2
   

Cheapest Decent Digital Camera?

 
 
Tomkitten
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 10:30 am
Cheapest Decent Digital Camera
Does anyone know why the black Sony Cybershot DSC W-7 is consistently more expensive than the metallic one?
0 Replies
 
Algis Kemezys
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 11:40 am
Just wait until spring and then the fun in sales will begin. They usually start to move merchandise for the newer fall christmas models to be.
0 Replies
 
Tomkitten
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 03:16 pm
Cheapest Decent Digital Camera
I did it I did it!

After all these days of research and dithering, I finally ordered the Sony W7, and I can't wait to get my hands on it. I know it's not one of the real featherweights, but I don't care.

And I know it was a bit over my budget, but not much. Amazon had it for just over $300 and free shipping, so I could go for a 1Gb memory stick as well.

I'll just have to cut down on the champagne and fresh oysters for a while.

Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 04:57 pm
Congrats, Tomkitten!
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 05:18 pm
Re: Cheapest Decent Digital Camera
Tomkitten wrote:
Does anyone know why the black Sony Cybershot DSC W-7 is consistently more expensive than the metallic one?

Thats sorta a holdover from film-camera tradition; the black models were/are considered the "Pro" version, and for that, command a bit of a premium. The thinking has always sorta been that the black models were somewhat less conspicuous, though (even while mosta my film cam stuff is black Rolling Eyes ); whatever color it is, hundreds if not thousands of dollars worth of glass and metal hanging from one's face is just plain not at all compatible with the concept of "inconspicuous", if you ask me Laughing

Sidebar: A sorta "working credentials" thing involves a black, pro-model camera body showing lostsa dents and nicks, with plenty of black worn down to brass or even to the underlying aluminum, magnesium, or steel of the base body frame. Often, the camera's brandname will be taped over with blacktape, or even be painted out.

One thing I noticed years ago; if you're wearing a few beat-up pro-level cameras off both shoulders and down your front on a complicated black webbing harness rig (say, 5 or 6 or so, all with different lenses - and mounted motor drives help, too) , with a large, suitably beat-up, stuffed-full camera accessory bag slung slightly behind and off one hip, nobody ever questions your authority to go anywhere or photograph anything. Oh, yeah - another good touch is to rubber-band a buncha rolls of film, outta their canisters, with the leader tongue wrapped around the film can - stick 'em all up and down the web harness from which dangle the cameras. A well-worn fly-fishing vest, or trap-shooting vest, festooned with travel and event patches, pockets stuffed fulla filters and the like is good, too.
0 Replies
 
Tomkitten
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 06:51 pm
I have the feeling that lotsa dents and nicks had better not happen to this camera - today's photo equipment doesn't sound as sturdy as the older stuff.

I do like the picture of you festooned with all the various bits and pieces you describe - just one problem - would you have been able to move, all draped and loaded down like that?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jan, 2006 07:16 pm
With practice and skill efficient movement is quite doable; in photos of photojournalists at work, one often sees evidence of same, and videos of everything from sporting events through major press-conferences to active disater coverage shows the grace and mastery of gear-bedecked pros - I'm afraid, however, the art is doomed to become lost; journalistas and paparazzi are succumbing by droves to the siren song of digital's compact simplicity.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 12:46 pm
Circuits is devoted to digital cameras today, after reading it (paper version and online), I am most interested in the Canon PowerShot S3 IS. (At $424, still can't afford it, but noting for future reference.)

online:

http://www.nytimes.com/tech/
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 02:23 pm
Soz, you might wanna look online for the S3 IS's predecessors, the S1 IS and the S2 IS - very similar feature sets/operation, somewhat less (but still very respectable) maximum resolution, and comparatively lower price. I have an S2, having had an S1 (which I eBayed for a reasonable price - quite a bit more than I woulda gotten for trade-in value), I'm quite satisfied with it, not at all sure upgrading from the S1 was altogether worth it, and convinced the S3 offers me no compelling reason to play the game again. Its not my "main" digicam, but its sure my "point-and-shoot" digicam of choice - it is capable of producing entirely satisfactory 5x7 and smaller prints, pretty acceptable 8x10 and 11x14 prints, and way more than adequate for emailing and web posting.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 02:28 pm
Excellent point. The S2 is $309 at Amazon.

Still out of my current range, but good to keep in mind.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Recording Detector - Question by gollum
Bad picture on my Sharp LCD TV - Question by hydroplant
LCD TV. Help! - Question by kolinos4
iPhone vs Android Platform - Discussion by Seed
p3 or 360 and why - Question by XxGWOPBOYZxX
Post your latest gizmos - Discussion by Chumly
IPOD OR ZUNE HD? - Discussion by detroittou
Giving up my iPod for a Walkman - Discussion by djjd62
Digital audio in your home sound system - Question by hingehead
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/04/2023 at 09:45:03