« July 2006 | Main | September 2006 »

August 31, 2006

[ CANON PIXMA MP830 mfp ]

Price: $550

Recommended

The low-down: The Canon Pixma MP830 multifunction unit is a combined A4 printer, scanner, copier and fax machine. It uses Canon’s Chromalife 100 inks in 5 cartridges and the black tank is double the capacity of the other colours.

The Pixma MP830 is best thought of as a serious machine for a small business or home office where most of the printing will be in monochrome but, when necessary, top quality photo prints can be produced.

The scanner has a multi-page automatic feeder and the fax is the latest 3G technology -- further indicators that this is a business machine.

There are Compact Flash and SD card slots for direct printing but there is no infrared port for printing from a mobile phone, a facility available on some of Canon’s cheaper domestic models.

Scan and print quality are excellent and reasonably fast. As with any inkjet printer the output is not as quick as a laser printer and considerably more expensive. However the facility for printing automatically on both sides of the paper offers some economies.

Like this: The software provided with this unit is excellent with a full suite of applications for scanning, printing (in a variety of formats) and document management.

Dislike that: The user’s manual is on disc and during installation it is copied to the hard drive and a shortcut appears on the desktop. It has no index and no document-wide search facility. It is cheap, annoying and virtually useless. Of all the on-disc manuals we have seen this is easily the worst and out of character for Canon.

The procedure for printing CD/DVD labels is clumsy and output quality seems to vary on different brand discs, something that we have never encountered before with Canon printers.

Parting shot: The Pixma MP830 is not the recommended printer or scanner for the photographer looking to make great prints. It does make good prints, but Canon’s Pixma printer range has other units that do the job as well for less money. This unit is definitely for the small or home office where its automated multi-sheet copier and mono printing are the top priority and photo printing is an occasional side benefit.

Posted by terry at 12:20 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 25, 2006

[ CANON IXUS 800is ]

 

Price: $800

Highly recommended

The low-down: The Canon Ixus 800is is a 6 megapixel camera with a 4x (35–140mm film equivalent) image stabilised zoom lens.

The first striking feature of the Canon is the sheer beauty of its body. It is a small masterpiece of industrial design. The face area of the camera is the same as a credit card and the body is 26mm deep. It fits a pocket nicely.

Resolution, auto focus and exposure are all excellent and the automatic white balance is just about the best we have ever seen. Recent positive experience with cameras from Sony and now this nifty little unit from Canon suggest that the manufacturers are really getting to grips with an area of digital camera design that has needed attention. The Ixus 800is even copes with yellow incandescent light surprisingly well.

The Canon has selectable ISO speeds up to 800 plus an auto “hi ISO”. Results are exceptionally good meaning that the indifferent in-built flash is hardly ever needed.

Canon make much of the argument that it is not the number of pixels that matters so much as the quality of image extracted from them and the Ixus800 is a good demonstration of the theory. 6 million pixels are enough to make A4 prints without much enlargement and prints up to A3+ with moderate enlargement. And fewer pixels per square mm of sensor usually means better control of noise in high ISO pictures.

The Ixus800is allows a limited measure of manual control, just enough to be able to manipulate the way out of a tricky lighting situation.

Like this: The Canon Ixus 800is has a small optical viewfinder. Very small! But at least it is there. And, as we have come to expect from Canon, an excellent set of instruction books. Books – plural!

Dislike that: We miss having a discrete review button. Having to toggle backwards and forwards between review and camera mode via a tiny wheel is a pain.

Parting shot: The Canon Ixus 800is goes to the top of the list of pocketable digicams alongside the Sony DSC-W100. The Sony has more pixels on a bigger sensor. The Canon wins the glamour stakes. Both have optical viewfinders. The Canon has image stabilisation and costs $100 more. Both are highly recommended and whichever is chosen it will not be the wrong choice!

Posted by terry at 03:18 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

August 24, 2006

[ DIGITAL TRUE LIES ]

 

HOW MUCH POST-CAMERA FIDDLING with an image may you do and still call the result a photograph? After all, we carry in our heads the idea that a photograph is supposed to be an unimpeachable record of a particular place at a particular moment in time.

The magic of photography has always been that a dull image from the camera may be transformed in the darkroom. In fact the tampering with reality may start in the camera itself. We don’t question the use of red or polarising filters to make the sky more dramatic. We even accept that flattering portraits of female subjects of a certain age may be improved by the use of a little petroleum jelly on the lens or a special filter that keeps the centre sharp while blurring the edges.

The vertical edges of buildings leaning inwards were once corrected by tilting the enlarger baseboard -- these days the same trick can be done digitally in Photoshop which has tools for correcting perspective and converging verticals.

The most common corrections made in Photoshop are for exposure, focus and the removal of red eye. Purists would have to decry this altering of the captured image but so far we have not heard any complaints about the automated routines built into photo editing software.

The digital puritans who ask the question have no appreciation of the way photography has always worked, even in the film era. We cropped, burned and dodged to alter point of view or tonal qualities. We played with colour filtration when printing from transparencies. We retouched and spotted to remove warts, hairs and wrinkles.

Where once we flattered subjects with Vaseline these days we use a Photoshop Action like Edgarian Blur (www.atncentral.com) which allows for fine control of the blurring effect. We get rid of warts in a nonce with the Photoshop Healing Tool, where once we would have spotted and scratched the print.

There are some tricks available to the digital photographer that Ansel Adams didn’t know about, for instance compressing the sky or foreground of a picture. Sometimes the area of sky is too great compared with the foreground landscape. The simplest solution is to crop the image, but that may cut off some lovely sunset clouds and there is another way. Select the sky area almost down to the horizon and then click on Edit/Transform/Scale and drag the top margin down until the picture looks better. The cloud mass is unnaturally compressed but it looks dramatic.

“Until the picture looks better”? Well, as another professional photographer said when asked an esoteric question about his Photoshop technique: “Don’t ask me. I just fiddle with it until it looks good.”

A typical post-camera processing of an image starts with cropping the picture to produce the best composition. We usually sharpen the original using the Unsharp Mask filter, or, in our case Fred Miranda’s Intellisharpen II. This strange term “unsharp mask” is a hangover from film days when photographers saved out-of-focus images by creating an intermediate mask to remove unsharpness. In effect it sharpens the distinct edges in the picture without over-sharpening flat and textured surfaces. Unlike the chap in the darkroom we can easily control the degree of sharpening.

Then we play with Curves to adjust the brightness and contrast to give the image more zap -- just like choosing the right contrast paper in the darkroom. After that a judicious increase in colour saturation via the Image/Adjustments/Hue and Saturation tool adds richness to the picture. Or, with some portraits, a reduction in colour saturation makes for more natural skin tones.

There are times when some unsightly object spoils the picture and we need to remove it altogether. Not a problem. Using the Clone tool we can make it look as though the ugly garbage tin was never there in the first place.

Photography, as an art form, never has finished the moment the shutter button is pressed. Serious photographers have always regarded that as only an intermediate step between visualising the image, positioning the camera, taking the picture, processing the film and printing the picture.

(The processes described here are all part Photoshop CS2 and most of them are also found in Photoshop Elements 4.)

*

Posted by terry at 06:15 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

[ SONY DSLR-A100 digital SLR camera ]

 

Price: $1500 – body only $1750 with kit lens

Highly recommended

The low-down: The Sony DSLR-A100 is a 10.2 megapixel single lens reflex digital camera, evolved from the Konica Minolta DSLR technology acquired by Sony last year. The KM heritage is evident in the fact that Minolta auto-focus lenses will work with the Sony.

Construction quality is generally good although there is evidence of cost-cutting. Sony usually boast of their connection with Carl Zeiss but the kit lens on the A100 is branded “Sony – China”. It works well enough but some of the supplementary lenses are branded Zeiss, suggesting that the kit lens is not from the top drawer.

Control layout and ergonomics are excellent. The A100 is relatively small and light and all controls have a pleasant soft, progressive action. Auto-focus is fast and the camera is very responsive. The LCD screen is big enough and has good resolution but its colour rendition is misleading. Some shots that looked too bright and saturated on the LCD were perfect on the monitor.

We took about 40 photos at ISO1600 under mixed light and found the combination of low noise at high ISO, excellent auto white balance and effective in-camera image stabilisation means that a flash hardly ever needs to be used. We avoided using the in-camera noise reduction because this feature rarely works well and in the case of the Sony the inherently low noise made NR unnecessary.

The A100 takes Sony’s Memory Stick and also the cheaper Compact Flash memory. The battery has quite exceptional capacity and doesn’t take long to recharge.

Like this: The image stabilisation is achieved in the camera body rather than in the lens which means that supplementary lenses may be cheaper and even the legacy Minolta lenses benefit from the vibration reduction.

Dislike that: The kit lens is not up to the quality of the camera body. We would be looking seriously at buying the Sony body and the Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T 18–80 zoom.

Parting shot: The Sony A100 feels just right in the hand, is very responsive and is intuitive to use. Anyone with Konica Minolta auto-focus lenses in their bag should look seriously at the Sony, it is a fine product of the marriage of the two companies.

[THERE ARE SAMPLE IMAGES FROM THE SONY ALPHA 100 IN THE GALLERY]

Posted by terry at 06:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 17, 2006

[ HOW MUCH CAMERA DO I NEED? ]

THE KODAK EASYSHARE V610(see the review) is the latest in a category of camera that fits longer and longer zoom lenses into smaller and smaller bodies.

The first of the so-called super zooms came from Konica Minolta, Canon, Sony and Panasonic. These are the small pseudo-single lens reflex cameras with zoom focal length ranges between 28mm and 430mm. They all have electronic viewfinders for eye-level framing and some have image stabilisation to minimise the effects of camera shake.

Kodak’s super zoom reduces the camera volume even further by doing away with the viewfinder and using two lenses to cover the range. Panasonic’s Lumix TZ1 takes another approach, using a sort of horizontal periscope arrangement of the lens elements to fit a long range zoom into a compact body.

Many digital camera customers find these superzooms very appealing. They seem to be equal to a single lens reflex camera plus a bag of lenses all at a price well below an SLR and additional glass. Here at Imaging we are constantly surprised at the number of SLR film-camera owners who want to be reassured that the Canon S3 or the Sony H1 is an adequate replacement for their old camera. Apparently they’ve grown weary of the weight of the SLR gear which makes them more likely to leave the camera home than to take it to the Zoo.

The super zooms do have a few things going for them. The light weight, small bulk and price, for a start. The lenses are not only versatile, they are also generally good. Canon use their own lenses, Sony use Zeiss and Panasonic use Leica optics. Kodak brand their lenses as Schneider of Kreuznach to appeal to those old enough to remember the excellent Retina range of film cameras. Kreuznach seems to have relocated to China, but never mind.

How do they do it for the price? In part it is because of the size of the sensor in a digital camera. A 35mm film frame is 36mm by 24mm. A typical sensor in a compact digital camera, including the super zooms, will be around 6mm by 4mm (sizes vary from camera to camera). A digital single lens reflex may have a typical sensor size of 24mm by 16mm. The most expensive digital SLRs have sensors the same dimensions as a 35mm film.

The compact camera sensor is tiny which has benefits and costs. Because of the small area that has to be illuminated by the lens the optics can be smaller and therefore cheaper. Depth of field is greater with the smaller sensor which makes focussing slightly less critical. In fact one of the most frequent complaints from super zoom owners is that the depth of field is too great. It can be difficult or impossible to produce a picture with an attractive out-of-focus background.

The tiny sensor produces another unwanted side effect -- picture noise. This is the grainy effect generated by the sensor when too many photo-receptors are set too close together. The larger sensors in SLRs are less prone to picture noise because of the greater pixel size and pitch. The Nikon D70 SLR has six million pixels on an area approximately 24 by 16mm. The Canon S3IS super zoom also has six million pixels but on an area 6 by 4mm. The Canon S3 produces nice pictures but the Nikon D70 does better.

Where the single lens reflex triumphs over any other type of camera is in the viewfinder. Electronic viewfinders give a crude representation of the subject, rather like looking at a small portion of a TV screen close-up and through a magnifying glass. These EVFs are low resolution affairs that do not give enough information to judge focus and tonal distribution. A good single lens reflex connects the photographer directly with the subject.

When it comes to responsiveness there is no contest. Compact superzooms have improved over the past couple of years but they still feel squishy compared with the instantaneous response to the shutter button that you get with an SLR.

Bottom line: the ideal kit consists of a digital single lens reflex and enough lenses to reach from 24mm to 300mm, plus a compact digital camera such as the excellent Canon Ixus 800is or the Sony Cybershot DSCW100 for those times when portability is needed or an SLR might look a bit pretentious. Imaging speaks from desire, not from experience!

*

Posted by terry at 03:30 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

August 15, 2006

[ SONY DSLR ALPHA100 sample images ]

There are some preliminary sample images from the SONY ALPHA100 single lens reflex camera in the Gallery.

A full review of the camera will be posted here in the next week or so.

Verdict so far? It's a great camera and the obvious buy for anyone with legacy Minolta lenses. We tried it with an ancient Minolta auto-focus lens from an old film SLR and it worked perfectly.

This is the picture taken with the Sony-Minolta combination...

 

Posted by terry at 05:03 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 14, 2006

[ KODAK EASYSHARE V610 dual lens camera ]

Price: $700

Consider carefully

The low-down: The Kodak V610 Easyshare 6 megapixel digital camera is “the world’s smallest 10x optical zoom digital camera” according to the company’s publicity. It uses the dual lens setup that first appeared on the V570. The lens in use when the camera is turned on covers the range from 38–114mm (the standard 3x zoom in film equivalent focal lengths) then, as the zoom control is moved up, the tele lens comes into effect, giving a range of 130–380mm. The switch is imperceptible.

Using this dual lens setup Kodak have produced a super zoom camera in a compact body with face dimensions of 110mm by 55mm.

The camera feels robust and looks smart. The LCD screen is large at 7.1cm but nearly invisible in daylight and there is no optical viewfinder. The image on the screen during focussing and on instant review is curiously noisy.

There is no image stabilisation and it is nearly impossible to hold a small camera at arm’s length and keep it steady. The ratio of useable shots to duds is unacceptable. Some type of support, such as a tripod, is essential at the extreme telephoto end of the zoom.

For a camera that boasts such an extreme telephoto range the flash is feeble. It does not properly illuminate subjects 3 or 4 metres from the camera.

Like this: When the Kodak V610 hits its sweet spot the picture quality is superb. Auto white balance, colour, focus, image resolution and detail are outstanding. The V610 will render every feather on a bird and every vein on the petal of a flower. Images have the typical punchy Kodak look, bright without being garish. Sadly the V610 doesn’t do it every time. More often the picture is blurred and useless.

Dislike that: No image stabilisation; noisy (grainy) LCD and very slow write time to the SD memory card meaning a long pause between shots. The camera reverts to Auto every time it is turned on. Preferred setting can be stored in a custom Scene Mode and recalled with a couple of button presses. Cumbersome!

Parting shot: The dual lens system works well on the earlier V570 where the zoom range extension is at the wide end (23mm). It doesn’t work so well when the aim is to extend the telephoto range.

 

Posted by terry at 08:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

[ BATTERIES AIN'T BATTERIES ]

THERE IS MUCH ARGUMENT AMONGST CAMERA OWNERS about the best type of battery to use. Imaging has had correspondence from digital camera owners who will only buy cameras that use standard AA or AAA batteries. The reasoning is that you will never be far from replacements if your battery goes flat.

On the other hand we have heard from the owner of a camera that takes AAs who says she will never again buy a camera that does not come with a proprietary battery and charger. She is fed up with going to pick up the camera and always finding the batteries flat and then having to wait hours while they recharge. She also thinks it is dishonest to sell a camera with no batteries or charger because it gives a misleading impression of the true cost of the unit.

Just last week a friend bought a Fuji digital camera that purports to take plain old alkaline AAs, at least in an emergency. She took the camera from the box, inserted two new alkalines and nothing happened! The camera would not work. Fortunately she had a couple of Nickel Metal Hydride [NiMH] rechargeables on hand and they powered up the camera without a problem.

And here’s a curious thing. The plain alkalines claim to be 1.5 volts while the NiMhs boast only 1.2 volts, which is typical of rechargeables. And that is not the end of the confusion. How many times can a battery be recharged? How long can they be left in the camera before they self-discharge? How many milli-amp hours are enough in the battery specifications?

Sanyo, the company that makes 60 per cent of the world’s portable batteries, has just released a new rechargeable battery line called Eneloop, sold in Australia through Master Instruments. Sanyo has even adopted the word “Gaia” to proclaim their environmental credentials, claiming that the batteries can “be disposed of in an environmentally friendly way.” These batteries are labelled as “typically 2000 mAh, minimum 1900 mAh”.

Geoff Schaper, the manager of Master Instruments’ battery products division, sheds some light on the mystery of batteries, such as the fact that single use alkaline batteries are 1.5 volt and NiMH rechargeables are 1.2 volt. It’s simply an anomaly in the way the peak voltage is measured and doesn’t really mean that the rechargeable is 20 per cent underpowered. The more important number to read in judging a battery is the capacity stated in milli-amp hours (mAh). mAh is the unit that specifies the length of time the battery can supply the required voltage, or in other words the number of photos that can be taken between charges.

However, bigger is not necessarily better when it comes to this number. Mr Schaper’s advice is that if you are a heavy user of a digital camera you will be well advised to go for the highest mAh rating -- say around 2700. But if you are the sort of person who takes a few shots at the party and then puts the camera away for a month you are better off with 2000 mAh batteries because they are slower at self-discharging than the higher rated units. The higher rated battery will take more photos per charge but it will not hold its charge as well when it is left in the drawer.

Sanyo claim that their batteries will still be at 85 per cent charge capacity after 12 months of storage which has the side benefit that when new batteries are bought they can be used immediately. A set of either four AAs or four AAAs costs $25 and the charger costs $40. The company says that the batteries can be recharged up to 1000 times.

You can’t always believe what you read on the label. Batteries with names of which you have never heard may be more likely to have exaggerated specifications on the packet. They may look a bargain but when it comes to capacity and number of possible recharges they represent poor value. The golden rule is to always buy batteries with a known and trusted name.

Obviously battery and charger technology has come a long way in a relatively short time. Many people have been disappointed with the performance in longevity, current and ability to hold a charge in batteries of the recent past. Imaging’s unhappy experience with rechargeables tends to make us sceptical but, in the interests of taking pressure off the poor old planet, we have decided to give them another chance.

*

Posted by terry at 12:48 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

[ FUJIFILM FINEPIX A500 digital camera ]

Price: $230
Recommended

The low-down: The Fujifilm Finepix A500 is a 5 megapixel camera with a 38–114mm zoom (film equivalent). The A500 uses Fujifilm’s unique Super CCD sensor.

While the RRP of the camera is $230 the realistic street price is around $200. To that the customer must add the cost of rechargeable batteries and charger and an XD memory card, which means the bill will be more like $300.

For that price you get a camera with excellent resolution and colour with good auto focus and white balance. In other words a capable photographic tool. You also get a good optical viewfinder and a fairly well made camera.

Cost-cutting is most obvious in the small LCD screen (approx 45mm) and the occasionally crude feel to controls, particularly the operation of the zoom button and the plastic metal-look body.

While there are manual over rides for some of the camera functions this is really a point-and-shoot camera for a person who takes the occasional picture. Its special virtue is its ability to produce very good photos on those occasions when it is used.

Like this: The Fujifilm Super CCD does live up to its claims to produce detailed, naturally coloured images. This particular 5.1 megapixel sensor offers a lot for the money.

Dislike that: Any quibbles about the A500 have to read against the background of the price. And this camera is a lesson in what money buys in digital cameras. The fundamentals of the camera are good and it can take excellent photos but the difference between an entry camera and a more expensive one from the same company is always the difference between rough and smooth and quick and slow. More money buys a smoother, quieter zoom with a nicer feel to the controls and faster responses.

Parting shot: The Fujifilm Finepix A500 is excellent value for money. It will produce prints to A4 size with plenty of detail and fidelity. The Fujifilm Finepix A400 is a 4 megapixel alternative that is so similar to the A500 that they share the one instruction manual.

Posted by terry at 12:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 03, 2006

[ SONY Cybershot DSC-H5 — review ]

Price: $900

Highly Recommended

The low-down: The Sony Cybershot DSC-H5 is a 7.2 megapixel camera with a Carl Zeiss zoom lens with a 36–432mm range (film equivalent). This camera is an evolutionary development from the Sony H1 which we rated highly when we tested it just one year ago.

We said at the time that we were surprised to find ourselves recommending a camera with an electronic viewfinder and we must say it again. The Sony is not handicapped by the shutter lag that is characteristic of some cameras with EVFs. The H5 is responsive and only has a small hesitancy when focussing at the long end of its zoom reach in low contrast light.

Generally focus and exposure are fast and spot on. Colour is excellent with none of the tendency for reds to bleed as with some earlier Sony cameras. The Sony competes with Panasonic and Canon superzooms and is the best of the three for aesthetics and construction quality.

Like this: The H5 is simply a lot of fun to use. There is no doubt that the extreme zoom range gives a buzz all of its own and the quality of the lens is outstanding. For a trip to the zoo this cameras is hard to beat because it is equivalent to carrying a bulky SLR and a couple of lenses. Images are pin sharp even at the 432mm extension, providing you have a steady hand. The LCD screen is large and brilliant.

Dislike that: There is a cluster of controls that fall under the right thumb when you have it on the zoom rocker. It is easy and annoying to inadvertently press the menu or macro selector.

Parting shot: The Sony Cybershot DSC-H5 is a versatile camera providing all the controls found on a single lens reflex but without the benefit of a true optical viewfinder. It can be used as a point and shoot camera but it also has a full set of creative controls. It uses Sony’s unique Memory Stick and AA batteries. It comes with a pair of rechargeables and a charger.

The Canon S3IS is cheaper. It has 6mp but it has effective image stabilisation like the Sony. The Sony Cybershot DSC-H2 is similar to the H5 but has a 6mp sensor, a smaller LCD screen and costs $200 less.

Posted by terry at 06:01 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

[ THE BIG PICTURE ]

HERE'S THE SCENARIO. You have just returned from the grand tour of Europe and your memory card is chocker with priceless pictures of Venice, Paris and the Matterhorn and you want to share them with family and friends, preferably en masse. So, what is the digital equivalent of the nice night’s entertainment with the slide projector?

It could well be another projector. We have been trying Panasonic’s PT-P1SD data projector which is small and light and has been designed with digital photographers in mind. The PT-P1SD has all the standard inputs for a data/video projector -- serial transfer, S-video, composite video and audio -- but it also has a slot for an SD memory card. The projector can play back a slide show from the card without any computer or other video input attached.

The image from the Panasonic projector is bright even in relatively high ambient light which it detects and adjusts itself to suit. Setup is done via the projector’s own menu system and controls are adequate. The projector has a remote control and it automatically detects the incoming signal. The lens zooms to make the image size fit the screen. At $1795 this projector is expensive but keep in mind that it will also serve as either a video or data projector. Now for the but!

The Panasonic reads images on an SD card, but not just any old SD card. It must be formatted either in a Panasonic camera or using the company’s ImageCreator software. In other words you can’t whip a memory card out of a Canon camera and project your pictures on the PT-P1SD. This means keeping one formatted card on hand just for the projector.

Panasonic claim that their ImageCreator application will turn PowerPoint presentations into a form that can be saved to the SD card and run from the projector without a computer. Well, sort of. In converting the PowerPoint all animations are lost and every layer on slides is flattened and the end result is a static and boring presentation.

Another way to bore -- er, sorry -- amuse friends and family is to show you pictures on your huge widescreen plasma or LCD TV. Or even on your not-quite-so-huge CRT telly. We have been trying the Panasonic DMR-EH65 DVD recorder ($990) fitted with a 250gb hard drive. Panasonic is committed to the SD card as the universal memory medium and this DVD recorder has a card slot.

This recorder is also fussy about card formatting. A memory card straight from a Panasonic camera will load images onto the hard drive but cards from other cameras won’t work. Panasonic devices look for a particular folder structure on the memory cards.

The Pioneer DVR 640H (we tested its predecessor, the 630H) has similar specs to the Panasonic but it is more universally accommodating. The Pioneer ($900) has a standard USB socket on the front of the machine which will carry the image file data from any camera onto the hard drive. The Pioneer is also generally more user-friendly and has selectable image processing outputs for CRT, plasma or LCD displays. The pity is that Pioneer don’t include image processing to correct the brightness/contrast/saturation of digital images to match them to television displays.

The two DVD recorders and the projector cannot really be used with images straight from the camera. Images are too contrasty with inky mid tones and garishly over-saturated colours. It is misleading to sell them as display devices suitable for showing pictures straight from the camera memory. In reality images must be processed in something like Photoshop to make them suitable for projection or television and then re-recorded to memory card or written to CD/DVD for transfer to the machine.

Bottom line: we like the Panasonic PT-P1SD projector for its portability and versatility and of the two DVD recorders we prefer the Pioneer for its universality and user-friendliness. If you’re looking to replace your old VHS recorder we highly recommend the Pioneer.

*

Posted by terry at 05:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack