Re: [Hampshire] [OT] Cameras revisited

On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 08:59:15 +0000
"Chris. Aubrey-Smith" <cas194@???> wrote:

> I'm in a similar situation. I've been using a Pentax Optio S4
> which, despite being a matchbox-sized camera, is capable of some
> quite serious photography. I have all sorts of accessories which
> fit various Pentax models, so I have a powerful incentive to stay
> with the brand.
>
> Just before going on a trip abroad recently, the camera developed a
> fault. As John notes, technology has moved on, prices have dropped,
> etc., so I planned to buy a new one rather than pay repair charges.
> Problem: None of the later models have an eye-level viewfinder!
>
> I used a borrowed Pentax S5 on holiday and found that it was
> practically useless in bright sunlight. It is impossible to compose
> a picture and I found myself pointing the camera in the vague
> direction of the subject, and hoping. Result: about a quarter of my
> pictures will have to be deleted.
>
> The moral of this story is: think carefully before buying a new
> pocket camera. It may be capable of many megapixels, but you might
> have limited control over what you capture.

I know just what you mean.

One of my daughter has a small camera that takes good pics but it has
no viewfinder. I used it last weekend at a family get-together to try
to take a group shot of our daughters sat on a settee and found it
very difficult to compose the picture whilst holding the camera out in
front of me.

With a conventional viewfinder you can at least brace your arms
against your body to stop most of the movement but without something
to rest my arms on I found it almost impossible to hold the camera
still.

I couldn't use my Olympus as it kept turning itself off so many of
the pics we did get aren't very good with tops of heads cut off and
the like.

--
John Lewis
Debian (Sid) with the GeneWeb genealogy package