Which camera?

shupola · 01-22-2006, 11:54 PM

another thing you might want to consider if you are going to take a lot of pics is what kind of batteries they use. from experience, i know that AA batteries are a pain when used in digital cameras. i would much rather have one with a rechargeable batterey, such as the hp. the panasonic does have a better zoom(optical), and costs less, but the hp has the advantage of a rechargeable battery. if you dont care to sacrafice the extra zoom, i would go with the hp because it also have longer battery life, as well as more buit in memory(i know its not much, but more in case you dont have a card handy.)

shupola · 01-22-2006, 11:58 PM

Quote:

The 3.2 was my old Minolta Dimage Xt.

i have the dimage z-10. its not a compact by any means

. it takes great pics and has 8x optical zoom.

i couldnt find anywhere that sells them. may have been discontinued

**The_Other_One** · 01-23-2006, 12:10 AM

shupola - Good call...My old Casio could get 400+ shots with it's rechargable battery. I NEVER saw it go below 50%! My current camera uses 2AA's, and it's pretty bad sometime. I have recently, though, gotten some really nice rechargable batteries and it's lasted quite a long time. I've not used it on say a vacation, but I've not had to charge them since christmas

My old ones, the low battery light would come on after 2 pics!

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P...3.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
^ Casio EX-Z50
http://pcweb.mycom.co.jp/news/2003/03/03/10al.jpg
^ Minolta XT

The minolta was a tiny bit smaller, but not by much. The neat thing, though, was it DID have optical zoom

If you don't beleive me, find specs on it. And I'll go on and spill the beans. The first pic was taken with the 3.2 Minolta. The second was with the Casio! The 3.2 did a much better job, didn't it? I have a pic of Big Ben both times I was there and it also looks better from the 3.2MP!

shupola · 01-23-2006, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Other_One

And I'll go on and spill the beans. The first pic was taken with the 3.2 Minolta. The second was with the Casio! The 3.2 did a much better job, didn't it? I have a pic of Big Ben both times I was there and it also looks better from the 3.2MP!

that would have been my guess. konica-minoltas are great cameras. like i said i couldnt be more happy with mine(except the batteries(AA's)). my g/f sister has a cannon, 3.2mp(same as mine) and we took comparative shots and imo mine was much better; better quality, brighter flash, etc.

back to you geoff - you might want to consider konica-minolta if it fits your budget and size preference.

**The_Other_One** · 01-23-2006, 12:38 AM

I'd definetly take Panasonic over Minolta... And that casio I had was good. It's macros were just plain amazing! Far off pics is where it didn't shine quite so much. Plus the CCD began to give me problems, but it was definetly my favorite camera!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2.../CottonBug.jpg
^ Macro from Casio. The minolta didn't have a macro feature...

[-0MEGA-] · 01-23-2006, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Suave

wow i can barely tell the difference..i always thought the more mixels the better, but not anymore.

ill guess: the 1st one is the 3.2MP and the 2nd is the 5MP

btw wat camera did you take the pix w/?

There is a huge difference, but you cant notice it on such a small picture. If they were 11x14's then you could easily see the difference.'

Quote:

Originally Posted by shupola

another thing you might want to consider if you are going to take a lot of pics is what kind of batteries they use. from experience, i know that AA batteries are a pain when used in digital cameras. i would much rather have one with a rechargeable batterey, such as the hp. the panasonic does have a better zoom(optical), and costs less, but the hp has the advantage of a rechargeable battery. if you dont care to sacrafice the extra zoom, i would go with the hp because it also have longer battery life, as well as more buit in memory(i know its not much, but more in case you dont have a card handy.)

The Panasonic takes AA batteries, and the site says on average it can take 255 pictures with a pair. The HP has a rechargable one, and it takes around 200 on average.

shupola · 01-23-2006, 12:57 AM

Quote:

There is a huge difference, but you cant notice it on such a small picture. If they were 11x14's then you could easily see the difference.'

well, what size pics will you be taking most?

Quote:

The Panasonic takes AA batteries, and the site says on average it can take 255 pictures with a pair. The HP has a rechargable one, and it takes around 200 on average.

compare the cost of AA batteries with that of plugging one in. say the rechargable will go through 100 cycles(just for example). cost=nothing if you dont pay the electric bill. 200AA batteries=average cost(4 pack)=3bucks=$150 for 200 batteries.

of course you could get rechargeable batteries, but then you would have to hassle with taking them out to recharge them.

**The_Other_One** · 01-23-2006, 02:29 AM

I know the pics are small, but there's a difference in quality. The minolta just picked up much more than the Casio did. I'm just trying to prove that just because the resolution is better, the pictures won't be better...

computerhakk · 01-23-2006, 04:30 AM

the 3 mp is the second one.? there are still noises.

i'd go w/ the panasonic

[-0MEGA-] · 01-23-2006, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shupola

compare the cost of AA batteries with that of plugging one in. say the rechargable will go through 100 cycles(just for example). cost=nothing if you dont pay the electric bill. 200AA batteries=average cost(4 pack)=3bucks=$150 for 200 batteries.

of course you could get rechargeable batteries, but then you would have to hassle with taking them out to recharge them.

I see your point, but the downside is, if you go out someplace and forget the charger, then your out of luck. I would rather go with the "AA" batteries since you can find them anywhere.

And thanks again for all your suggestions, i am most likely going to get the Panasonic. But first im going to test them out at a retail store.

01-23-2006, 12:10 AM	#13 (permalink)
The_Other_One Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Lexington, NC Age: 24 Posts: 12,368	shupola - Good call...My old Casio could get 400+ shots with it's rechargable battery. I NEVER saw it go below 50%! My current camera uses 2AA's, and it's pretty bad sometime. I have recently, though, gotten some really nice rechargable batteries and it's lasted quite a long time. I've not used it on say a vacation, but I've not had to charge them since christmas My old ones, the low battery light would come on after 2 pics! http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P...3.LZZZZZZZ.jpg ^ Casio EX-Z50 http://pcweb.mycom.co.jp/news/2003/03/03/10al.jpg ^ Minolta XT The minolta was a tiny bit smaller, but not by much. The neat thing, though, was it DID have optical zoom If you don't beleive me, find specs on it. And I'll go on and spill the beans. The first pic was taken with the 3.2 Minolta. The second was with the Casio! The 3.2 did a much better job, didn't it? I have a pic of Big Ben both times I was there and it also looks better from the 3.2MP! __________________ Desktop * Athlon X2 4200 \| 2G RAM \| 160G HD \| 7600GT Laptop1 * C2D T5550 \| 3G RAM \| 120G HD \| Intel x3100 Laptop2 * C2D T5250 \| 2G RAM \| 160G HD \| Intel x3100

01-23-2006, 12:38 AM	#15 (permalink)
The_Other_One Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Lexington, NC Age: 24 Posts: 12,368	I'd definetly take Panasonic over Minolta... And that casio I had was good. It's macros were just plain amazing! Far off pics is where it didn't shine quite so much. Plus the CCD began to give me problems, but it was definetly my favorite camera! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2.../CottonBug.jpg ^ Macro from Casio. The minolta didn't have a macro feature... __________________ Desktop * Athlon X2 4200 \| 2G RAM \| 160G HD \| 7600GT Laptop1 * C2D T5550 \| 3G RAM \| 120G HD \| Intel x3100 Laptop2 * C2D T5250 \| 2G RAM \| 160G HD \| Intel x3100

01-23-2006, 02:29 AM	#18 (permalink)
The_Other_One Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Lexington, NC Age: 24 Posts: 12,368	I know the pics are small, but there's a difference in quality. The minolta just picked up much more than the Casio did. I'm just trying to prove that just because the resolution is better, the pictures won't be better... __________________ Desktop * Athlon X2 4200 \| 2G RAM \| 160G HD \| 7600GT Laptop1 * C2D T5550 \| 3G RAM \| 120G HD \| Intel x3100 Laptop2 * C2D T5250 \| 2G RAM \| 160G HD \| Intel x3100

01-23-2006, 04:30 AM	#19 (permalink)
computerhakk VIP Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: THOJhakk county Posts: 3,635	the 3 mp is the second one.? there are still noises. i'd go w/ the panasonic __________________ "Remember, wrong advice may be worse than no advice at all." ::COMPUTERHAKK:::

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-22-2006, 11:54 PM	#11 (permalink)
shupola Diamond Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Nowheresville, U.S. Posts: 1,033	another thing you might want to consider if you are going to take a lot of pics is what kind of batteries they use. from experience, i know that AA batteries are a pain when used in digital cameras. i would much rather have one with a rechargeable batterey, such as the hp. the panasonic does have a better zoom(optical), and costs less, but the hp has the advantage of a rechargeable battery. if you dont care to sacrafice the extra zoom, i would go with the hp because it also have longer battery life, as well as more buit in memory(i know its not much, but more in case you dont have a card handy.)