At 11:39 24/06/01, Isaac wrote:
>Then you're using the wrong rechargeable... The newer NIMH batteries
>should last significantly longer than alkalizes in digital cameras. Of
>course, that is a small amount of money as compared to whole package.
I haven't tried them for a while, rechargeable batteries that is. The last
time I used them was to power my nephew's remote control car, and I found
that the Alkaline AA's lasted about 20% longer.
Funnily enough, the manual for the EI-200 says to avoid using the display
on the back of the camera as a view finder because of the greatly reduced
battery life span. I was doing just that this morning and went through a
set of batteries in about 55 minutes. I found when doing stuff at pretty
close range you need to use the display as the view finder doesn't line up
otherwise.
>You should lose quit a bit of flexibility as compared to the MJU2, you
>can't shoot in different types of light (tungsten, fluorescent,
>daylight, etc), you'd lose whatever macro feature the Pentax has, you'd
>lose the wysiwyg (for focusing at least, more or less for the actual
>framing) screen, "instant" feedback as far as how the shot came out, and
>of course you don't have the extra time expenditure at the lab. It's not
>really fair to either camera to compare them... If those features are
>ones that you would like to have (and if they're not maybe you don't
>really want a digital!:-), I think that they would be worth, say another
>500-600 bucks. That still leaves $800, but depending on how you shoot,
>you may or may not make it worth your while. There are many people that
>do!
When it comes to digital cameras, you are right, there are a lot of people
that prefer that style of photography. Truth be known, there are probably
people that are only into photography because they bought a digital camera.
I was looking at going digital for those shots that I don't ever have any
intention of doing anything with except look at them, and maybe whack them
on a web page. Things that I seem to waste film on, and sometimes wonder if
it is worthwhile getting it developed and printed. The problem for me is
that I don't think I could use the EI-200 and be happy with it. I'll have
to try a few different ones, maybe the EI-2000 or EI-3000.
I was also thinking of going to medium format for a lot of other stuff.
I'll borrow a 645 next and see how I go with that. It should be an
interesting experience.
> > If Pentax really want to scoop the pool, all they need to do is bring out a
> > digital MZ-50 for the same price as the MZ-S. They wouldn't get them out
> > the door quick enough.
>
> I'm sure that they would if they could! Hopefully they're working on
>it. I think that being the first to offer an affordable digital SLR
>sounds very Pentax, don't you?:-)
Absolutely! (hehehehe I hate that word, but thought I'd throw it in for
effect) Seriously, if they did that I really don't think they'd be able to
produce them quickly enough. I would be like the proverbial pig in shit if
they did, though.
Cheers
Jon
Relax! Take life as it comes, you can't chase the sun, you can't race the wind
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
