Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 20, 2003, 4:53 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 18
Default

I was worried about the fact that the P32 is pretty much the bottom of the line when it comes to Sony's newer cybershot lineup so it gives them a chance to skip on quality, I'll try to grab the A40 before someone else gets it. One last question, do you have a link to one of those comparison charts that lists the average amount of pictures you can pile onto a certain size of memory? I am probably going to grab a 64mb card because after batteries and charger I'm going to be running up a pretty big bill.
toothpaste100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2003, 5:05 PM   #12
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

The Sony may be OK, but I like the images I see better from typical users from the Canon (on photo sharing sites like pbase.com).

Others may have a different opinion.

To see photos from typical users of cameras, check out the camera database at http://www.pbase.com/cameras

Just bear in mind, that almost any camera can take good photos under good lighting. The photographer's skill and lighting are the two biggest factors, and user albums are not photos taken under controlled conditions.

But, some of the Sonys have a tendency towards rather inaccurate colors in some conditions. The Canons seem to handle this better (IMO -- others may feel differently). Read the reviews, look at the photos and features, and make up your own mind.

Also, to me, Optical Zoom would be a must have. There is no way that I'd purchase a fixed focal length digicam.

As far as memory space, megapixel.net has a chart for cameras they review on their "characteristics" page. Here's the page for the A40:

http://www.megapixel.net/reviews/can.../a40-gen2.html

Go to the main index at http://www.megapixel.net to see the full review (under the reviews menu choice).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 20, 2003, 9:15 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 18
Default

Well, I've gone for it. I have ordered a A40 and am going to recieve it in several days. Saved $100 :P
toothpaste100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2003, 11:02 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Setiprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 484
Default Hey Toothpaste-

See my first impressions on the Kodak DX6490 -

No matter what you end up with - you will find somethings you like and don't like after you have used it for a while -

3.2 Megapixels will give you very good quality, prints (Any 3.2 model)

Go for as much lens as you can - you can never reach out quite far enough (sooner or late)

Don't be too influenced by size, shape and color of the unit -
"Pretty don't make it good"
Setiprime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2003, 7:40 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 18
Default

Will I be able to achieve some good speed with a basic sandisk card or should I go with an ultra card or 12x lexar?
toothpaste100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2003, 11:14 AM   #16
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Personally, I'd go with a faster card -- the price difference should be neglible between a standard card and a faster one anymore (prices on CF have come down a LOT).

Even if the camera can't use it, a USB 2.0 card reader could take advantage of the extra speed.

Even if you don't have one now, you may want one later.

Steve has some reviews of USB 2.0 Card Readers on his site here (under the accessories reviews).

A USB 2.0 I/O Card for a PC (if your PC is still USB 1.1) is only about 20 or 25 bucks now.

USB 2.0 Card readers are also inexpensive.

This also saves your camera's battery when transferring photos.

In fact, I think I'm going to invest in one of the USB 2.0 "Multi-Card" readers (like the Lexar that Steve reviewed), since I now have Memory Sticks, Secure Digital and Compact Flash Media.

I've got existing USB 1.1 readers for CF, but not for MS or SD media -- so a multi-card makes sense for me.

My total cost (USB 2.0 I/O Card, USB 2.0 Multi-Card Reader) should only be about $75.00 -- giving me dramatically faster transfer times for uploading images to my PC. A single card type (CompactFlash only) reader is very inexpensive.

Also, many other new devices can now use USB 2.0 (printers, external hard disk drives, external CD-RW/DVD drives, external Wireless Ethernet, etc.).
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2003, 9:00 PM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 18
Default BOOO YA!

My A40 arrived today, and I love it! The quality seems to be very good for 2.1 megapixels and despite what I have read about a weak flash, it is quite powerful! The autofocus system is great and the lcd is very crisp and bright for this class of camera. I have one last question for anyone who might see this post, I bought a 12x Lexar 128 mb but I haven't opened it and am thinking of returning it and buying a 256 mb Sandisk Ultra for about 30 dollars more. I really don't care for the extra drive space, I am far more concerned with the write speed. Will the Lexar be about the same speed wise or could I get a large speed increase with the Sandisk Ultra? Sandisk claims to have much faster write speed but their figures do not seem to be very honest.
toothpaste100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2003, 9:24 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 18
Default

I can get the Ultra for about 30 dollars cheaper if I pricematch, so I think I'll probably grab it tomorrow. I was wondering if anyone could tell me what advantages either compact flash memory cards have over eachother, so that I don't make a stupid choice :roll:
toothpaste100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2003, 8:17 AM   #19
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Chances are, you probably won't see any increase in card speed, once you get to around a 12x card in a consumer model camera.

The biggest benefit to a faster card, would be if you bought a USB 2.0 Card Reader and I/O card for your PC.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2003, 11:25 AM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 18
Default

Should I expect the same, greater or worse speeds from the ultra card? Because even it is around the same speed it is a far better deal and I save money.
toothpaste100 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:13 PM.