[at-l] Cameras (Kinda Long)

[WannaRedLeaf at aol.com (WannaRedLeaf@xxxxxxx)]

In a message dated 8/26/03 11:57:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
shane@theplacewithnoname.com writes:

> >I would have been disappointed with the quality of
> >the picture as they would not be any better than what
> >I got from the disposable cameras.
> 
> This is an overly broad statement that just isn't true.  Cheap digital
> cameras will give you the 'disposable image' look, but a decent one will
> give you very respectable images and prints.

I second this sentiment.  I have an Olympus D-510. No where near a high end 
camera, but the images are crisp and clear.  I still enjoy my Oly SLRs (OM 
system from the early 70's), but I decided that there are 'photo' hikes and 
'non-photo' hikes. Meaning one of the primary reasons for being out there is to take 
pix. (I always hike with a camera, just not always a HEAVY camera). IMO a 
long distance hike is definitely a 'non-photo' excursion.  A pound or two!!!!   
All I can say is, Grey Owl, hike your own hike, but be prepared to change your 
mind on how much weight you want to lug.
BTW, I recently saw a SONY CYBER-SHOT DSC-U20. Has anyone had any experience 
with this camera. It is super small, and weighs less than 5 oz.  Sometimes 
small means more accessible, which means less chance of missing shots.
       WRL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.hack.net/pipermail/at-l/attachments/20030826/c3f54828/attachment.htm