5 problems with digicams - solutions/recommendations?

Scott W wrote:
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.


Seems to me the low number of HP reviews and relatively poor ratings
in the few that are available may be the result of an effect analogous
to one seen in the automotive field:

A large, LARGE majority of car users are disinterested in anything but
the transportation aspects of their vehicles. They just drive them to
get from where they are to where they want to be, carrying what they
want to carry, oblivious (or at least uninfluenced by) style or
performance beyond certain parameters.

People who _are_ interested in style and/or exceptional performance
are more likely to seek others with similar interests, to read and
contribute to publications reflecting those interests, to home in on
characteristics of cars that just plain have no significance to the
majority, and to be vocal about their interests and choices.

I like coffee, drink it with great pleasure, but a coffee-maker is
just an appliance, to me. I think your typical HP camera buyer's
purchase experience is like my coffee-machine-buying experience: it
should make good-enough coffee quickly and with as little muss, fuss,
and bother as possible, at a reasonable price.

Of course I know enough about cameras to choose a camera-maker brand
rather than a computer-maker brand. The latter seem to me to be
opportunistic and unlikely to reflect any dedication to the art of
camera-making or to sincere camera users.

Just for your information: I was in the market for a basic PnS digital
a few months ago, to be gifted to a young person, resident in Mexico.
I went through the HP, Kodak, and Fuji lineups. I'd almost settled on
the Fuji (HP? A maker of OK computers, but the shots I saw looked like
ISO400 film prints from a mis-adjusted machine. Kodak? Not too bad,
but my negative experience with their photo sharing software put me
off.) when it became apparent to me that Keeping It Simple Señor
requirements could best be met with a film camera. I bought a
sixty-dollar Olympus in a blister pack, some spare AAs, and a dozen
rolls of ISO 200 film. That and enough cash for film development has
brought plenty of simple, satisfying joy.

My coffee "machine" is an inverted cone with a flat base, rests on
either a single cup or a four-cup Mr Coffee replacement carafe. I buy
12-cup filters by the hundreds from Smart and Final, fold them in
quarters, stick them in the cone. Spoon in the Yuban, pour hot water,
m-m-m-m-m, enjoy.

There is no rule that says every solution must be the best possible,
nor is every person required to appreciate sophistication and
elegance.

--
Frank ess
"You know my method, Watson.
It is founded upon
the observation of trifles."
-Sherlock Holmes-

I have the Kodak C330.
here is what you should do to view the pics
on screen in highest quality:
use IrfanView
options - properties -viewing = use "resample"

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 10:34:42 -0800, Frank ess wrote:

My coffee "machine" is an inverted cone with a flat base, rests on
either a single cup or a four-cup Mr Coffee replacement carafe. I buy
12-cup filters by the hundreds from Smart and Final, fold them in
quarters, stick them in the cone. Spoon in the Yuban, pour hot water,
m-m-m-m-m, enjoy.

I find the coffees sold by those that import and roast their own
coffees to be better than supermarket brands, but not so much better
that I don't often use Folgers or Yuban. I recently tried bags of
ground coffee from Dunkin Donuts (not bad) and Starbucks (awful). I
had always used filters, either above a Melitta carafe or in a
Kitchen Aid electric drip, and the resulting coffee was similar.
When I ran out of filters about a year ago I remembered I had one of
the "gold" metal filters and tried that. It did slightly improve
the coffee, but I don't think it had much to do with any difference
between paper and the gold filter. My guess is that some of the
fine coffee sludge that gets through the gold filter is responsible.
I've been using it ever since. Even better tasting coffee is made
by the Bunn coffeemaker that my parents use. The coffemaker and
filters are "free", the only expense being for the individual
pouches of coffee, usually Martinsons. There are other coffee
choices, such as a "house" brand and IIRC, Yuban as well. The taste
difference may be partially due to the speed of brewing, since the
Bunn machines are quite fast, and I've read that the more bitter
compounds take longer to extract.

"ASAAR" wrote:
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

Yes, I do agree with your general sentiments here, of course.

Jon

"ASAAR" wrote:
Frank ess wrote:

My coffee "machine" is an inverted cone with a flat base, rests on
either a single cup or a four-cup Mr Coffee replacement carafe. I buy
12-cup filters by the hundreds from Smart and Final, fold them in
quarters, stick them in the cone. Spoon in the Yuban, pour hot water,
m-m-m-m-m, enjoy.

I find the coffees sold by those that import and roast their own
coffees to be better than supermarket brands, but not so much better
that I don't often use Folgers or Yuban. I recently tried bags of
ground coffee from Dunkin Donuts (not bad) and Starbucks (awful). I
had always used filters, either above a Melitta carafe or in a
Kitchen Aid electric drip, and the resulting coffee was similar.
When I ran out of filters about a year ago I remembered I had one of
the "gold" metal filters and tried that. It did slightly improve
the coffee, but I don't think it had much to do with any difference
between paper and the gold filter. My guess is that some of the
fine coffee sludge that gets through the gold filter is responsible.
I've been using it ever since.

The gold filters (of which I also am a user), product coffee similar to
using a French press, in which there is no paper to absorb and retain the
aromatic oils in the brew. Mind you, because the gold filter pours though
so quickly I let the grounds "steep" (to borrow a tea term) in the water for
a few minutes first, then it goes through the gold filter to make the final
brew.

A lot cheapre than relying on filters, too.

Jon

"Bill Funk" 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.

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/)

That reference was to the physical appearance of the previous line of HP
cameras, not to image quality. Here is the entire quote to provide for the
correct context:

"Big, seemingly designed to resemble a house brick, and made from the kind
of materials normally found only on the dashboard of a 1980's hatchback, the
Photosmart range simply couldn't compete with the slick, shiny and keenly
priced Far Eastern offerings."

Jon

On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:50:39 -0800, Jon Danniken wrote:

The gold filters (of which I also am a user), product coffee similar to
using a French press, in which there is no paper to absorb and retain the
aromatic oils in the brew. Mind you, because the gold filter pours though
so quickly I let the grounds "steep" (to borrow a tea term) in the water for
a few minutes first, then it goes through the gold filter to make the final
brew.

To clarify a bit, in the Melitta carafes I've only used paper, and
only Melitta's own brand. The gold filter has only been used in a
KA 4 cup machine which despite the small capacity still takes a fair
amount of time because the water isn't preheated. I've done that
too, manually, but very infrequently and it didn't seem to make much
of a difference, but I've only done it when using paper filters..
Absorption of the oils sounds plausible and probably has some
effect, but I think my "sludge" theory is also correct, since I've
noticed several times that the dregs have a slightly richer taste,
and they're no longer poured down the drain, but savored. g

just buy a freeking HP camera and save us all the missery. it stopped
being funny 2 days ago.

"ASAAR" wrote:
Jon Danniken wrote:

The gold filters (of which I also am a user), product coffee similar to
using a French press, in which there is no paper to absorb and retain
the
aromatic oils in the brew. Mind you, because the gold filter pours
though
so quickly I let the grounds "steep" (to borrow a tea term) in the water
for
a few minutes first, then it goes through the gold filter to make the
final
brew.

To clarify a bit, in the Melitta carafes I've only used paper, and
only Melitta's own brand. The gold filter has only been used in a
KA 4 cup machine which despite the small capacity still takes a fair
amount of time because the water isn't preheated. I've done that
too, manually, but very infrequently and it didn't seem to make much
of a difference, but I've only done it when using paper filters..
Absorption of the oils sounds plausible and probably has some
effect, but I think my "sludge" theory is also correct, since I've
noticed several times that the dregs have a slightly richer taste,
and they're no longer poured down the drain, but savored. g

I know what you mean about the sludge. I've learned not drink the last
little bit of coffee in my cup, and to pour it out before I refill. My
coffee isn't "good to the last drop", but up until that point I find I
prefer it that way.

Jon

Yeah, your right about that, the old HP was good.
I was thinking present day.