#54
Clive Barker Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 7	visit www.fotohp.it.st to see samples pictures taken with HP 735. The outdoor results are 90% of Canon or Sony for the same resolution (Canon PS A75 and DSC P-72). For indoors you will need external light, flash is not enough for better results. The Steves` samples posted on his site taken with Pentax Optio 30 (3.2 MP), Nikon 3200, Kodac, Minolta-Konica (all 3.2 MP models) are below HP 735 (more noise, blurring).

Oct 18, 2004, 5:45 PM	#55
Clive Barker Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 7	28 outdoor pictures of HP735 can be seen on www.fotohp.it.st The outdoor pictures taken by HP735 and any other HP above are great, only Canon and Sony are better. But the indoor pic are poor, only in range of 1m it work fine.

Aug 18, 2005, 10:23 AM	#56
proton Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 211	http://members.lycos.nl/freddievtb/ahoy1.jpg http://members.lycos.nl/freddievtb/ahoy2.jpg http://members.lycos.nl/freddievtb/keulen1.jpg These were made WITHOUT Flash using sports/action mode! Occasion: QUEEN+Paul Rodgers concers in Rotterdam(Holland) and Cologne (Germany). April and July 2005. So I can't complain about low light pix, they can be quite good with an HP735!

Jun 8, 2006, 9:09 AM	#57
paleopterix Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2	I tend to agree with sertac: the Hp 735 camera is the worst camera someone can spend his money on . I think Hp should have never sold this camera, because now they've destroyed their reputation. I won't touch any camera made by Hp, because of the disapointment named hp735, even if, as I've heared, they've made improvements in their new models. BAD bad bad indoor pictures - the flash only works within the 2m range; grained outdoor ones (just try to take a picture of the sky, for instance - you'll get steps of different shades of blue instead uniform colour. At 100% magnification, pictures look like mediocre oil paintings, unless takenunder very good lighting conditions. I've seen 1.3 megapixels cameras taking clearer photos than this one. So, proton, really man! to say hp 735 is even an acceptable digital camera means either to be blind or to have never seen any other digital camera in your life. Or perhaps they've sold you some kind of prototype :G. You are not an HP employee, by the way, are you?

Jun 8, 2006, 9:18 AM	#58
paleopterix Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2	It's me again, can't help it. Clive Baker was kind enough to provide this link:http://www.fotohp.it.st. And still he says pictures taken with hp735are good!! Just take a look at the first photo for example, and examine the sky in it. It should have been continuous, not full of dark pixels and gradients of blue.Many cheap cameras can achieve that. I cannot disagree that you can use an editing software after taking the photo, but this doesn't mean that the photo's are good.

Apr 9, 2007, 6:38 PM	#59
nesaso26 Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1	i got hp 735.can i use it as a webcam for broadcasting?tnx