photography
- Thread starter leon-b
- Start date
Should do...the screens don't show as much detail as a proper monitor but it should be obvious. If not...take a load more on different settings to be on the safe side....the beauty of digital!leon-b said:
I'm following this thread very carefully as I'll probably getting a camera in the new Year as well. Have WE decided on the Nikon? It does bother me about the lack of a viewfinder. I can't seem to find the image as well with a LCD screen (particularly on full zoom in bright conditions) but this may help.
Any thoughts?
Pablo
decided on the Nikon? It does bother me about the lack of a viewfinder. I can't seem to find the image as well with a LCD screen (particularly on full zoom in bright conditions) but this may help.Any thoughts?
Pablo
Pablo said:I'm following this thread very carefully as I'll probably getting a camera in the new Year as well. Have WE
Any thoughts?
Pablo
Although mine has a viewfinder as well, i have no problem with framing shots with the LCD screen. Even in the brightest conditions it is still possible to see what you are doing. Maybe this is specific to better quality cameras such as Canon and Nikon. I bought my wife a Canon G6 for her birthday this year and again no problems
ArkAngel said:
ArkAngel said:
I dont know about most Epsons as I have only owned three in the last 10 years as Epson just dont seem to break down, but my Epson has 17ml in the black and 3x 10ml for the three colour cartridge.
Personally, I can understand why the cartridges of the Canon pixma ip4300 are so much bigger; at max resolution they use 33 times as much ink as my Epson. They also cost £11 each so thats 5X11=£55, where as my Epson use just two at £7 and £16 (cheaper inks are available for the Epson )
My Epson prints enprint sized photos at photo quality, which is good enough for me.
So Id say its all about what you use it for and what it costs to run. The Epson will cost more to buy Ill grant you. The comparable printer to yours is the Epson R380 which costs about £30 more but in the long run it costs about 25% less per photo print.
No, the older Nikons did, but newer ones, all seem to be without. It also doesnt have a hot shoe for separate flash and battery life is not that great,leon-b said:
Yes mate. I love taking photos. I had a really good Canon EOS 35mm, but since the 'digital age' I've made do with a digi cam thats takes single shots. It's a bit bulky.
I need one which is smallish if not compact, under £200, macro and more than 5 x optical zoom. Thanks to your thread, I think I've found it in the Nikkon s4. I'm open to more ideas, but at the moment I think the s4 fits the bill. I notice it also does video. As I said, I'm not too sure about the lack of a viewfinder, but by all accounts, this doesn;t matter too much especially with the shade add-on that you can get.
Pablo
I need one which is smallish if not compact, under £200, macro and more than 5 x optical zoom. Thanks to your thread, I think I've found it in the Nikkon s4. I'm open to more ideas, but at the moment I think the s4 fits the bill. I notice it also does video. As I said, I'm not too sure about the lack of a viewfinder, but by all accounts, this doesn;t matter too much especially with the shade add-on that you can get.
Pablo
To be honest I could buy it now. I've saved it up, but I'm waiting in case the sales brings a price drop. I must say I don;t think the the ebay one for £125 can be beaten, especially since it comes with a 1 gig card and small stand.
Pabs
Pabs
You would probably not need more than that. It will give you about 4,000 pics at 1024 resolution.
Similar threads
