gfen wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Keith Whaley wrote: > > That's precisely why I wanted one. Still not out of the question, but... > > I'm a big fan of tiny things...and lots of small things aren't tiny enough > for me. I like to be able to carry everything I need in a pocket, if > possible, and not so that my pants bulge out and fall down, either. :) > > > Since it would be my one and only digital, I got to thinking about the > > specification limits. > > Think about how digital, right now, fits into your overall picture.
Yeah, I still am... > > Not that the 3 Mp S is in any way shabby, but that the 5 Mp 550 > > extends those specifications, almost in every direction... > > I bought a digital camera for my girlfriend this CHristmas. An Optio > 330GS. > > I bought it in a way that fit into my overall thinking, as well. We both > go on a trip together, we both take cameras. Why should she take her PnS > film camera when my film cameras are superior in every way (but size and > weight)? Didn't make sense. She can take her digital along for the > snapshots, and I can break out a film camera for the "nice" pictures. The > 330 seemed to be the best choice for alot of reasons, including the fact > that its highest quality setting should produce adequete 4x6 and 5x7 > images. Anything above that could be covered by my own equipment. I didn't > need any more (nor could I justify the expense, but work with me here!). > > If I had money to spare, and were buying for me: I'd buy an Optio S. Pure > convience. If I'm planning on photo ops, I'll take a 35, 645, or 4x5..but > if I'm just heading out for whatever, I'd rather have the tiny, tiny > cmaera I won't think twice about carrying, rather than one that I might > leave at home cause even though its pretty small and light, it still makes > my pockets bulge. I understand... At 8 oz. the 550 weighs 1/2 lb., while the S is only 1/4 lb... > > I suppose if I just wanted a digital for snapshots, I'd be happy with > > the S, but I would tend to use it (my new digital) when I didn't want > > to use film, but still wanted most of the other capabilities. > So it comes down to more convienece over the ability to have better > results... No, it's convenience VS. better results. Not MORE convenience. Well, I guess there might really be no distinction there, come to think of it... I frequently DO tend to take photos, whether with digital or film, at each end of all the specs, and if I regularly got to the point where I cursed my decision to take the more convenient camera...and was unable to do dim existing light or sunny snow photos, I'd feel I'd erred. Zoom, for instance. I am enough older now so I do not use a "walking zoom." If I'm across a creek or some shoreline rocks and I want a tighter crop, these days I'd zoom in on it. Most likely the 5X zoom and 187mm lens would get what I'm looking for, and the 3X zoom with the 105mm wouldn't quite be able to do it. Also, if I did take this not-quite-tight-enough photo with the 3 Mp camera, I wouldn't be able to take advantage of the higher density of the sensor and crop to fit and expand, if I wanted to... >...however, what if that slightly larger camera detracts from your > willingness to ALWAYS have it? A 5x7 of the UFO landing is worth more than > an anal probing story with no picture. You're absolutely right, of course! First, get SOME photo! The Optio 550 is still pocketable, however. Yes,. it's bulkier than the S, indeed, but much more capable. It carries a 187mm lens in a 3 X 3.9 X 1.6" thick package. Try THAT with your MX! I hope it isn't priced out of my range... > Why does it feel like I'm arguing or something? Hey, whatever, do what > makes you happy.. :) Hah, hah... Thanks for your words! I do appreciate all argument, to help solidify my intentions. You've helped. keith whaley
