|
pc
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Avoid the Canon Powershot A620 digital camera
I want to tell you about a serious flaw in the Canon Powershot A620, which required that I return my A620. I assumed it was just a defect in my camera alone, but in searching Usenet I have discovered that others have had the same problem. This camera initially seems novel because it allows shooting movies at 30 frames per second in 640x480 resolution, which might make you think that you could buy it instead of a video camera. That would be a mistake. If you want to shoot a movie, buy a video camera and not this $400 hunk of junk. Because when shooting a movie, the camera records not only the sound of what is going on at the time, but also a very annoying high-pitch hiss. There is no setting to change to remove the hiss. It is very distracting and can seem quite loud. It could be a flaw of the camera's design, or it could be a defect in a certain percentage of the A620's. Who knows. If you return this camera to a store for a refund, beware: if the store knows about the problem, they will try to prevent you returning it. In my case it was Bestbuy. I had thought it was a trustworthy store but now, after being forced to run a gauntlet just to return the defective camera, I will never buy there again. On top of that, the test photos that I took with the A620 really didn't look very good. It seems Canon has 'dropped the ball' as far as quality is concerned. RX In article <XP6dndA5Quu4LFzenZ2dnUVZ_tudn***@comcast.com>, Racer X wrote:
Show quoteHide quote >Hi all, I do want to tell everyone that I have a different model Canon > >I want to tell you about a serious flaw in the >Canon Powershot A620, which required that I return >my A620. I assumed it was just a defect in my camera alone, >but in searching Usenet I have discovered that others >have had the same problem. > >This camera initially seems novel because it allows >shooting movies at 30 frames per second in 640x480 >resolution, which might make you think that you could >buy it instead of a video camera. That would be a mistake. >If you want to shoot a movie, buy a video camera >and not this $400 hunk of junk. > >Because when shooting a movie, the camera records not only >the sound of what is going on at the time, but also a >very annoying high-pitch hiss. There is no setting to change >to remove the hiss. It is very distracting and can seem >quite loud. > >It could be a flaw of the camera's design, or it could >be a defect in a certain percentage of the A620's. >Who knows. > >If you return this camera to a store for a refund, >beware: if the store knows about the problem, they >will try to prevent you returning it. In my case >it was Bestbuy. I had thought it was a trustworthy >store but now, after being forced to run a gauntlet >just to return the defective camera, I will never >buy there again. > >On top of that, the test photos that I took >with the A620 really didn't look very good. >It seems Canon has 'dropped the ball' as far as >quality is concerned. "Powershot" series camera and I am happy with it. I do shoot movies with it. I am happy with it for that also, although there are limitations in sound quality. There are inherent limitations to sound quality when the microphone is built into the camera. Workarounds and options for sound touchup I would not expect in this price range, but maybe in the $800-plus price range. If you shoot movies and want to do equalization on the sound track, then I suggest finding software to do that. Reducing content at frequencies above about 4 KHz should reduce hiss. An alternative is to hack the camera to add a capacitor in the microphone circuit to reduce content at higher frequencies where most of the hiss is. Better sound quality typically requires a higher price range and/or a microphone separate from the camera. - Don Klipstein (d**@misty.com) Don Klipstein wrote:
> If you shoot movies and want to do equalization on the sound track, then Assuming that the hiss is coming in at that early a stage and not through> I suggest finding software to do that. Reducing content at frequencies > above about 4 KHz should reduce hiss. An alternative is to hack the > camera to add a capacitor in the microphone circuit to reduce content at > higher frequencies where most of the hiss is. some crappy electronics somewhere between the microphone and the A/D converter. Also, if it is properly designed, everything before the A/D should have a signal-to-noise ratio approximately as good as the bit depth that the A/D converter achieves across the whole spectrum that the A/D can handle based on its sample rate. That is, if it's an 8-bit A/D, then the signal-to-noise ratio of the stuff before the A/D should probably be around 48 dB (6 dB per bit). And if the sample rate is 44.1 kHz, then the signal to noise ratio should be 48 dB or better from 20 Hz up to 22.05 kHz (at least). Of course, this could be a problem with some kind of super-cheap, horrid automatic gain control. The signal going into the A/D might be totally at the wrong level. Or maybe it's really just a bunch of wind noise. Obviously the microphone can't be all that hot if it's a miscellaneous feature in a $400 camera, considering that good microphones often cost $400 themselves. :-) - Logan Logan Shaw <lshaw-use***@austin.rr.com> wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Don Klipstein wrote: There's plenty of dirt cheap mics that dont have that obvious problem.>> If you shoot movies and want to do equalization on the sound >> track, then I suggest finding software to do that. Reducing content >> at frequencies above about 4 KHz should reduce hiss. An alternative >> is to hack the camera to add a capacitor in the microphone circuit >> to reduce content at higher frequencies where most of the hiss is. > > Assuming that the hiss is coming in at that early a stage and not > through some crappy electronics somewhere between the microphone and > the A/D converter. > > Also, if it is properly designed, everything before the A/D should > have a signal-to-noise ratio approximately as good as the bit depth > that the A/D converter achieves across the whole spectrum that the A/D can > handle based on its sample rate. That is, if it's an 8-bit A/D, then > the signal-to-noise ratio of the stuff before the A/D should probably > be around 48 dB (6 dB per bit). And if the sample rate is 44.1 kHz, > then the signal to noise ratio should be 48 dB or better from 20 Hz > up to 22.05 kHz (at least). > > Of course, this could be a problem with some kind of super-cheap, > horrid automatic gain control. The signal going into the A/D might > be totally at the wrong level. Or maybe it's really just a bunch > of wind noise. Obviously the microphone can't be all that hot if > it's a miscellaneous feature in a $400 camera, considering that good > microphones often cost $400 themselves. :-) Rod Speed wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Logan Shaw <lshaw-use***@austin.rr.com> wrote: Any $5 headphones can be also used as a> >>Don Klipstein wrote: >> >>> If you shoot movies and want to do equalization on the sound >>>track, then I suggest finding software to do that. Reducing content >>>at frequencies above about 4 KHz should reduce hiss. An alternative >>>is to hack the camera to add a capacitor in the microphone circuit >>>to reduce content at higher frequencies where most of the hiss is. >> >>Assuming that the hiss is coming in at that early a stage and not >>through some crappy electronics somewhere between the microphone and >>the A/D converter. >> >>Also, if it is properly designed, everything before the A/D should >>have a signal-to-noise ratio approximately as good as the bit depth >>that the A/D converter achieves across the whole spectrum that the A/D can >>handle based on its sample rate. That is, if it's an 8-bit A/D, then >>the signal-to-noise ratio of the stuff before the A/D should probably >>be around 48 dB (6 dB per bit). And if the sample rate is 44.1 kHz, >>then the signal to noise ratio should be 48 dB or better from 20 Hz >>up to 22.05 kHz (at least). >> >>Of course, this could be a problem with some kind of super-cheap, >>horrid automatic gain control. The signal going into the A/D might >>be totally at the wrong level. Or maybe it's really just a bunch >>of wind noise. Obviously the microphone can't be all that hot if >>it's a miscellaneous feature in a $400 camera, considering that good >>microphones often cost $400 themselves. :-) > > > There's plenty of dirt cheap mics that dont have that obvious problem. good quality microphone. I know because I've tried it. The signal is weak but the noise is typically small. In article <g1owf.32579$g_6.26***@tornado.texas.rr.com>, Logan Shaw wrote:
>Don Klipstein wrote: A common weak point is condenser microphones and/or the first stage of >> If you shoot movies and want to do equalization on the sound track, then >> I suggest finding software to do that. Reducing content at frequencies >> above about 4 KHz should reduce hiss. An alternative is to hack the >> camera to add a capacitor in the microphone circuit to reduce content at >> higher frequencies where most of the hiss is. > >Assuming that the hiss is coming in at that early a stage and not through >some crappy electronics somewhere between the microphone and the A/D >converter. amplification - sometimes built into the microphone package. >Also, if it is properly designed, everything before the A/D should have I have heard 8-bit audio. No way my Powershot A70 has 8-bit audio, >a signal-to-noise ratio approximately as good as the bit depth that >the A/D converter achieves across the whole spectrum that the A/D can >handle based on its sample rate. That is, if it's an 8-bit A/D, then >the signal-to-noise ratio of the stuff before the A/D should probably >be around 48 dB (6 dB per bit). And if the sample rate is 44.1 kHz, >then the signal to noise ratio should be 48 dB or better from 20 Hz >up to 22.05 kHz (at least). gotta be much better than that. 8-bit in my experience is always more distorted than the soundtracks from my camera. Since I always hear noise and it sounds like I only get s/n estimated about 40 dB, most of my noise would have to come from before the A/D converter. Wondering if it would be worse if I played back through speakers with good high frequency response? >Of course, this could be a problem with some kind of super-cheap, I think it's mainly the microphone, maybe also the first stage of >horrid automatic gain control. The signal going into the A/D might >be totally at the wrong level. Or maybe it's really just a bunch >of wind noise. Obviously the microphone can't be all that hot if >it's a miscellaneous feature in a $400 camera, considering that good >microphones often cost $400 themselves. :-) electronics after the microphone element (possibly inside the microphone package). Some of the noise I hear sounds like some kind of wind noise but I always hear noise. - Don Klipstein (d**@misty.com) Don Klipstein wrote:
> I have heard 8-bit audio. No way my Powershot A70 has 8-bit audio, Yeah, probably, unless the sample rate is low and you aren't even> gotta be much better than that. 8-bit in my experience is always more > distorted than the soundtracks from my camera. Since I always hear > noise and it sounds like I only get s/n estimated about 40 dB, most of > my noise would have to come from before the A/D converter. Wondering if > it would be worse if I played back through speakers with good high > frequency response? getting much high-frequency content at all. By the way, 8-bit audio doesn't have to sound really distorted. If you compress the SNOT out of a signal before converting it to 8 bit, it can sound fairly distortion-free. I did this one time when converting some audio for use in a Palm OS program where we needed to go with 8 bit for reasons of size. Also, the regular telephone network uses 8-bit samples and they sound relatively undistorted because they compress the signal within an inch of its life. > I think it's mainly the microphone, maybe also the first stage of Yeah, you're probably right. I'm starting to remember hearing that> electronics after the microphone element (possibly inside the microphone > package). Some of the noise I hear sounds like some kind of wind noise > but I always hear noise. condenser mics often have high self-noise, and then it's not surprising at all there would be a noisy pre-amp in there. This is an area where you'd totally expect a manufacturer to skimp on parts, because it's a little-used function and pennies count. - Logan Don Klipstein wrote:
> I think it's mainly the microphone, maybe also the first stage of Just a comment, the A80 that I used to own never had> electronics after the microphone element (possibly inside the microphone > package). this noise problem, nor does my friend's A70. This is an A620 issue. >Hi all, I was more bothered by the fact that Maria didn't come with the> >I want to tell you about a serious flaw in the >Canon Powershot A620, which required that I return >my A620. I assumed it was just a defect in my camera alone, >but in searching Usenet I have discovered that others >have had the same problem. camera. > This camera initially seems novel because it allows Anyone who buys a digital stills camera because they think it will allow > shooting movies at 30 frames per second in 640x480 > resolution, which might make you think that you could > buy it instead of a video camera. That would be a mistake. > If you want to shoot a movie, buy a video camera > and not this $400 hunk of junk. them to shoot a movie is starting with a deluded perspective. A movie mode is an add on, normally provided because "it can" and "it's fun," rather than because it's any good. The best digital cameras don't have movie mode at all. Just because one of the gimmicky features of the camera you've bought isn't up to standard, that doesn't mean the camera is a hunk of junk. Try using it for what it was designed for. > Try using it for what it was designed for. I did. It's designed for still *and* movies.--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering,freelance electrician FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr ? "Racer X" <nowh***@noplace.no> ?????? ??? ?????? I agree with everyone saying that a still camera is *mainly* intented fornews:WeKdnX8xHc1Enl7eRVn-tQ@comcast.com... > > > Try using it for what it was designed for. > > I did. It's designed for still *and* movies. still pictures, while a camcorder is mainly designed for movies.So none does both in excellence.My digital still camera (Kodak CX 7300) only takes silent video and worse than an 1981 camcorder, but this never bothers me as it's quite sympathetic even that bad video for my cousins in Canada, to see my sister's fiancee brother playing the piano.For *real*movies I have the 8mm Sony CCD-TR425E pal which is even today excellent.Of course it's no good for overseas relatives since VCRs in USA and Canada don't playback PAL cassetes, I asked'em. Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
[] > I agree with everyone saying that a still camera is *mainly* intented ... whereas your relatives anywhere in the world /could/ most likely view > for still pictures, while a camcorder is mainly designed for > movies.So none does both in excellence.My digital still camera (Kodak > CX 7300) only takes silent video and worse than an 1981 camcorder, > but this never bothers me as it's quite sympathetic even that bad > video for my cousins in Canada, to see my sister's fiancee brother > playing the piano.For *real*movies I have the 8mm Sony CCD-TR425E pal > which is even today excellent.Of course it's no good for overseas > relatives since VCRs in USA and Canada don't playback PAL cassetes, I > asked'em. the .MOV files produced by today's digital cameras. Cameras like the Nikon 8400 can produce 640 x 480 pixel movies at 30 fps, probably at least as good as your 1981 camcorder, with added benefit of electronic image stabilisation. David --
Show quote
Hide quote
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering,freelance electrician FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr Ï "David J Taylor" <david-tay***@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá news:nxtxf.25230$iz3.1486@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk... I think you didn't read my post?I say I have a digital camera, Kodak CX> Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote: > [] > > I agree with everyone saying that a still camera is *mainly* intented > > for still pictures, while a camcorder is mainly designed for > > movies.So none does both in excellence.My digital still camera (Kodak > > CX 7300) only takes silent video and worse than an 1981 camcorder, > > but this never bothers me as it's quite sympathetic even that bad > > video for my cousins in Canada, to see my sister's fiancee brother > > playing the piano.For *real*movies I have the 8mm Sony CCD-TR425E pal > > which is even today excellent.Of course it's no good for overseas > > relatives since VCRs in USA and Canada don't playback PAL cassetes, I > > asked'em. > > .. whereas your relatives anywhere in the world /could/ most likely view > the .MOV files produced by today's digital cameras. Cameras like the > Nikon 8400 can produce 640 x 480 pixel movies at 30 fps, probably at least > as good as your 1981 camcorder, with added benefit of electronic image > stabilisation. > > David > > 7300, which produces acceptable videos at 640 X 480 @ 30 fps, which is more convenient than buying a standalone DVD recorder or upgrading my PC (again) so that I can burn DVDs....The VHS format has died so no question of making cassetes. Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > -- Some of the newer digital cameras make excellent short videos. You > Tzortzakakis Dimitrios > major in electrical engineering,freelance electrician > FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker > dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr > ? "Racer X" <nowh***@noplace.no> ?????? ??? ?????? > news:WeKdnX8xHc1Enl7eRVn-tQ@comcast.com... >>> Try using it for what it was designed for. >> I did. It's designed for still *and* movies. > I agree with everyone saying that a still camera is *mainly* intented for > still pictures, while a camcorder is mainly designed for movies.So none does > both in excellence.My digital still camera (Kodak CX 7300) only takes silent > video and worse than an 1981 camcorder, but this never bothers me as it's > quite sympathetic even that bad video for my cousins in Canada, to see my > sister's fiancee brother playing the piano.For *real*movies I have the 8mm > Sony CCD-TR425E pal which is even today excellent.Of course it's no good for > overseas relatives since VCRs in USA and Canada don't playback PAL cassetes, > I asked'em. > > might check out the Kodak C330, which does full motion VGA video an allows many options while shooting. Or go with the P850 which does great stills, and great video. If you don't want to carry both types of camera around, the ability to do good video and stills in one camera is a nice feature. Racer X <nowh***@noplace.no> writes:
>> Try using it for what it was designed for. It's generally agreed (if you bothered to read the photo and video>I did. It's designed for still *and* movies. newsgroups that you are now sending your complaints to) that most digital still cameras make poor movie cameras at best, and most movie cameras make poor still cameras at best. If you really insist on having a single camera for both purposes, you might have tried searching for discussion of that issue in these newsgroups. Various people recommended the Canon S2IS, among Canon cameras, as one whose video capabilities were pretty good. Nobody has recommended the A620 for its video as far as I can remember. I'll bet that you're spending more time now complaining about the A620 than you ever spent researching cameras before you bought one. If so, doesn't that seem a bit strange? Dave Dave Martindale <da***@cs.ubc.ca> wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Racer X <nowh***@noplace.no> writes: All completely irrelevant to the problem he actually had with the> >>> Try using it for what it was designed for. > >> I did. It's designed for still *and* movies. > > It's generally agreed (if you bothered to read the photo and video > newsgroups that you are now sending your complaints to) that most > digital still cameras make poor movie cameras at best, and most movie > cameras make poor still cameras at best. > > If you really insist on having a single camera for both purposes, you > might have tried searching for discussion of that issue in these > newsgroups. Various people recommended the Canon S2IS, among Canon > cameras, as one whose video capabilities were pretty good. Nobody has > recommended the A620 for its video as far as I can remember. > > I'll bet that you're spending more time now complaining about the A620 > than you ever spent researching cameras before you bought one. If so, > doesn't that seem a bit strange? A620, LOUSY SOUND, WITH A HIGH BACKGROUND HISS. It should be routine to avoid that with any decently designed camera. Dave Martindale wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Racer X <nowh***@noplace.no> writes: Many of the newest still cameras will do excellent video, even allowing > >>> Try using it for what it was designed for. > >> I did. It's designed for still *and* movies. > > It's generally agreed (if you bothered to read the photo and video > newsgroups that you are now sending your complaints to) that most > digital still cameras make poor movie cameras at best, and most movie > cameras make poor still cameras at best. > > If you really insist on having a single camera for both purposes, you > might have tried searching for discussion of that issue in these > newsgroups. Various people recommended the Canon S2IS, among Canon > cameras, as one whose video capabilities were pretty good. Nobody has > recommended the A620 for its video as far as I can remember. > > I'll bet that you're spending more time now complaining about the A620 > than you ever spent researching cameras before you bought one. If so, > doesn't that seem a bit strange? > > Dave zoom, and changing focus, and changing aperture while shooting. They match the output of modern video cameras well. Keep watching, things like this get better with time. Ron Hunter wrote:
> Many of the newest still cameras will do excellent video, even allowing my pentax optio does *adequate* video. id be hard pressed to call it excellent. more like 1st gen VHS camcorder quality with a 1GB SD giving a half hr of video. OTOH, its pocket size, has a big display, takes excellent quality stills including several different preset modes. i can take pictures of pictures in a museum and they turn out clear. i can take pictures of text documents that are easily readable and printable. all on 2 AA rechargeables, which was a requirement for me. > zoom, and changing focus, and changing aperture while shooting. They theyll get even better within a few years. THEN youll be able to truly > match the output of modern video cameras well. Keep watching, things > like this get better with time. "do it all"... send stills to an online processor, and burn DVDs from the movie clips. all on something that fits in your shirt pocket! SoCalMike wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Ron Hunter wrote: Many of the new still cameras do 640x480 video at 30fps, which is much >> Many of the newest still cameras will do excellent video, even allowing > > my pentax optio does *adequate* video. id be hard pressed to call it > excellent. more like 1st gen VHS camcorder quality with a 1GB SD giving > a half hr of video. > > OTOH, its pocket size, has a big display, takes excellent quality stills > including several different preset modes. > > i can take pictures of pictures in a museum and they turn out clear. i > can take pictures of text documents that are easily readable and > printable. all on 2 AA rechargeables, which was a requirement for me. > >> zoom, and changing focus, and changing aperture while shooting. They >> match the output of modern video cameras well. Keep watching, things >> like this get better with time. > > theyll get even better within a few years. THEN youll be able to truly > "do it all"... send stills to an online processor, and burn DVDs from > the movie clips. all on something that fits in your shirt pocket! more than merely adequate. Ron Hunter <rphun***@charter.net> writes:
>Many of the new still cameras do 640x480 video at 30fps, which is much I'd call that adequate, because it's more or less equivalent to DV>more than merely adequate. cameras. Well, except that the still camera probably records MPEG-compressed data, not DV or motion JPEG, so it's not quite so good after all. And DV cameras will record stereo audio at CD-equivalent quality or better (16 bit 48 kHz), and often have external mike jacks. Most still cameras have a mono microphone behind a tiny hole and poor sound quality. Basically, the video capabilities of most digital still cameras are still inferior to the cheapest DV tape cameras. Dave Dave Martindale wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphun***@charter.net> writes: thats kinda nit-picky, if youre worrying about compression in a still > >> Many of the new still cameras do 640x480 video at 30fps, which is much >> more than merely adequate. > > I'd call that adequate, because it's more or less equivalent to DV > cameras. Well, except that the still camera probably records > MPEG-compressed data, not DV or motion JPEG, so it's not quite so good > after all. camera that does movies. just my opinion. > yup> And DV cameras will record stereo audio at CD-equivalent quality or > better (16 bit 48 kHz), and often have external mike jacks. Most still > cameras have a mono microphone behind a tiny hole and poor sound > quality. > id agree. tapes dead, anyway. next BIG things gonna be HDD based > Basically, the video capabilities of most digital still cameras are > still inferior to the cheapest DV tape cameras. cameras, with USB to put the video on a computer to burn to DVD. maybe an SD slot for stills as well. Show quoteHide quote > > Dave SoCalMike wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Dave Martindale wrote: I am very surprised that DV cameras don't already HAVE HDs.>> Ron Hunter <rphun***@charter.net> writes: >> >>> Many of the new still cameras do 640x480 video at 30fps, which is >>> much more than merely adequate. >> >> I'd call that adequate, because it's more or less equivalent to DV >> cameras. Well, except that the still camera probably records >> MPEG-compressed data, not DV or motion JPEG, so it's not quite so good >> after all. > > thats kinda nit-picky, if youre worrying about compression in a still > camera that does movies. just my opinion. >> >> And DV cameras will record stereo audio at CD-equivalent quality or >> better (16 bit 48 kHz), and often have external mike jacks. Most still >> cameras have a mono microphone behind a tiny hole and poor sound >> quality. > > yup >> >> Basically, the video capabilities of most digital still cameras are >> still inferior to the cheapest DV tape cameras. > > id agree. tapes dead, anyway. next BIG things gonna be HDD based > cameras, with USB to put the video on a computer to burn to DVD. maybe > an SD slot for stills as well. >> >> Dave I haven't looked at that market segment in some years. Dave Martindale wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Ron Hunter <rphun***@charter.net> writes: Now you are on about sound. I was talking about video quality. Yes, > >> Many of the new still cameras do 640x480 video at 30fps, which is much >> more than merely adequate. > > I'd call that adequate, because it's more or less equivalent to DV > cameras. Well, except that the still camera probably records > MPEG-compressed data, not DV or motion JPEG, so it's not quite so good > after all. > > And DV cameras will record stereo audio at CD-equivalent quality or > better (16 bit 48 kHz), and often have external mike jacks. Most still > cameras have a mono microphone behind a tiny hole and poor sound > quality. > > Basically, the video capabilities of most digital still cameras are > still inferior to the cheapest DV tape cameras. > > Dave most aren't stereo, but then the idea of stereo from a home video camera is rather laughable too. And the .mov compressed video on my camera is quite good, even if I do have to use something from Apple to play it! Ron Hunter wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > SoCalMike wrote: yeah. couldnt find anything pocket sized that ran on AAs though. that >> Ron Hunter wrote: >>> Many of the newest still cameras will do excellent video, even allowing >> >> my pentax optio does *adequate* video. id be hard pressed to call it >> excellent. more like 1st gen VHS camcorder quality with a 1GB SD >> giving a half hr of video. >> >> OTOH, its pocket size, has a big display, takes excellent quality >> stills including several different preset modes. >> >> i can take pictures of pictures in a museum and they turn out clear. i >> can take pictures of text documents that are easily readable and >> printable. all on 2 AA rechargeables, which was a requirement for me. >> >>> zoom, and changing focus, and changing aperture while shooting. They >>> match the output of modern video cameras well. Keep watching, things >>> like this get better with time. >> >> theyll get even better within a few years. THEN youll be able to truly >> "do it all"... send stills to an online processor, and burn DVDs from >> the movie clips. all on something that fits in your shirt pocket! > > Many of the new still cameras do 640x480 video at 30fps, which is much > more than merely adequate. was my trade-off. i find myself using this camera a lot more than my old one, just by it being easy to slip in my pocket. course, now youll post a link to one that does 640x480, is small, and uses AAs just to make me feel bad :) I have to agree, come on mate. Go to a shop to buy a video camera if
thats what you want. If your pretext for returning a stills camera is that it is no good as a video camera then you are the one that made the wrong purchase. Its like returning a ferrari because the stereo's not good. Also, I have a previous model, the A85. Im a professional photographer and I think its pictures are very good. If you have bought a stills camera for video purposes, and returned it, I would also suspect that you have not read the instructions or given the device a fair crack. Derek Fountain <nom***@hursley.ibm.com> wrote in Show quoteHide quote news:43c2243d$0$68731$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net: >> This camera initially seems novel because it allows >> shooting movies at 30 frames per second in 640x480 >> resolution, which might make you think that you could >> buy it instead of a video camera. That would be a mistake. >> If you want to shoot a movie, buy a video camera >> and not this $400 hunk of junk. > > Anyone who buys a digital stills camera because they think it will > allow them to shoot a movie is starting with a deluded perspective. A > movie mode is an add on, normally provided because "it can" and "it's > fun," rather than because it's any good. The best digital cameras > don't have movie mode at all. > > Just because one of the gimmicky features of the camera you've bought > isn't up to standard, that doesn't mean the camera is a hunk of junk. > Try using it for what it was designed for. > bloke <aotherbl***@bloke.com> wrote
> I have to agree, More fool you.> come on mate. Go to a shop to buy What he wants is a still camera with a viable video mode.> a video camera if thats what you want. There are plenty of those around now. > If your pretext for returning a stills camera No it isnt. His complaint is that the sound quality is completey unacceptible.> is that it is no good as a video camera Its perfectly possible to have the audio much better than the one he had in a still camera with video mode. > then you are the one that made the wrong purchase. Wrong, as always.> Its like returning a ferrari because the stereo's not good. Nothing like.> Also, I have a previous model, the A85. Im a professional photographer Unlikely when even the store monkey realised the audio> and I think its pictures are very good. If you have bought a stills > camera for video purposes, and returned it, I would also suspect that > you have not read the instructions or given the device a fair crack. had a problem when that was demonstrated properly. Show quoteHide quote > Derek Fountain <nom***@hursley.ibm.com> wrote in > news:43c2243d$0$68731$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net: > >>> This camera initially seems novel because it allows >>> shooting movies at 30 frames per second in 640x480 >>> resolution, which might make you think that you could >>> buy it instead of a video camera. That would be a mistake. >>> If you want to shoot a movie, buy a video camera >>> and not this $400 hunk of junk. >> >> Anyone who buys a digital stills camera because they think it will >> allow them to shoot a movie is starting with a deluded perspective. A >> movie mode is an add on, normally provided because "it can" and "it's >> fun," rather than because it's any good. The best digital cameras >> don't have movie mode at all. >> >> Just because one of the gimmicky features of the camera you've bought >> isn't up to standard, that doesn't mean the camera is a hunk of junk. >> Try using it for what it was designed for. On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 19:38:31 -0500, Racer X wrote:
> I want to tell you about a serious flaw in the d'oh! it's a still camera, for god's sake. you get what you pay for. oh, by> Canon Powershot A620 the way, filtering out the noise shouldn't be a big problem. -- * * * * * S U P E R ! * * * * * if anybody is interested in Digital camera and would like to have movie
with 30 frames per second and of good quality and length, one can look at Kodak v550. It is 5 Mpixels, 3x optical zoom, and can shoot 14 min of good quality on 512 MB SD card. Its really good. ~Santosh On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 19:38:31 -0500, Racer X <nowh***@noplace.no>
wrote: >Hi all, There would be a lot less noise here if you'd post what you want to> >I want to tell you about a serious flaw in the >Canon Powershot A620, which required that I return >my A620. I assumed it was just a defect in my camera alone, >but in searching Usenet I have discovered that others >have had the same problem. say, then stop posting. -- Bill Funk Replace "g" with "a" funktionality.blogspot.com 
Other interesting topics
Hi-8 vs other 8s.
Which digital camera records 30fps video? Adobe Premier Elements and CyberLink PowerDVD, picture aspect ratio problem bestpricecameras.com are N.Y. style con artists Firewire dropping on Sony HC19E time-lapse + waterproof housing + digital media Sony HC40 audio incompatibility? camcorders with remote lens Factory pressed dvd movies, ps2, psp & xbox backups for sale !!! Video Production by Lynne S. Gross (2005) on ebay |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
