Best Coolpix for HD and low light too?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Neil Harrington on 2 Jul 2010 00:52 "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote in message news:i0i14l$8re$1(a)qmul... > > "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message > news:kYednV9TvKMt7LbRnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "John Turco" <jtur(a)concentric.net> wrote in message >> news:4C2AB5F3.9E1440FE(a)concentric.net... >>> Neil Harrington wrote: >>> >>> <heavily edited for brevity> >>> >>>> The Great Megapixel Race serves no purpose as far as I can see except >>>> to help >>>> manufacturers sell more cameras to people who think their pictures >>>> aren't sharp >>>> because they don't have enough megapixels. >>> >>> >>> Hey, don't forget the hard disk manufacturers! They're the ones that are >>> really cashing in on this "Great Megapixel Race" -- as those larger (in >>> file size) images demand increasing storage space. >> >> Maybe, but I wonder how many ordinary camera users keep that many of >> their image files. > > Personally I think most do, most hardly lookm at what they have saved and > tehy rarely delete anything. Note we are talking about ordinary camera > users. Yes, you may be right. > >> In the 35mm days I'll bet most people just had prints made and eventually >> lost or threw out the negatives, and they're likely to do essentially the >> same thing with digital. > > probably but maybe they won;t have prints made before they lose their > data. > >>> At the moment, I'm feeling the crunch, personally. I've barely over >>> 14GB free, on my 160GB IDE data drive. (A 500GB SATA puppy is ready to >>> be installed, but...I won't do it, until I purchase a suitable external >>> HDD, to back it up.) >> >> Yes, it's amazing how HDDs have grown in capacity. My first one (about 25 >> years ago) was 30 megabytes (MEGABYTES!). > > My first way a 20MB that my work place had thrown out because it didn;t > start up properly, I tok it apart separated teh circuit board from the HD, > which allowed me to push start the fly wheel to the Disc, then stitch on > and it worked fine for about 2 years, but always needing a 'kick start" That first Seagate of mine had starting up problems in cold weather. I suspect because Seagate used a cheap stepper mechanism in their low-end drives and they didn't find the tracks very well unless the temperature was roughly the same as when the drive had first been formatted. On cold mornings I'd have to start up the computer and let it run for 10 or 15 minutes before it would actually boot up. > >> and when I bought it I wondered what I'd ever do with all that space. Now >> you couldn't even put an operating system on a drive that small. > > About the same capacity as most DSLRs RAW for 1 picture . :-o Yes, close enough. :-)
From: Peter on 2 Jul 2010 07:24 "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message news:qY-dncdzV-fE8LDRnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message > news:i0idd8$2g5$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> On 6/30/2010 11:32 AM, Neil Harrington wrote: >> >>> >>> Yes, it's amazing how HDDs have grown in capacity. My first one (about >>> 25 >>> years ago) was 30 megabytes (MEGABYTES!) and when I bought it I wondered >>> what I'd ever do with all that space. Now you couldn't even put an >>> operating >>> system on a drive that small. >>> >>> >> >> Really? The first hard disk I bought, in 1971, was 256KILObytes. And I >> knew >> I would soon fill it up ... the overflow was saved on AUDIO CASSETTES!! >> (And I still have that data, transferred to 8" floppies, then to 3 1/2 >> inch floppies, then to cd-roms.) > > Wow, way before my time. I remember when audio cassettes were used for > storage, but the only computer I ever actually saw using that method was a > Radio Shack "CoCo" (Color Computer). However, I think all Apple IIs > continued to keep the cassette port, long after users had abandoned > cassettes. > > When you could buy a great 140K floppy drive for only $500, who would want > to use cassettes? :-) > IIRC my Apple II had no port for an audio cassette. I did have two Rana drives. the whole system with an Epson dot matrix printer cost me about $4,200, with VisiCalc. As to ROI, I made the cost back in less than 3 weeks. I was able to do financial analysis and projections more efficiently. When I did such work on a computer I added a surcharge for computer hours. I deliberately used a dot matrix printer because in those days there was a perception that if work was done on a computer, it was accurate. -- Peter
From: whisky-dave on 2 Jul 2010 10:36 "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message news:i0idd8$2g5$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 6/30/2010 11:32 AM, Neil Harrington wrote: > >> >> Yes, it's amazing how HDDs have grown in capacity. My first one (about 25 >> years ago) was 30 megabytes (MEGABYTES!) and when I bought it I wondered >> what I'd ever do with all that space. Now you couldn't even put an >> operating >> system on a drive that small. >> >> > > Really? The first hard disk I bought, in 1971, was 256KILObytes. And I > knew > I would soon fill it up ... the overflow was saved on AUDIO CASSETTES!! > (And I still have that data, transferred to 8" floppies, then to 3 1/2 > inch floppies, then to cd-roms.) That's sad, I thought I was sad when I copied the data[1] from my BBC where I had wriiten a simple bubble sort database things. I had to make up a serial lead to connect it to a MacPlus, transferred the data in to macwrite, then it ended up in word format, same for my video cassettes. The amount of time I spent doing it would have been quicker to type in all back in again, well not quicker for me but for someone that could type with more than 2 fingers :) > > Doug McDonald > > 1/ my music albums and singles collection (about 150 in total)
From: David Ruether on 2 Jul 2010 13:25 "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message news:4c2dcc71$0$5540$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... [...] > When I did such work on a computer I added a surcharge for computer hours. I deliberately used a dot matrix printer because in > those days there was a perception that if work was done on a computer, it was accurate. -- > Peter 8^) I've been relying on tax software for several years for my federal and state income taxes, maybe hoping for that same perception - but this year the IRS informed me that the software had made a mistake, and that I owed money (of course...! ;-) Your post reminded me to pay it... :-( --DR
From: David Ruether on 2 Jul 2010 13:40
"Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message news:uuydnWQMyZHo_rDRnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message news:i0g426$9b4$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu... >> "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message >> news:kYednV9TvKMt7LbRnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> Yes, it's amazing how HDDs have grown in capacity. My first one (about 25 years ago) was 30 megabytes (MEGABYTES!) and when I >>> bought it I wondered what I'd ever do with all that space. Now you couldn't even put an operating system on a drive that small. >> My first HD upgrade was to a "big" 10 megabyter(!), and I twice(!) bought >> 4 used RAM chips of 4 megs each for $360 a set! I think I've finally learned, >> though, not to splurge on the "newest and greatest" computer gear, since it >> so quickly comes to have been a waste of money... :-( >> I'm definitely in the "buy-older/buy-used/build-my-own" mode now. >> --DR > Absolutely. The last "cutting-edge technology" computer I bought was in 1997, had a 266MHz Pentium II and Windows 95 OSR2. Since > 1998 I've been building my own and I *never* buy the latest, biggest, fastest of anything in the parts department. Most every part > I buy now was much more expensive two or three years ago, now has the bugs worked out of it and is more than adequate for me > today. Now the only reason I can think of for "amateurs" to buy "bleeding edge" computers is to edit memory card AVCHD video, which is VERY CPU intensive work, unless one can tolerate a very low-quality preview window, or defeat the advantages of quick transfer of files by making transcoded larger files that the CPU can handle more easily while editing. Funny, though, that the output of tape-based HDV HD camcorders can be edited in real time easily with the highest quality previewing on modest computers, and the original tapes serve as excellent archiving media for the raw material, which often must be thrown out with card material for space reasons. Ah, the wonders of marketing...! ;-) --DR |