Other Gadgets (general gadgets)

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Biggest negative is that it uses a proprietary battery pack

The positive side of the battery pack is battery life. The proprietary batteries last a whole lot longer than standard off the shelf batteries. Just buy an extra one at batteries.com. I can also recommend the Canon Elph series.

[Alex_de_Large]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Alex, I don't think that's quite right. All iTunes music store files are in AAC format. iPods can play AAC files and mp3 files (all the ones you either ripped from your own CDs or stole through the assistance of Napster v.1). But you can burn the AAC file to a CD and then reimport it as an mp3

Napster 2.0 uses WMA format. But the player can still play mp3 files (according to the link).

So, your choice is iPod, which works with iTunes music store and all your old stuff. Or Napster, which works with Napster, and all your old stuff. VHS or Beta, anyone?

I stand corrected. Thanks!

[Anne Elk]

Anyone have a digital SLR camera? Are they worth the money or can you get most of the same features out of a high end point and shoot digital? I've had a 2MP Olympus (only thing I've ever won) for about 2 years and I'm getting frustrated with the lens and exposure limitations.

If I do splurge, it will be for the Nikon D1 (all my 35mm is Nikon). Hopefully the prices will drop some more when the D2 is released.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Anne Elk
Anyone have a digital SLR camera? Are they worth the money or can you get most of the same features out of a high end point and shoot digital? I've had a 2MP Olympus (only thing I've ever won) for about 2 years and I'm getting frustrated with the lens and exposure limitations.

If I do splurge, it will be for the Nikon D1 (all my 35mm is Nikon). Hopefully the prices will drop some more when the D2 is released.

You seriously have three grand to drop on a camera? More power to you. SLR is a format that probably doesn't mean much once you're talking about megapixels instead of film formats, unless you've got thousands sunk in compatible Nikon lenses or something.

I tend to agree with Wonk that if you're a serious-serious photographer, you're still shooting on film and getting Photo CDs from your developer for digital purposes. (Of course, by that measure, I stopped being a serious photographer three years ago, if ever I was one.)

Consumer Reports likes the $900 Nikon Coolpix 5700 (5 megapixel), which has an SLR type form factor but is not a true SLR. CR: "You want it all even at a price. Large and heavy, even for a 5-megapixel model, but its images are excellent and it's loaded with features, including 8X optical zoom."

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch


I tend to agree with Wonk that if you're a serious-serious photographer, you're still shooting on film and getting Photo CDs from your developer for digital purposes. (Of course, by that measure, I stopped being a serious photographer three years ago, if ever I was one.)

Or buying a high-end film/slide scanner and doing it yourself. The photo CDs, while very good quality, are still sacrificing something.

[Anne Elk]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You seriously have three grand to drop on a camera? More power to you.

Consumer Reports likes the $900 Nikon Coolpix 5700 (5 megapixel), which has an SLR type form factor but is not a true SLR. CR: "You want it all even at a price. Large and heavy, even for a 5-megapixel model, but its images are excellent and it's loaded with features, including 8X optical zoom."

No. I'm talking about the D1 which a few months ago was over 2 grand, but is now down to $1400. I'm hoping it drops to $1G or less with the upcoming D2 release. I refuse to spend more than that.

I've got a decent slide scanner, I just don't have the time to sit in front of it.

A friend is a pro and she's had the Canon SLR system for a few years now. Very cool stuff. Just wondering if the digital dream is worth pursuing or if I should pull the Holga out of the camera bag and have some fun.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Anne Elk
Anyone have a digital SLR camera? Are they worth the money or can you get most of the same features out of a high end point and shoot digital? I've had a 2MP Olympus (only thing I've ever won) for about 2 years and I'm getting frustrated with the lens and exposure limitations.

And, trying to answer the question (although I don't have such a camera), I don't believe that DSLRs have many features not available in high-end P&S, although if some of those advanced features matter, you'd better research it. The main advantage of a DSLR is 1) you can use your SLR lenses, which means a) more focal length variation b) better glass overall and c) being able to use lenses wide open, so that there's little DoF, which is harder on the f8/5.6 lenses a lot of P&S's have (effective, compared to 35mm) and 2) most have a bigger buffer for faster continuous shooting.

[Sidd Finch]

Please discuss.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Please discuss.

Sadly, my interest in the subject is entirely academic. But I caught a discussion among CE nerds about LCD versus plasma, which boiled down to this:

LCD Pro:

• Lighter weight;
• Lower power use;
• No burn in;
• Slimmer (<2");
• Longer life;
• Better resolution.

LCD Con:

• Possibility of dead pixels;
• Not as bright;
• Slower response time;
• Narrower color reproduction.

Plasma Pro:

• Faster response;
• Good color reproduction;
• Good contrast ratio;
• Cheaper (after you hit larger wall mount sizes);
• Fairly bright;
• The word "plasma" sounds vaguely sexual and impresses guests at your key parties.

Plasma Con:

• Burn in problem;
• Heavier;
• Eats electricity;
• Thicker.

The thing to take into account is that once you get to the largest LCD and plasma sizes (54" and 70" respectively) with 1920 x 1080 (true HD) resolutions, in the words of one CE geek, you're talking about the price of an entry-level Toyota Camry. (In lawyer-speak, that's equal to an entry-level model year 2000 A6.)

Whatever you get, be sure to invite me and Less over to watch porn.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The thing to take into account is that once you get to the largest LCD and plasma sizes (54" and 70" respectively) with 1920 x 1080 (true HD) resolutions, in the words of one CE geek, you're talking about the price of an entry-level Toyota Camry. (In lawyer-speak, that's equal to an entry-level model year 2000 A6.)

Whatever you get, be sure to invite me and Less over to watch porn.

So I was discussing this issue with Mrs. Finch, and we were in the neighborhood so we stopped at the Sony store to browse the plasma TVs, and as we were leaving she said "you're right, if you're going to bother getting a plasma TV the 42-inch really is too small. You might as well just get the 50."

I love that woman.

Even though she was non-plussed by my comeback -- "what about the 60?"

[mmm3587]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

[LCD vs. Plasma]

Also compare plasma and LCD to rear projection tubes, rear projection DLPs, front projection DLPs and front projection LCDs.

Plasma screens aren't servicable in any meaningful way, and the black levels and general brightness is supposed to significantly decrease after about 3 years. Spending $5k for a display which won't look nearly as good in 4 years scared me.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by mmm3587
Also compare plasma and LCD to rear projection tubes, rear projection DLPs, front projection DLPs and front projection LCDs.

Plasma screens aren't servicable in any meaningful way, and the black levels and general brightness is supposed to significantly decrease after about 3 years. Spending $5k for a display which won't look nearly as good in 4 years scared me.

Hmmmm..... The decline in brightness is frightening.

LCDs seem pretty tough to find, especially in any large-format. Rear projections are monstrously huge.

Shit. Maybe I'll just draw stick figures on the wall and stare at those all day.

Don't get an LCD. Speed is a very serious issue. You'll see very obvious scrolling during any action scenes.

Given the limited life of a plasma, unless you are a videophile or have lots of disposable income, the only reason to get one is placement. Sometimes, the room simply won't accomodate a tube or projection TV in a reasonable position for viewing.

But, once you do get a plasma, you're not likely to want to go back to a projection or a tube. Projection TVs have never offered great resolution, even the new HDTVs. And tubes are heavy and huge.

[mmm3587]

Originally posted by rbb
Projection TVs have never offered great resolution, even the new HDTVs. And tubes are heavy and huge.

I think that the DLP rear-projection tvs look great, and offer great resolution. There's no tube, just a digital light processor projecting light on the screen from the rear somehow. Look to avsforum.com (well, something like that; Atticus referenced it a while back, but it sometimes offends my firewall, so I don't want to check it) for more detail.

One of the significant benefits of DLP rear-processors is that they're both significantly lighter and thinner that traditional tube-based rear projection units.

3587--I've seen those new thin projection TVs. The change in size is truly outstanding. But IMO the picture quality is still noticeably poorer than tube and plasma.

Who is the hottie on your avatar, btw?