The reason given is that XD is much faster than CF, whilst using less power. Whether this is true I don't know. However, there are cheap 8-in-1 card readers that read up to 256Mb XD cards. The ones that read 512Mb cards and above are slightly more expensive though :)
Lee
[T] Oh, the one on the DX10 made a big difference for objects at around 10" from the lens (don't go there!) ;-) [T] Thanks for that Lee ..
T i m
I have a F402, my first digi cam from Komplett
I researched a fair bit on which brand / model to get, and it became clear that throughtout the Fuji line-up they're all pretty much spot on.
Mine came with a cradle / usb lead / charger / 16mb XD card and the software worked first time out of the box and is dead easy to use.
If you like to take a fair number of snaps get another picture card- I now have a 64mb and you can fill that with ease without the battery going flat even with 50% pics using the flash. Can do video clips too.
Tim..
[T] I think I get their newsletter?
and it takes damn good pictures in nearly all conditions. My
[T] Spose. A mate has quite a zoomy DigiCam. I'll have to find out what it is .. I think it was around +AKM-400 whatever it is? [T] I would have to be I've been happy with my 3. When they did go wrong Fuji always came up with an updated (second user) replacement for no / little cost. ;-) [T] Quite something in these complex times ;-) [T] I rarely take more than 20 in one 'session'. More often they are single pics covering quite a timespan. The last time I used the DX10 was on a tiled fireplace now you see it ... ;-)Can do video clips too.
[T] Could be handy. A mate just sent me such a clip from his new Fuji 410 (cheaper as being phased out). He took some 'footage' (?) of some model sailing boats in a bit of a breese. He said 1 min of filming was long enough as his fingers were freezing!All the best ..
T i m
half in 12 years) Only some 6 quid on ebay
As used in Trim-phones? Didn't these cause a kerphuffle a few years back when someone found a landtip site full of them?
I think that was fire alarms.
Very handy. They can even be seen in the complete dark through trousers.
[T] Hmm, not sure I'd want *any* nuclide in my trousers!
All the best ..
T i m
How about this for a "left of field" suggestion? Get a decent (film) SLR. All the advantages of an SLR (lenses, filters, quality) for about a fifth the price of an SLR-style digital camera. Take the film into a Jessops or a Boots (or many other places) and as well as printing you off a nice set of... erm... prints, they'll give you for a quid or two more a CD with some highish resolution scans of the negatives.
If you go down the manual / semi automatic route you will probably find one (second hand Olympus OM series?) which operates on a couple of button cells which will last for *years*. The variety with built-in flash, powered zoom and autofocus tend to use more power, but still not as much as most digitals. I believe some will even take your beloved AAs.
The memory card issue is not an issue, though running costs at maybe £10 a film (film, processing) will, in the long term, make it slightly more expensive than digital (batteries, printing). Having said that, a decent film will have loads more than the equivalent of 2 or 4 megapixels resolution found in mid-range cameras and although the Fuji CD which Boots and Jessops will give you equates to just 2.2 megapixels it is entirely possible to re-scan the negatives at whatever resolution you like. Here in Caerphilly (branches elsewhere too) Walters Photo-Video's (Agfa?) system will scan the negatives for you at one of three resolutions. Low is 230 kpixels, Medium is 1.5M and I've never had a High, but at a guess it'd be some 3 megapixels. CPC have a 9.6 megapixel film scanner (2700dpi) for sale at the moment for £99+VAT.
Ok, so it's not as immediate as digital, but until digital SLRs come down quite considerably in price, I'm sticking with film.
At the other end of the market, I'm still much happier about sticking a £25 secondhand compact camera in my coat pocket when I trundle off for a quick walk than I would be with a digital camera which could take equivalent quality pictures.
Hwyl!
M.
[T] Thanks for that Martin ;-)
Whilst I conceed to nearly everything you say, my focus (excuse the pun) isn't 'quality' (definition, colour balance, colour rendition, depth of field etc). Nor am I overly interested in printing them out?
What I *do* want is to take maybe one picture and instantly e-mail it to a mate in the USA?
Or to take a picture of an item and put it on eBay 5 mins later (never to look at that picture again).
Or let my daughter take 100 pictures of Cindy dolls (or whatever) and not worry about the processing costs?
Or check each picture as I take it and retake if needed?
Or to take a few mins of video (not so easy on a still film camera) ;-)
My Dad is (was) a semi-professional photographer and still has a studio (front bedroom) dedicated to the hobby. He must have thousands of pounds worth of camera's (I remember years ago he sold his 'Baby Roli' and we bought a small cabin cruiser with the money) studio flash guns, backdrops etc etc. When did he last use it .. probably 10 years ago?
Is he likely to buy a digital camera, no, why, because he reads in the press and photo mags that you have to spend at least +AKM-6000 to get a digital to compare with a film camera?
So, of course he goes without.
In the meantime the rest of us are happily taking acceptable (to us) pictures to use in our 'electronic world'.
I agree there are limitations .. like you can't take your PC round to show Granny your holiday shots (well, you can on a laptop of course) .... but as you say .. nothing stopping you taking your stamp sized film (memory card) into the local Minilab (if there are any left) and gat a wad of pictures for granny to look at once then put in a box under the bed? ;-(
I have an SLR, a fancy semi compact Konika thing and a couple of little 35mm holiday cameras somewhere. Not seen / used any of them for the last 6 years?
I'm just pleased I'm not still working for Kodak !
Hourses for courses as they say ..
All the best though Martin .. and thanks for the voice from the 'other camp' ;-)
T i m
The isotope in question is tritium. This is nice, because unlike many other elements, hydrogen has no radioisotopes that emit nasty penetrating radiation.
And there are no other gasses that are not trivially seperable from hydrogen that have nasty radioisotopes. The radiation emitted by it is substantially absorbed even by the gas itself, which causes problems if you want to make very bright lights with it. It's totally absorbed by the walls of the tube.
I suppose that proves the point, more expense
Dave
[T] Whilst the walls of the tube are in one piece and not broken in your pocket? Compared with the other risks we are all subjected to every day your tritium 'torch' is probably ranked down there with the microwave.
However, even though I'm a gadget man I think I'll stick with my white LED keyfob that will actually let you count Cat5 cables in a very dark riser or my 'Always on' (for 2 years on a PP3) led PALights torch ;-)
All the best
T i m
Yes it has a macro setting, use it a bit for Ebay stuff.
Bit hit and miss with indoor lighting at times is about the only minus point, sometimes it's ok sometimes it's too dark.
The Opel is being dismantled, it's seriously rotted... :-(
Mark S.
Way below IMO. The tube is 5mm thick acrylic, and inside that is a glass tube with the tritium in. You'r going to have to really work to break it.
It's my light-source of last resort. It'll work if it's been undersea for five years, ... I always have at least one other light source (minimag solitare) and usually another too. Getting stuck in dark places is not fun.
No, fire alarms use Thorium, not Tritium. Tritium was used in Trimphones and the dumping of a large number of these phones did cause a radiological panic a few years ago.
Errm tritium is an isotope of hydrogen and it emits nasty penetrating radiation.
In fact being a beta emitter it emits one of the least pleasant forms of penetrating radiation, slow beta, which does a lot of damage to carbon-based life forms.
Well, yes, if you manage to ingest it. You'd have to try really hard to get a significant amount into you. You not only need to break the container, but to find some way of getting the minute quantity of tritium into your body in a form which it can be absorbed.
Isn't simply breathing the gas as it's released sufficient Ian?
All the best ..
T i m
Well, if there is a lot of it. But the body does not absorb hydrogen/tritium well, most of it goes back out of the lungs, even if you breath it in. Most will simply be ventilated out. If it was in the form of tritiated water, then yes.
The page I found that looks reasonable
It's going to be really hard to do this.
And breathe in...
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.