5 problems with digicams - solutions/recommendations?

"ASAAR" wrote:
Jon Danniken wrote:
"Randall Ainsworth" wrote:

I haven't been following the thread, but if someone said that HP
cameras suck ass - they're right.

What is it about HP cameras that makes them "suck ass"?

Hey, give Randall a break. He isn't always right, but this time he
knows what he's talking about.

I don't know why you feel that I need to "give him a break", as all I did
was ask him to clarify his statement.

Several years ago one of HP's
cameras got moderately favorable reviews, but many of their recent
models are just awful. Difficulty focusing quickly and accurately,
and some of the worst purple fringing ever seen.

Thank you for some information. Do you happen to recall which of the :"many
recent models" are prone to these problems, and do you recall where it was
that you came across this information so that I might be able to read it for
myself?

Jon

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:03:11 -0800, Jon Danniken wrote:

Hey, give Randall a break. He isn't always right, but this time he
knows what he's talking about.

I don't know why you feel that I need to "give him a break", as all I did
was ask him to clarify his statement.

My request may mean more to regulars here that are more familiar
with Randall's messages. It was said with perhaps tongue in cheek,
but the intent was more to encourage RA, who isn't always so well
behaved and often goes for the outrageous sniping statement than to
criticize you.


Thank you for some information. Do you happen to recall which of the
"many recent models" are prone to these problems, and do you recall where it
was that you came across this information so that I might be able to read it for
myself?

I don't recall the exact models, but one of the ng participants
bought one somewhat less than a year ago and returned it soon after.
I had difficulty locating real reviews from the usual review
websites. From what I recall, most of the "reviews" were little
more than slightly modified versions of HP's promotional literature.
I did manage to find a halfway decent "personal" review from some
European website that provided a number of sample shots of what was
probably a cathedral, and those shots had pretty bad color fringing.
This was easily noticed at high magnification on a monitor, but
probably wouldn't be noticed on 4" x 6" prints unless the shots were
cropped and enlarged. My memory is probably faulty on the model
number but I vaguely recall something like 407 or 417. If you want
to search ng archives, the HP camera(s) were probably discussed
sometime last spring, and I probably posted links to the HP's
pictures, but it was a while ago so I don't recall all of the
details. I *think* it was a 4mp camera, and fairly compact.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:03:11 -0800, Jon Danniken wrote:

Do you happen to recall which of the :"many
recent models" are prone to these problems, and do you recall where it was
that you came across this information so that I might be able to read it for
myself?

I couldn't find the message that I spoke of that referenced the HP
review or the sample pictures, but I did find a few messages and I
was slightly off. The camera was the HP517, it was 5mp and the
messages were from June. Here's part of one:

From: ASAAR
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: About HP M517 - 5 MP
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 18:41:24 -0400

. . .

I've looked at dozens of sample photos of point and shoot cameras, but I
haven't seen many that have bad purple fringing, not even on the ones at
Steves digicams where that red building is and the sires in the sky
might show a little purple fringing. Even some indoor shots, the picture
can be ok, but there is a purple outline around on my kitchen door
opening or some on my dining room table legs which are chrome. I can't
buy new dining room furniture because of purple fringing on a camera

. . .

I don't want to get a card right now, as I don't know if I will keep the
camera, so not much point as I might buy something else that doesn't
take an SD card. I did take some 5 MP best shots, but not enough to
compare properly the difference between that and 5 MP, but I will try it
soon. Right now I have to charge the Nimh batteries as I only get about
30 pictures before needing charged but I have to transfer the photos by
the USB into the computer, so that takes up extra power. also, I am only
using the adapter that came with the camera and it takes about 12-14
hours to charge. its ok for now, but I would definitely have to get a
charger, regardless of what camera I have. I like being able to get AA's
but I tried the S90 sony in the store which I liked very much but its a
bit too bulky and quite a bit heavier than the HP M517.

You're fortunate. I thought that you might have been stuck with
your purchase so I didn't want to come across as being too critical
of the camera, but if the purple fringing is as you described, I
know I'd have returned the M517 by now. It's too bad that the S90
is too bulky for you, as the review I read (probably at
dpreview.com) praised it for being almost totally free of purple
fringing. It also was said to have fast, reliable focusing, which I
gather is a strong point of Sony cameras. The M517 also seems to be
quite a battery hog, as several recent cameras of comparable spec's
are rated at nearly 10 times the number of pictures per charge.
Sony's W5 supposedly has just a bit more purple fringing than the
S90 (and almost certainly FAR less than the M517), but it is
noticeable smaller than the S90, has a bit more resolution, and
shares the large LCD display. Unlike the M517, they both allow you
to go beyond fully automatic if you prefer, which means the you'd be
able to force the camera to take pictures with the lens at any
aperture that you want, which (along with their slightly greater
aperture range) would give you a greater DOF for your macro shots.
You may not want to trade up to either of these Sonys, especially if
their cost is too high. But I think that the M517, even if you got
it at a good price, has a more troubling "cost of aggravation" that
in the long run will make it a poor value.

"ASAAR" wrote:
Jon Danniken wrote:

Do you happen to recall which of the :"many
recent models" are prone to these problems, and do you recall where it
was
that you came across this information so that I might be able to read it
for
myself?

I couldn't find the message that I spoke of that referenced the HP
review or the sample pictures, but I did find a few messages and I
was slightly off. The camera was the HP517, it was 5mp and the
messages were from June. Here's part of one:

From: ASAAR
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: About HP M517 - 5 MP
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2005 18:41:24 -0400

. . .

I've looked at dozens of sample photos of point and shoot cameras, but
I
haven't seen many that have bad purple fringing, not even on the ones
at
Steves digicams where that red building is and the sires in the sky
might show a little purple fringing. Even some indoor shots, the
picture
can be ok, but there is a purple outline around on my kitchen door
opening or some on my dining room table legs which are chrome. I can't
buy new dining room furniture because of purple fringing on a camera

. . .

I don't want to get a card right now, as I don't know if I will keep
the
camera, so not much point as I might buy something else that doesn't
take an SD card. I did take some 5 MP best shots, but not enough to
compare properly the difference between that and 5 MP, but I will try
it
soon. Right now I have to charge the Nimh batteries as I only get about
30 pictures before needing charged but I have to transfer the photos by
the USB into the computer, so that takes up extra power. also, I am
only
using the adapter that came with the camera and it takes about 12-14
hours to charge. its ok for now, but I would definitely have to get a
charger, regardless of what camera I have. I like being able to get
AA's
but I tried the S90 sony in the store which I liked very much but its a
bit too bulky and quite a bit heavier than the HP M517.

You're fortunate. I thought that you might have been stuck with
your purchase so I didn't want to come across as being too critical
of the camera, but if the purple fringing is as you described, I
know I'd have returned the M517 by now. It's too bad that the S90
is too bulky for you, as the review I read (probably at
dpreview.com) praised it for being almost totally free of purple
fringing. It also was said to have fast, reliable focusing, which I
gather is a strong point of Sony cameras. The M517 also seems to be
quite a battery hog, as several recent cameras of comparable spec's
are rated at nearly 10 times the number of pictures per charge.
Sony's W5 supposedly has just a bit more purple fringing than the
S90 (and almost certainly FAR less than the M517), but it is
noticeable smaller than the S90, has a bit more resolution, and
shares the large LCD display. Unlike the M517, they both allow you
to go beyond fully automatic if you prefer, which means the you'd be
able to force the camera to take pictures with the lens at any
aperture that you want, which (along with their slightly greater
aperture range) would give you a greater DOF for your macro shots.
You may not want to trade up to either of these Sonys, especially if
their cost is too high. But I think that the M517, even if you got
it at a good price, has a more troubling "cost of aggravation" that
in the long run will make it a poor value.

Thanks, I appreciate that. I am not quite sure that one or two bad models,
or bad camers, justifies a universally low opinion of HP though, but I do
appreciate information about that particular one, at any rate.

Jon

Jon Danniken wrote:
Thank you for some information. Do you happen to recall which of
the :"many
recent models" are prone to these problems, and do you recall where it was
that you came across this information so that I might be able to read it for
myself?

HP is a pretty minor player in the digital camera world and as such
their cameras don't seem to be reviewed much. Here is one review that
I found
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/R707/R7A.HTM

If you go to PBase.com you can see that very few people are using HP
cameras
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/hp

If you compare that to Canon you will see a large differance
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon

Or just about anybody else.

Scott

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:37:09 -0800, Jon Danniken wrote:

Thanks, I appreciate that. I am not quite sure that one or two bad models,
or bad camers, justifies a universally low opinion of HP though, but I do
appreciate information about that particular one, at any rate.

That would be true if the one or two bad models were atypical, but
other than the one older HP camera that I recalled getting some
decent reviews, I'm unaware of any other of their models that were
looked at favorably. HP just seems to have produced a lineup of
mediocre (at best) cameras. It's not as if I have anything against
the brand. I have no complaints where my current computer and
printer are concerned, both HP products. I need to replace them
both, but only because they're too reliable. Meaning *old*

"ASAAR" wrote:
Jon Danniken wrote:

Thanks, I appreciate that. I am not quite sure that one or two bad
models,
or bad camers, justifies a universally low opinion of HP though, but I
do
appreciate information about that particular one, at any rate.

That would be true if the one or two bad models were atypical, but
other than the one older HP camera that I recalled getting some
decent reviews, I'm unaware of any other of their models that were
looked at favorably. HP just seems to have produced a lineup of
mediocre (at best) cameras.

Hmmm, I just looked at the "Steve's Conclusions" section on the five and six
megapixel digital cameras on www.steves-digicams.com, and all five of the HP
models reviewed, specifically models 935, 945, 707, 817, R717, seemed to
have favorable judgements given to them.

Jon

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
In article , Steve
Mackie wrote:

Explain to me what a cowards opinion is. Are you not getting it, OPINIONS
DON'T NEED REASONS and I DON'T GIVE A F*** what you think of my opinion. Go
argue with 'Xiaoding' for a while, I think he said HP sucks ass. Why don't
you go find out if he has any proof, perhaps video evidence, of HP sucking
someones ass.

I haven't been following the thread, but if someone said that HP
cameras suck ass - they're right.

Depends on the model. Some of the more expensive ones turn out great shots.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 00:03:27 -0800, Jon Danniken wrote:

Hmmm, I just looked at the "Steve's Conclusions" section on the five and six
megapixel digital cameras on www.steves-digicams.com, and all five of the HP
models reviewed, specifically models 935, 945, 707, 817, R717, seemed to
have favorable judgements given to them.

The 945 is the one that I recalled getting favorable reviews. The
others may be decent cameras, but Steve's reviews tend to be less
critical than most. When judging cameras you have to take into
account things that the reviewers leave unsaid. Apparently
favorable reviews on dpreview.com for cameras that get a
"Recommended" rating usually show several flaws that might be severe
enough to make the cameras poor choices for some, and which are easy
to miss if the entire review isn't read carefully with a critical
eye. Some people don't even think much of some of the cameras that
get the "Highly Recommended" rating. While the HP cameras you
listed are probably decent performers, they're unlikely to be among
the best in each of their categories. I hope they don't have the
apparently dismal battery performance of the HP517. But even the
lesser HPs should satisfy most of their owners, since I'd think it's
the rare HP owner that would often make prints 8" x 10" or larger
prints. For that some would say you'd need a camera of the quality
of the recently discussed 10mp (interpolated) Bell & Howell. cough
cough

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 22:37:09 -0800, "Jon Danniken"
wrote:

Thanks, I appreciate that. I am not quite sure that one or two bad models,
or bad camers, justifies a universally low opinion of HP though, but I do
appreciate information about that particular one, at any rate.

Jon

HGP's reputation was so bad that HP itself admitted it:
"At press briefings during PMA 2004 HP staff quietly admitted they had
finally realized that the company's digital cameras suffered from
something of an 'image problem'."
(http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/hpr707/)

Since then, HP's offerings have gotten short shrift with many
reviewers; they just don't seem to think HP's cameras are worth
reviewing.
Either that, or HP doesn't think it's worth their while to offer
cameras for reviews. I don't know which.
Either way, it doesn't bode well for HP's cameras.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"