My HP's on the blink, and I need a new camera ($200-$300 r..

In article <1159955027.961779.309120.DeleteThis@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
dbahnmueller.DeleteThis@hotmail.com wrote:

> I've got an HP digicam (R707) now. I like the picture quality OK, but
> after a year it's acting up (some buttons don't work sometimes (heat
> sensitive), pictures keep disappearing on the cards, even fairly new
> ones). I'd like to get a new camera of similar or better in features,
> but more reliable. I'd also like to use the cards I'm already using on
> the HP, and a recharge unit small enough to be convenient for travel.
>
> thanks for your help

There are tons of cameras to consider. Check http://www.dpreview.com for
ideas or just stop by your favorite electronics store to see what's
available. Buy any of the name brands such as Sony, Casio, Canon, Nikon,
Pentax, or Olympus that offers the controls you want and that feels good
in your hands.
 >> Stay informed about: My HP's on the blink, and I need a new camera ($200-$300 r.. 

silverthreads wrote:
> Remember your prey. Don't hunt buffalo with a BB gun. I would say first
> and foremost get a camera with a good lens, Carl Zeiss, Canon. Optical
> zoom vs. digital zoom, digital zoom is an optical illusion, how ironic
> is that? My first digital camera had zero optical zoom and I kicked
> myself more than a few times for foregoing that luxury. My current
> camera has a twelve X optical zoom and is very practical for most of my
> photography. Form follows function, i.e. do I need a compact or
> possibly a bigger body would give me more versatility but less
> spontaneity. megapixels, if you cant zoom in far enough and you have to
> crop you will appreciate a higher megapixel camera

Err. Isn't that EXACTLY the digital zoom
you call an "optical illusion" ?

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: My HP's on the blink, and I need a new camera ($200-$300 r.. 

thanks, but I bought HP (a name brand) and wasn't happy. I was thinking
Canon or Casio this time around.


Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article <1159955027.961779.309120.RemoveThis@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> dbahnmueller.RemoveThis@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > I've got an HP digicam (R707) now. I like the picture quality OK, but
> > after a year it's acting up (some buttons don't work sometimes (heat
> > sensitive), pictures keep disappearing on the cards, even fairly new
> > ones). I'd like to get a new camera of similar or better in features,
> > but more reliable. I'd also like to use the cards I'm already using on
> > the HP, and a recharge unit small enough to be convenient for travel.
> >
> > thanks for your help
>
> There are tons of cameras to consider. Check http://www.dpreview.com for
> ideas or just stop by your favorite electronics store to see what's
> available. Buy any of the name brands such as Sony, Casio, Canon, Nikon,
> Pentax, or Olympus that offers the controls you want and that feels good
> in your hands.
 >> Stay informed about: My HP's on the blink, and I need a new camera ($200-$300 r.. 

<dbahnmueller DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159955027.961779.309120@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I've got an HP digicam (R707) now. I like the picture quality OK, but
> after a year it's acting up (some buttons don't work sometimes (heat
> sensitive), pictures keep disappearing on the cards, even fairly new
> ones). I'd like to get a new camera of similar or better in features,
> but more reliable. I'd also like to use the cards I'm already using on
> the HP, and a recharge unit small enough to be convenient for travel.
>
> thanks for your help
>
>

HP has the reverse Midas Touch. Everything they touch turns to sheisa.
 >> Stay informed about: My HP's on the blink, and I need a new camera ($200-$300 r.. 

<dbahnmueller RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159984323.730181.202180@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> thanks, but I bought HP (a name brand) and wasn't happy. I was thinking
> Canon or Casio this time around.

I am also not happy with my HP products ... but am quite pleased with Canon
(if that helps).
 >> Stay informed about: My HP's on the blink, and I need a new camera ($200-$300 r.. 

On 4 Oct 2006 02:43:48 -0700, dbahnmueller.RemoveThis@hotmail.com wrote:

> I've got an HP digicam (R707) now. I like the picture quality OK, but
> after a year it's acting up (some buttons don't work sometimes (heat
> sensitive), pictures keep disappearing on the cards, even fairly new
> ones). I'd like to get a new camera of similar or better in features,
> but more reliable. I'd also like to use the cards I'm already using on
> the HP, and a recharge unit small enough to be convenient for travel.

I'll mention a few Canon cameras, but Kodak, Fuji and other
manufacturers make fairly comparable cameras. If you get a model
that uses AA batteries, you have many chargers to choose from. I've
got a number of them, but the smallest (and an overall good
performer) is a collapsible smart charger sold by Radio Shack,
roughly the size of a C cell, but slightly taller. It has a
fold-out AC plug, so it doesn't even need a power cord. Some models
using 2 AA cells are Canon's A530 and A700. The A630, which uses 4
AA cells is slightly larger, but provides not only twice as many
shots per charge, but is also a quicker performer, probably due to
the higher voltage provided by the 4 AA cells.

The good news is that with today's cameras if a fair number of
your shots require the camera's flash, you may or may not need to
use rechargeable batteries, since alkalines can provide hundreds of
shots per set. The even better news is that if most of your shots
won't use the flash, for example, using it primarily for outdoor
shots, you can get up to nearly 1,000 shots per set of batteries.
If that's the case, and you average fewer than 5,000 shots per year
(about 200 24 shot rolls of film per year), your yearly expenditure
for batteries would range from slightly less to far less than the
cost of one fast food meal, even if you don't want fries with that.
 >> Stay informed about: My HP's on the blink, and I need a new camera ($200-$300 r.. 

I am on my first set of lithium AAs and I am about 300 pics with no
sign of diiminished battery life. The rechargeables the came with my
Sony H5 in August are only good for about 100 pics and when the battery
indicator starts to drop it isn't long before they are dead. I also
have four backup energizer rechargables that are about 1 year old and
have a very poor endurance and seem to drain in storage. I am very
curious to see how fast the lithium AAs drop off after the battery
indicator starts to indicate the first sign of drop off.
ASAAR wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2006 02:43:48 -0700, dbahnmueller RemoveThis @hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > I've got an HP digicam (R707) now. I like the picture quality OK, but
> > after a year it's acting up (some buttons don't work sometimes (heat
> > sensitive), pictures keep disappearing on the cards, even fairly new
> > ones). I'd like to get a new camera of similar or better in features,
> > but more reliable. I'd also like to use the cards I'm already using on
> > the HP, and a recharge unit small enough to be convenient for travel.
>
> I'll mention a few Canon cameras, but Kodak, Fuji and other
> manufacturers make fairly comparable cameras. If you get a model
> that uses AA batteries, you have many chargers to choose from. I've
> got a number of them, but the smallest (and an overall good
> performer) is a collapsible smart charger sold by Radio Shack,
> roughly the size of a C cell, but slightly taller. It has a
> fold-out AC plug, so it doesn't even need a power cord. Some models
> using 2 AA cells are Canon's A530 and A700. The A630, which uses 4
> AA cells is slightly larger, but provides not only twice as many
> shots per charge, but is also a quicker performer, probably due to
> the higher voltage provided by the 4 AA cells.
>
> The good news is that with today's cameras if a fair number of
> your shots require the camera's flash, you may or may not need to
> use rechargeable batteries, since alkalines can provide hundreds of
> shots per set. The even better news is that if most of your shots
> won't use the flash, for example, using it primarily for outdoor
> shots, you can get up to nearly 1,000 shots per set of batteries.
> If that's the case, and you average fewer than 5,000 shots per year
> (about 200 24 shot rolls of film per year), your yearly expenditure
> for batteries would range from slightly less to far less than the
> cost of one fast food meal, even if you don't want fries with that.
 >> Stay informed about: My HP's on the blink, and I need a new camera ($200-$300 r.. 

My lithium batteries died at the X Prize Cup. I am very impressed with
the number of images I got using one set of lithium batteries. I was a
little dissapointed by the amount of warning I got when they started to
diminish. it went from full to a low battery indicator in a very short
amount of time.
silverthreads wrote:
> I am on my first set of lithium AAs and I am about 300 pics with no
> sign of diiminished battery life. The rechargeables the came with my
> Sony H5 in August are only good for about 100 pics and when the battery
> indicator starts to drop it isn't long before they are dead. I also
> have four backup energizer rechargables that are about 1 year old and
> have a very poor endurance and seem to drain in storage. I am very
> curious to see how fast the lithium AAs drop off after the battery
> indicator starts to indicate the first sign of drop off.
> ASAAR wrote:
> > On 4 Oct 2006 02:43:48 -0700, dbahnmueller RemoveThis @hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > I've got an HP digicam (R707) now. I like the picture quality OK, but
> > > after a year it's acting up (some buttons don't work sometimes (heat
> > > sensitive), pictures keep disappearing on the cards, even fairly new
> > > ones). I'd like to get a new camera of similar or better in features,
> > > but more reliable. I'd also like to use the cards I'm already using on
> > > the HP, and a recharge unit small enough to be convenient for travel.
> >
> > I'll mention a few Canon cameras, but Kodak, Fuji and other
> > manufacturers make fairly comparable cameras. If you get a model
> > that uses AA batteries, you have many chargers to choose from. I've
> > got a number of them, but the smallest (and an overall good
> > performer) is a collapsible smart charger sold by Radio Shack,
> > roughly the size of a C cell, but slightly taller. It has a
> > fold-out AC plug, so it doesn't even need a power cord. Some models
> > using 2 AA cells are Canon's A530 and A700. The A630, which uses 4
> > AA cells is slightly larger, but provides not only twice as many
> > shots per charge, but is also a quicker performer, probably due to
> > the higher voltage provided by the 4 AA cells.
> >
> > The good news is that with today's cameras if a fair number of
> > your shots require the camera's flash, you may or may not need to
> > use rechargeable batteries, since alkalines can provide hundreds of
> > shots per set. The even better news is that if most of your shots
> > won't use the flash, for example, using it primarily for outdoor
> > shots, you can get up to nearly 1,000 shots per set of batteries.
> > If that's the case, and you average fewer than 5,000 shots per year
> > (about 200 24 shot rolls of film per year), your yearly expenditure
> > for batteries would range from slightly less to far less than the
> > cost of one fast food meal, even if you don't want fries with that.
 >> Stay informed about: My HP's on the blink, and I need a new camera ($200-$300 r.. 

dbahnmueller.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com wrote:
> thanks, but I bought HP (a name brand) and wasn't happy. I was thinking
> Canon or Casio this time around.

HP is a name brand, but it's still not a camera company. Stick with a
top tier camera manufacturer such as Canon or Nikon.
 >> Stay informed about: My HP's on the blink, and I need a new camera ($200-$300 r.. 

silverthreads wrote:
> I am on my first set of lithium AAs and I am about 300 pics with no
> sign of diiminished battery life. The rechargeables the came with my
> Sony H5 in August are only good for about 100 pics and when the battery
> indicator starts to drop it isn't long before they are dead. I also
> have four backup energizer rechargables that are about 1 year old and
> have a very poor endurance and seem to drain in storage. I am very
> curious to see how fast the lithium AAs drop off after the battery
> indicator starts to indicate the first sign of drop off.

The Lithium AA batteries are very good. I just picked some more up on
sale at Walgreens (4 for $7.99 this week).

The other batteries to try, that don't have the endurance and storage
problem, are the Sanyo eneloop batteries, which have just hit the U.S.
market. They are lower capacity than the highest end NiMh cells, but
there is very little self-discharge.
 >> Stay informed about: My HP's on the blink, and I need a new camera ($200-$300 r.. 

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 06:12:25 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven DeleteThis @geemail.com>
wrote:

>dbahnmueller@hotmail.com wrote:
>> thanks, but I bought HP (a name brand) and wasn't happy. I was thinking
>> Canon or Casio this time around.
>
>HP is a name brand, but it's still not a camera company. Stick with a
>top tier camera manufacturer such as Canon or Nikon.

Right.
Kawasaki is an earthmoving equipment and shipbuilding company.
Oh yes, they also make motorcycles.
Does that make Kawasaki not a motorcycle company?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
 >> Stay informed about: My HP's on the blink, and I need a new camera ($200-$300 r.. 

silverthreads wrote:
> My lithium batteries died at the X Prize Cup. I am very impressed with
> the number of images I got using one set of lithium batteries. I was a
> little dissapointed by the amount of warning I got when they started to
> diminish. it went from full to a low battery indicator in a very short
> amount of time.
> silverthreads wrote:
>
>>I am on my first set of lithium AAs and I am about 300 pics with no
>>sign of diiminished battery life. The rechargeables the came with my
>>Sony H5 in August are only good for about 100 pics and when the battery
>>indicator starts to drop it isn't long before they are dead. I also
>>have four backup energizer rechargables that are about 1 year old and
>>have a very poor endurance and seem to drain in storage. I am very
>>curious to see how fast the lithium AAs drop off after the battery
>>indicator starts to indicate the first sign of drop off.
>>ASAAR wrote:
>>
>>>On 4 Oct 2006 02:43:48 -0700, dbahnmueller.DeleteThis@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've got an HP digicam (R707) now. I like the picture quality OK, but
>>>>after a year it's acting up (some buttons don't work sometimes (heat
>>>>sensitive), pictures keep disappearing on the cards, even fairly new
>>>>ones). I'd like to get a new camera of similar or better in features,
>>>>but more reliable. I'd also like to use the cards I'm already using on
>>>>the HP, and a recharge unit small enough to be convenient for travel.
>>>
>>> I'll mention a few Canon cameras, but Kodak, Fuji and other
>>>manufacturers make fairly comparable cameras. If you get a model
>>>that uses AA batteries, you have many chargers to choose from. I've
>>>got a number of them, but the smallest (and an overall good
>>>performer) is a collapsible smart charger sold by Radio Shack,
>>>roughly the size of a C cell, but slightly taller. It has a
>>>fold-out AC plug, so it doesn't even need a power cord. Some models
>>>using 2 AA cells are Canon's A530 and A700. The A630, which uses 4
>>>AA cells is slightly larger, but provides not only twice as many
>>>shots per charge, but is also a quicker performer, probably due to
>>>the higher voltage provided by the 4 AA cells.
>>>
>>> The good news is that with today's cameras if a fair number of
>>>your shots require the camera's flash, you may or may not need to
>>>use rechargeable batteries, since alkalines can provide hundreds of
>>>shots per set. The even better news is that if most of your shots
>>>won't use the flash, for example, using it primarily for outdoor
>>>shots, you can get up to nearly 1,000 shots per set of batteries.
>>>If that's the case, and you average fewer than 5,000 shots per year
>>>(about 200 24 shot rolls of film per year), your yearly expenditure
>>>for batteries would range from slightly less to far less than the
>>>cost of one fast food meal, even if you don't want fries with that.
>
>
Lithium batteries maintain a good voltage almost to the end, and "die"
suddenly. I always carry spare Lithium batteries with me, one for my
cellphone and one for my digicam.

Morton
 >> Stay informed about: My HP's on the blink, and I need a new camera ($200-$300 r.. 

Bill Funk wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 06:12:25 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven DeleteThis @geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >dbahnmueller@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> thanks, but I bought HP (a name brand) and wasn't happy. I was thinking
> >> Canon or Casio this time around.
> >
> >HP is a name brand, but it's still not a camera company. Stick with a
> >top tier camera manufacturer such as Canon or Nikon.
>
> Right.
> Kawasaki is an earthmoving equipment and shipbuilding company.
> Oh yes, they also make motorcycles.
> Does that make Kawasaki not a motorcycle company?
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"


Hello, Bill:

Furthermore, Yamaha began as a manufacturer of musical instruments
(which it still is), General Electric is the world's largest builder
of jet engines, and the Ford Motor Company has long had an aerospace
division.

Hewlett-Packard's digicams are crummy, regardless.


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur DeleteThis @concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: My HP's on the blink, and I need a new camera ($200-$300 r..