Asymmetrical Information

You know, uh, you can scale those suckers down for posting, right?

Heh.

Just to let you know, the last three pictures are now just parts of a wall or background.

Perhaps you "scaled them down" by just clipping the image? Clipping - where you take just a section of the picture, is different from scaling where you shrink (or grow) the size of the entire picture.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I don't think you meant to crow about your great pictures and then have these on display...

Hi Jane, glad you like that camera so much. Not to rain on your parade, but it only has a 3X zoom, and it uses a proprietary battery instead of regular AA cells.

The zoom has been more than enough for my needs, and the battery is a rechargable that works great.

Lighting wasn't too hot on that last one. If you're going to shell out for digital, it should manage the f-stop better than that.

Uh...is it possible to get a front shot of the bridesmaid dress one?

SIGH...if I were a Tex Avery-esque cartoon wolf, I would be stomping the floor with a two-toned wingtip clad paw while my basketball sized bloodshot eyes float 18 inches in front of my face. Steam would be pouring out of my ears whilst a train whistle sound effect nearly drowns out the "ARWOOOOOOOO!" eminating from my drool saturated yap.

Just another $0.02.

3x optical zoom is pretty much par for the course, although nowadays there are definitely more options out there if you need or want more. However longer zooms aren't automatically better; you definitely have to be much more choosy about the optical quality when you pick up a "super-zoom".

Also, AA battery compatibility is really more the exception than the rule I would say, so I don't see that necessarily as a knock. You can make the argument that manufacturers should be designing more power efficient cameras but that's something else.

As for the last picture, IMHO it looks more like an underpowered flash which is a pretty typical problem in cameras like these.

Based on the link, $300 doesn't seem to shabby for a 6MP camera, and, at least at Amazon, the LiIon battery isn't unreasonably priced at ~$35 if you really want or need a spare.

Is "Bird Nesting in a Cactus" meant as an allusion to a partridge in a pear tree? How about "Bridemaid's dress" and the five golden rings?

I bought the G500 last spring, based, in part, on the good Jane's recommendation. I've been very happy with it. Is it perfect? No. I much prefer my old 35mm SLR with its ability to change the lens and see exactly what the film will see. I'm sure I'd prefer the digital versions even more. Still, the G500 is so small and the extra SD card I bought holds so many pictures, I find I take many more pictures with the G500 than I ever did with the SLR. The camera fits in my pocket and just happens to be with me when I want to take a shot. A camera in your hand is much better than one that's been left in the car.

Hey Tex, it's just an ordinary white girl in a strapless dress. Don't make a spectacle of yourself. In fairness, the bride didn't do her any favors picking that thing. It's a nice prom dress, but weddings call for something less flashy and more practical, the strapless dress being ill-suited for long periods of standing around.

A different $0.02: anybody try the Fuji FinePix S5000? It's shaped like an SLR and comes with an adaptor for different lenses, which is cool... plus 10X optical zoom and something-odd digital - the 10X is great - plus quite fast write-to-card speeds plus a very nice 5-pic burst that's been a thing of beauty and a joy forever in catching kid sporting moments. It can apparently do a lot that an SLR can do on full-manual mode, plus it has priority-aperture and priority-shutter settings and several "special" presets (portrait, night, landscape, etc. - not as many as the Minolta if I recall), but I've so far confined my picture-taking to those presets and full-auto because I haven't the first clue about what to do with aperture and shutter. It's nominally 6MP, but that's using the (to some scandalous) Fuji interpolation technique. I'm not a good enough photographer to notice - I just treat it as a 3MP, which it inarguably is, and am very pleased with the results even after cropping and so forth. About $300 if I remember correctly.

We also bought a second Fuji 3MP, this one the usual compact digital style, to take on trips because it fits in a pocket. We debated and debated on having two $300 cameras (clearly we're NOT photographers!), crossed our fingers and went for it, and the smaller Fuji has been great for travel: has many of the same features (though only 3X zoom, 3-pic burst, etc.), so the compromise is not too bad.

If you are in to digital cameras you must check out Sigma's foveon technology. You cannot compare it megapixel to megapixel against other cameras because foveon just looks better. It actually measures RGB levels in each pixel rather than using a grid of 50% green, 25% red, and 25% blue sensors at each pixel to calculate the actual color.

Ok, I'm getting a bit technical, but just check the camera, OK?

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/Cameras_sd10.htm

Slightly higher price category, but well worth it IMHO. 'Course you can't beat the price of a gift. : )

David Thompson wrote:

Hey Tex, it's just an ordinary white girl in a strapless dress.

Second, in my opinion Jane looks gorgeous in that dress. Really, anything but "ordinary." Very nice. I had a crush on her before and I didn't even know she was that attractive.

Mr. Thompson,

Ordinary white girl! Have you no eyes to see, no brain to edit!

How's about you post a picture of yourself all gussied up so we can see how you stack up against the beautiful Ms. Galt?

In any case, you owe Jane a shame-faced apology, IMHO, for your ignominious comment.

Yay, a twofer.

"Seems like it's become stylish for a certain segment of the white population to belittle or dismiss people of their own race."

You assign more significance to a simple speech pattern than is warranted.

"Ordinary white girl! Have you no eyes to see, no brain to edit!"

I call 'em as I see 'em, rather than mindlessly drooling all over her like the rest of you overlibidinous horndogs.

"In any case, you owe Jane a shame-faced apology, IMHO, for your ignominious comment."

If her upper back and part of her right ear believe that I have slandered them, she can request an apology on their behalf. They should also request an apology from the camera's flashbulb while they're at it.

What is the world coming to when "bridesmaid's dress" is no longer understood to mean "hilariously ill-fitting pastel disaster"? Weddings are so fashionable now. Where's the fun?

Not that this is relevant to the post. I was just disappointed.

Speaking of "mindlessly drooling" that dog picture reminded me of why I am a cat person.

my $.02:

she looks fabulous in that dress

the camera is a lot of bang for the buck for a 'pocket camera'. if you want the high end, go for the digital slr's like the sigma or nikon.

digital thermometers are a must have. i would recommend pulling the turkey just before it hits 165, though, as the internal temp will actually rise a couple of degrees as the bird is resting (and wait to pull the probe until after the bird is rested, or else juice will squirt out).

that's all i've got.

"she looks fabulous in that dress"

I don't see it. Perhaps I don't have eyes for it. Anyway, I'll leave y'all to admire the Invisible Woman without further complaint.

David Thompson:

I like your "no further complaint" promise, that's very appropriate.

But if you don't have the cojones to post a picture of yourself in the first place, then you shouldn't make any comments at all.

And why do you think anyone wants to hear if you think Jane looks "ordinary" or not "fabulous"? You are a first-class, grade-A boor.

You can't really tell that much about how Miss Galt looks based on the back photo, except that she's slender and reasonably symmetrical in back. Which is a pretty good start, but she could be a 6 or a 10, and this picture doesn't tell you that.

Strapless isn't terribly practical for lots of standing around, but it's not terribly practical for moving around a lot, either. It's just not terribly practical. But that's ok. The back is high enough that she could reasonably comfortably find a "strapless bra" (which is usually just a rather flexible corset with decent breast support) and not suffer some of the less aesthetic side effects of wearing a strapless dress.

Even though that dress isn't an "ill-fitting pastel disaster", it does have a ridiculous tail that can't make up its mind if it's a bow or a bustle.

Gentlemen, gentlemen... First of all, I also think Jane looks fabulous, which is an achievement given that brides so often have (at least subconsciously) that niggling desire to look far-and-away the best at their own wedding. Which leads me to conclude that Jane's friend is either really stunning or very secure.

How can we tell she looks fabulous, in spite of only seeing her from the back? She has pretty arms and shoulders, a slender waist, no unsightly bulge at the top of the dress (the big disaster of strapless dresses, for so many), what appears to be a nice up-do, and POISE. She looks perfectly comfortable (and ditto to the comments about strapless dresses - it isn't easy to look "perfectly comfortable" in one).

The essence of poise, btw, is having a huge run in your stocking and acting as if it isn't even there. Or, in some circles, as if you put it there on purpose.

It's perfectly acceptable in the post-feminist world to appreciate a woman's physical attributes, as long as you also appreciate her intangible attributes, doggone it. Bravo to all of you who do! And it's just tactless and ungallant for a man or a woman to dismiss a picture of one's host as "just another ordinary [whatever] girl in a strapless dress," even if she didn't appear as well as Jane does. Wouldja say that to her face? Then you shouldn't say it behind her back, so to speak. And if you would say it to her face, I give up, you're unsalvageable.

Now Jane, this is what I call, true American style salesmanship.

I know I know, you are trying to make a buck or 2 from the fine folks at Amazon, but you shouldn't just shamelessly start using this community to sell us some substandard product...There are way better cameras out there, then the one, you are recommending.

Comments are Closed.