Page 3 of 5
Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2005 4:35 am
by Sandstorm
My Minolta must be flawed. I did get some sand in it, but it never took any decent pics from day one. The wife works for Ritz Cameras. They said as soon as they seen sand in it they would blow you off and blame you. They would never buy the fact that it was crap from day one.. It's okay my Oly kicks arse...
Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:26 am
by thomez
Glad you got what you were lookin for Steve
Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:49 am
by wanablaze
My sister has an Olympus and I like it. It takes good enough pictures for me. Seems to have really good battery life. Easy to use, too.
Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 7:32 pm
by theJeStEr1340
QUOTE
Originally posted by Sandstorm
My Minolta must be flawed. I did get some sand in it, but it never took any decent pics from day one. The wife works for Ritz Cameras. They said as soon as they seen sand in it they would blow you off and blame you. They would never buy the fact that it was crap from day one.. It's okay my Oly kicks arse...
That's crazy, the first digi my dad boutght was an oly and it didn't take very good pictures, we took some pics aroudn the house with it and it did great, then we took it to bike week and all of a sudden it took lousy pics. My dad took the Minolta to sturgis and the back screen fell in and wolf camera around here repaired it... it took them 3 months, but it was free.
Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:31 pm
by TheJaspMan
QUOTE
Originally posted by Derno24
I would say that for the price range the Sony is the way to go. I have an older model and still use it off and on every no and then.
Quadpro I think you are stretching it a little far to say it is the best camera on the market. I would say for that price range, but there are tons of cameras that will smoke it when you get more expensive.
Derno, you still like your D70? I am looking seriously at the Canon 350D.
Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 8:35 pm
by TheJaspMan
theJeStEr1340, your colors and exposures look good. But I think you are staying too stiff in those lighting conditions. You need to pan with your object more. It would convey motion, yet still keep your object in full focus. Make sense?
Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:14 pm
by Derno24
QUOTE
Originally posted by TheJaspMan
Derno, you still like your D70? I am looking seriously at the Canon 350D.
Love it! It has a very fast turn on time and there is absolutely no lag between pics and the colors are awesome. I have had the chance to work with some more higher end cameras and I have to say it holds it's own pretty good!
I don't think you can go wrong with an SLR body camera though.
Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2005 11:32 pm
by TheJaspMan
QUOTE
Originally posted by Derno24
Love it! It has a very fast turn on time and there is absolutely no lag between pics and the colors are awesome. I have had the chance to work with some more higher end cameras and I have to say it holds it's own pretty good!
I don't think you can go wrong with an SLR body camera though.
I am working on the Canon 350D right now. I think it's going to be my next camera. Although I am a huge D70 fan.
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 12:18 am
by theJeStEr1340
QUOTE
Originally posted by TheJaspMan
theJeStEr1340, your colors and exposures look good. But I think you are staying too stiff in those lighting conditions. You need to pan with your object more. It would convey motion, yet still keep your object in full focus. Make sense?
yeah, I was trying to pan with them, but between being in the crowd, fast breaks, and the lack of speed of the camera it was pretty hard. On the betst shot I did have more time to pan and get a better picture. And the light in the gym really sucks, a lot fo pictures come out with an orangish haze to them.
thanks for the pointers, I always like to hear what others have to say.
I rather take pictures outside, they never turn orange:no:
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:34 am
by aroracer72
If you got a newer Canon or Sony..youll absolutely love it.
CHAD