Fuzzy view through Canon viewfinder

"Renee" wrote in message
. ..

"Cathy" wrote in message
...
snip
I am looking for only a point and shoot. The S1 is a Canon? there is
also an S1 Nikon.
We don't have Newegg or B& H in this country (Canada). We have
Staples,
Best Buy, Future shop, Henrys and thats the main ones.
snip
I would have to be more serious as to what I want to buy and when I
go
to stores, they would let me see the camera with the LCD lit up.
half
the time they seem to be out of batteries.

Did you take these photos?

Cathy


Hi Cathy,

I have a Canon S1 IS. The S1 photos were taken by me. The A95 photos
were
taken by a friend. She's strictly a point-and-shoot gal like yourself.
I had
to twist her arm to try some of her other camera settings. I'd never
give up
my ultra-zoom but if I had to choose a p&s without it, it'd be the
A95.

Hi Renee:

The photos you took are quite beautiful. Your camera looks like it is
mainly for taking professional photos. Are you a professional
photographer with a magazine?

The
camera gets a lot of good reviews; her photos come out great and she
know
less about what she's doing than I do (if that's possible) :-)

Your friends photos are very nice as well. The A95 is sold quite widely
here, but has not come down in price as much as the A75 and A85 have.
The A75 in particular is quite cheap right now (though I wouldn't say
any cameras are cheap) I think I mentioned my son has an A80 Canon
and is very happy with it. They are a little bit bigger than I would
like and have 4 batteries. I think I wouild like 2 batteries.

Some people take their own flash memory cards to the stores to shoot
test
pictures. I don't see why you can't bring in your own batteries.

Renee

I don't think it would work out bringing any memory cards to stores,
since I really don't know which camera I will buy and could use SD or CF
or x (the Olympus and Fuji one), or Sony Memory sticks. I am still just
looking really. But its not a bad idea to take along batteries when I
get more serious . I see a couple of new cameras out which have 2"
LCD's but they are more money than I want to pay, but maybe they will be
on sale sometime. I am just a casual camera user and want one mainly for
taking pics of my family and anything else that might come up worth
photographing, so I can't justify paying much. I like the Sony P150 but
its too expensive here. I notice that all or most Sony cameras seem to
come with chargers and chargeable batteries, but they are proprietary,
so I am not too crazy about that, as you can't just stick in a couple of
AA's if need be, but you can't have everything it seems.

Cathy

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:24:42 -0400, Cathy wrote:

I notice that all or most Sony cameras seem to
come with chargers and chargeable batteries, but they are proprietary,
so I am not too crazy about that, as you can't just stick in a couple of
AA's if need be, but you can't have everything it seems.

Sony does have a few cameras that use AA batteries. They're
fairly new so the prices probably won't drop too soon, but they
aren't too far above your price point and they're fairly small, like
the Canon and Fuji compact cameras. From my mini data file:

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W5 : B&H == $329.95 (in stock) Silver
• 5mp, AA batteries, (3.6" x 2.4" x 1.5"); AF Illuminator, 2.5" Display,
• Manual mode; 0.01 sec. shutter lag; 0.33 sec delay between shots;
• 32MB flash memory built-in; live histogram;
• During long exposures, Slow Shutter NR captures the scene, and then
the CCD noise pattern with a dark frame exposure. By subtracting the
two, even long exposures can be clear.

Available picture resolutions:
• 5.0 Megapixel (2592 x 1944) 3:2 mode (2592 x 1728)
• 3.1 Megapixel (2048 x 1536) 1.2 Megapixel (1280 x 960)
• VGA (640 x 480)

• The Manual Exposure Mode provides extended control with
46-step adjustable shutter speed (30 - 1/1000 sec.), and 2-step
Aperture control.

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...

By the way, did you know your message is in big fonts? Its making my
fonts bigger too. haha

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:24:42 -0400, Cathy wrote:

I notice that all or most Sony cameras seem to
come with chargers and chargeable batteries, but they are
proprietary,
so I am not too crazy about that, as you can't just stick in a
couple of
AA's if need be, but you can't have everything it seems.

Sony does have a few cameras that use AA batteries. They're
fairly new so the prices probably won't drop too soon, but they
aren't too far above your price point and they're fairly small, like
the Canon and Fuji compact cameras. From my mini data file:

Yes, I saw a couple of new Sonys and they took AA batteries. The DSC-S60
and it has a 2" LCD as well. It is around $350.00 Can.$ ($283.00 US),
but I am trying to stay close to $300.00 Can. or $320.00, but if the
Sony S60 includes a charger, it would come to the same thing as if I
bought a camera for $300.00 Can. and had to buy a charger. But the
DSC-S60 I saw online on one of the camera stores here didn't say if it
had a charger, so maybe it doesn.t. It weighs 8.7 oz so not all that
compact. I saw a Sony P100 in a store a few months ago and I have
thought since that I should have got it. It was red which I kind of
liked. It was 1.8" LCD, so it might have been OK. Most cameras here are
silver or black for SLR's. At the time a couple of people said to me
don't get a camera with proprietary memory cards, especially Sony as the
memory sticks are more expensive.

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W5 : B&H == $329.95 (in stock) Silver
• 5mp, AA batteries, (3.6" x 2.4" x 1.5"); AF Illuminator, 2.5"
Display,
• Manual mode; 0.01 sec. shutter lag; 0.33 sec delay between shots;
• 32MB flash memory built-in; live histogram;
• During long exposures, Slow Shutter NR captures the scene, and
then
the CCD noise pattern with a dark frame exposure. By subtracting
the
two, even long exposures can be clear.

That one has been advertised for a while here, same with the DSC W1. but
both don't
seem to have very good reviews or at least they are very mixed. But they
are too expensive for me. The W1 is $323.00 US and the W5 is $352.00 US.
I need to try to get something up to around $260.00 US. I see on one
camera site here today that there is a new HP 717 camera out. First time
I've seen it. Its $399.99. Can. so still more than I want to pay, but HP
cameras come down a lot in price here fairly quickly. They are the
cheapest cameras around. Most cameras here are about $40.00 -$75.00 US
more than in the US, though not always. The newer ones are almost always
more money than the US. You have many more stores to compete with each
other for market share which is always better for consumers.

Thanks.

Cathy

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...

By the way, did you know your message is in big fonts? Its making my
fonts bigger too. haha

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:24:42 -0400, Cathy wrote:

I notice that all or most Sony cameras seem to
come with chargers and chargeable batteries, but they are
proprietary,
so I am not too crazy about that, as you can't just stick in a
couple of
AA's if need be, but you can't have everything it seems.

Sony does have a few cameras that use AA batteries. They're
fairly new so the prices probably won't drop too soon, but they
aren't too far above your price point and they're fairly small, like
the Canon and Fuji compact cameras. From my mini data file:

Yes, I saw a couple of new Sonys and they took AA batteries. The DSC-S60
and it has a 2" LCD as well. It is around $350.00 Can.$ ($283.00 US),
but I am trying to stay close to $300.00 Can. or $320.00, but if the
Sony S60 includes a charger, it would come to the same thing as if I
bought a camera for $300.00 Can. and had to buy a charger. But the
DSC-S60 I saw online on one of the camera stores here didn't say if it
had a charger, so maybe it doesn.t. It weighs 8.7 oz so not all that
compact. I saw a Sony P100 in a store a few months ago and I have
thought since that I should have got it. It was red which I kind of
liked. It was 1.8" LCD, so it might have been OK. Most cameras here are
silver or black for SLR's. At the time a couple of people said to me
don't get a camera with proprietary memory cards, especially Sony as the
memory sticks are more expensive.

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W5 : B&H == $329.95 (in stock) Silver
• 5mp, AA batteries, (3.6" x 2.4" x 1.5"); AF Illuminator, 2.5"
Display,
• Manual mode; 0.01 sec. shutter lag; 0.33 sec delay between shots;
• 32MB flash memory built-in; live histogram;
• During long exposures, Slow Shutter NR captures the scene, and
then
the CCD noise pattern with a dark frame exposure. By subtracting
the
two, even long exposures can be clear.

That one has been advertised for a while here, same with the DSC W1. but
both don't
seem to have very good reviews or at least they are very mixed. But they
are too expensive for me. The W1 is $323.00 US and the W5 is $352.00 US.
I need to try to get something up to around $260.00 US. I see on one
camera site here today that there is a new HP 717 camera out. First time
I've seen it. Its $399.99. Can. so still more than I want to pay, but HP
cameras come down a lot in price here fairly quickly. They are the
cheapest cameras around. Most cameras here are about $40.00 -$75.00 US
more than in the US, though not always. The newer ones are almost always
more money than the US. You have many more stores to compete with each
other for market share which is always better for consumers.

Thanks.

Cathy

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 01:34:07 -0400, Cathy wrote:

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...

By the way, did you know your message is in big fonts? Its making
my fonts bigger too. haha

It shouldn't have. In all of my messages or just the one you
referred to? My newsreader doesn't really have font options such as
yours (OE) does. If you changed fonts in the middle of your
messages I wouldn't know it. All I can select for viewing is fixed
pitch or proportional, and the setting applies to the entire
message, not parts of it. In your entire message, including quotes
from my previous message, everything was the same, ie, no "big
fonts". Even our text settings (as shown in the message headers) is
identical:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Maybe a transmission glitch produced a garbled character or two?
I've seen that with HTML or output sent to a printer, where a single
messed up character can inadvertantly change the fonts of following
characters, and if the page is reloaded, or the output sent to the
printer a second time, the bogus fonts don't reappear. Only my
email program (Eudora) allows for different fonts to be used within
messages, and I'm not aware that it can be used for anything but
email.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 01:34:07 -0400, Cathy wrote:

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...

By the way, did you know your message is in big fonts? Its making
my fonts bigger too. haha

It shouldn't have. In all of my messages or just the one you
referred to? My newsreader doesn't really have font options such as
yours (OE) does. If you changed fonts in the middle of your
messages I wouldn't know it. All I can select for viewing is fixed
pitch or proportional, and the setting applies to the entire
message, not parts of it. In your entire message, including quotes
from my previous message, everything was the same, ie, no "big
fonts". Even our text settings (as shown in the message headers) is
identical:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Maybe a transmission glitch produced a garbled character or two?
I've seen that with HTML or output sent to a printer, where a single
messed up character can inadvertantly change the fonts of following
characters, and if the page is reloaded, or the output sent to the
printer a second time, the bogus fonts don't reappear. Only my
email program (Eudora) allows for different fonts to be used within
messages, and I'm not aware that it can be used for anything but
email.

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 01:34:07 -0400, Cathy wrote:

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...

By the way, did you know your message is in big fonts? Its making
my fonts bigger too. haha

It shouldn't have. In all of my messages or just the one you
referred to?

I only saw the one you posted for me which had big fonts. I didn't check
others which you posted
around the same time you sent mine. Do you keep a copy of your "Sent"
mail? was the one to me which I am referring in your usual font?

My newsreader doesn't really have font options such as
yours (OE) does. If you changed fonts in the middle of your
messages I wouldn't know it. All I can select for viewing is fixed
pitch or proportional, and the setting applies to the entire
message, not parts of it. In your entire message, including quotes
from my previous message, everything was the same, ie, no "big
fonts". Even our text settings (as shown in the message headers) is
identical:

How strange.
I have never changed fonts in the 8 years I've used Outlook Express.
Mine is always set to
Medium. Medium is what I am using now and your message this time is the
same as mine. I never use HTML either. Yesterday, when your message had
big fonts, yours was the only one in this Newsgroup to have big fonts.
All the other 150 messages were "regular" - same as usual. When I
replied to your message, I couldn't get my settings to type in regular
size fonts. It wouldn't let me so my reply was in large fonts.The only
time I have seen this is if the sender is using HTML text and I have
checked "Reply to message in format it was written" (something like
that) in OE, but I never put a check in there as I never use HTML
settings.

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Maybe a transmission glitch produced a garbled character or two?

Your entire message was in large fonts, from the start of your message.
Was my reply back to you in large fonts? It was sent that way on my end
in reply to your large fonts.

I've seen that with HTML or output sent to a printer, where a single
messed up character can inadvertantly change the fonts of following
characters, and if the page is reloaded, or the output sent to the
printer a second time, the bogus fonts don't reappear. Only my
email program (Eudora) allows for different fonts to be used within
messages, and I'm not aware that it can be used for anything but
email.

It must have been some glitch and appeared like it was on your end, and
the reason I say that was because your message was the only one in the
dozens of newsgroup messages I saw last night. Also I sent other
messages last night and all were in my regular font. Oh well, I really
don't know what happened, but this message of yours is back to normal.


Cathy

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 01:34:07 -0400, Cathy wrote:

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...

By the way, did you know your message is in big fonts? Its making
my fonts bigger too. haha

It shouldn't have. In all of my messages or just the one you
referred to?

I only saw the one you posted for me which had big fonts. I didn't check
others which you posted
around the same time you sent mine. Do you keep a copy of your "Sent"
mail? was the one to me which I am referring in your usual font?

My newsreader doesn't really have font options such as
yours (OE) does. If you changed fonts in the middle of your
messages I wouldn't know it. All I can select for viewing is fixed
pitch or proportional, and the setting applies to the entire
message, not parts of it. In your entire message, including quotes
from my previous message, everything was the same, ie, no "big
fonts". Even our text settings (as shown in the message headers) is
identical:

How strange.
I have never changed fonts in the 8 years I've used Outlook Express.
Mine is always set to
Medium. Medium is what I am using now and your message this time is the
same as mine. I never use HTML either. Yesterday, when your message had
big fonts, yours was the only one in this Newsgroup to have big fonts.
All the other 150 messages were "regular" - same as usual. When I
replied to your message, I couldn't get my settings to type in regular
size fonts. It wouldn't let me so my reply was in large fonts.The only
time I have seen this is if the sender is using HTML text and I have
checked "Reply to message in format it was written" (something like
that) in OE, but I never put a check in there as I never use HTML
settings.

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Maybe a transmission glitch produced a garbled character or two?

Your entire message was in large fonts, from the start of your message.
Was my reply back to you in large fonts? It was sent that way on my end
in reply to your large fonts.

I've seen that with HTML or output sent to a printer, where a single
messed up character can inadvertantly change the fonts of following
characters, and if the page is reloaded, or the output sent to the
printer a second time, the bogus fonts don't reappear. Only my
email program (Eudora) allows for different fonts to be used within
messages, and I'm not aware that it can be used for anything but
email.

It must have been some glitch and appeared like it was on your end, and
the reason I say that was because your message was the only one in the
dozens of newsgroup messages I saw last night. Also I sent other
messages last night and all were in my regular font. Oh well, I really
don't know what happened, but this message of yours is back to normal.


Cathy

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:44:17 -0400, Cathy wrote:

It shouldn't have. In all of my messages or just the one you
referred to?

I only saw the one you posted for me which had big fonts. I didn't check
others which you posted
around the same time you sent mine. Do you keep a copy of your "Sent"
mail? was the one to me which I am referring in your usual font?

Yes, I keep copies, but I also retrieved the message and it
appeared just above yours in this thread. Looks fine to me.


My newsreader doesn't really have font options such as
yours (OE) does. If you changed fonts in the middle of your
messages I wouldn't know it. All I can select for viewing is fixed
pitch or proportional, and the setting applies to the entire
message, not parts of it. In your entire message, including quotes
from my previous message, everything was the same, ie, no "big
fonts". Even our text settings (as shown in the message headers) is
identical:

How strange.
I have never changed fonts in the 8 years I've used Outlook Express.
Mine is always set to
Medium. Medium is what I am using now and your message this time is the
same as mine. I never use HTML either. Yesterday, when your message had
big fonts, yours was the only one in this Newsgroup to have big fonts.
All the other 150 messages were "regular" - same as usual. When I
replied to your message, I couldn't get my settings to type in regular
size fonts. It wouldn't let me so my reply was in large fonts.The only
time I have seen this is if the sender is using HTML text and I have
checked "Reply to message in format it was written" (something like
that) in OE, but I never put a check in there as I never use HTML
settings.

You may have sent the reply using large fonts, but it looked the
same as all other messages. The only way my newsreader will display
a different font is for me to configure it to display all received
messages with that font. If doesn't understand or do anything with
embedded font commands that may have been sent by OE. If HTML is
included in a message, it'll show the HTML command (such as an
embedded "FONT COLOR=BLUE") but it is treated only as ASCII text,
not as a command.



Maybe a transmission glitch produced a garbled character or two?

Your entire message was in large fonts, from the start of your message.
Was my reply back to you in large fonts? It was sent that way on my end
in reply to your large fonts.

No, your reply looked like all replies. My newsreader is not OE,
thank heaven.


I've seen that with HTML or output sent to a printer, where a single
messed up character can inadvertantly change the fonts of following
characters, and if the page is reloaded, or the output sent to the
printer a second time, the bogus fonts don't reappear. Only my
email program (Eudora) allows for different fonts to be used within
messages, and I'm not aware that it can be used for anything but
email.

It must have been some glitch and appeared like it was on your end, and
the reason I say that was because your message was the only one in the
dozens of newsgroup messages I saw last night. Also I sent other
messages last night and all were in my regular font. Oh well, I really
don't know what happened, but this message of yours is back to normal.


I think the glitch was neither on my end (the Agent newsreader)
nor on your end (OE), but somewhere in between. The copy of my
message that Agent retrieved has no unusual characters in it, so the
message made it to my news server as it should have. The glitch
(garbled text) could have appeared either when it was being sent
from my news server to yours, or it could have appeared later, when
it was being sent from your news server to OE running on your
computer. I don't know what OE's capabilities are, but I could test
these two possibilities with Agent by deleting the body of the
message and re-retrieving it. If it came back again showing large
fonts (just a "thought experiment" here, since Agent doesn't do
fonts), I'd assume that the news server had the garbled copy of the
message. If it came back showing normal fonts, I'd assume that the
large fonts were due to a glitch while the newsreader was retrieving
the message the first time.

The fact that on your end none of the following messages had large
fonts only means that OE wasn't written by a totally incompetent
programmer that thought that font commands intended for one specific
message should apply to all following messages unless or until
cancelled by a later message's font command. In other words, even
if the glitch occurred on your end, you wouldn't expect all
succeeding messages to continue displaying large fonts.

"Cathy" wrote in message
...
Hi Renee:

The photos you took are quite beautiful. Your camera looks like it is
mainly for taking professional photos. Are you a professional
photographer with a magazine?
snip
I think I mentioned my son has an A80 Canon
and is very happy with it. They are a little bit bigger than I would
like and have 4 batteries. I think I wouild like 2 batteries.

snip
I like the Sony P150 but
its too expensive here. I notice that all or most Sony cameras seem to
come with chargers and chargeable batteries, but they are proprietary,
so I am not too crazy about that, as you can't just stick in a couple of
AA's if need be, but you can't have everything it seems.

Cathy


Hi Cathy,

Thank you. Your comments brought me a smile, but probably a great big laugh
to the experienced photographers on this NG. As anyone who's seen my posts
during the past year can tell you, I definitely qualify as a amateur/casual
shooter. My lack of photo compositional forethought, artistry and creatively
is testament to that. Thankfully, most digicams these days can make a snap
shooter look good. Sounds like you're doing your homework and I'm sure
whatever you finally settle on, you'll be happy with the results.

The LCDs on digicams are power hogs so that's probably why most take the 4
AAs. In my case, the zoom mechanism also consumes a lot of juice.

I know what you mean about wanting a small purse-size camera. Most women
don't want to carry both a handbag and camera bag on their shoulder. I have
some thoughts on the ideal women's camera tote -- something large enough
inside to carry a wallet, cosmetic bag, cell phone, maybe a PDA, the
occasional plane tickets, with an interior pocket for keys and pens and
outside zipper for security, material is weatherproof, and it has an outside
pouch big enough to accommodate the camera. Like my Tamrac, the camera pouch
would have a zipper for full weatherproofing, and Velcro and a clip for
security. I'm partial to leather for my handbags but I'd settle for another
light-weight material as long as it was stylish or cute. Now that'd be a
tote! I hope the camera bag manufacturers are listening. I'd be first in
line to buy one.

Sorry, don't mean to be so chatty, Cathy . . . :-)

Renee