tsc2597@acf4.UUCP (Sam Chin) (03/28/85)
<<<>>>
I am thinking of getting a second camera of the "point and shoot" variety.
My price range is between $75 and $125. So far I have my eye on the Minolta
"Talker" which got a favorable article in Consumer Reports about a month
ago. It has Auto Focus (Infra red), Auto Programmed Exposure, Automatic
Winding, Loading and Rewinding and even talks to you in English if there is
an error condition. I also see it advertized in this past weeks Sunday Times
for $102.95 (If this seems cheap compared to last months photo magazines, it
seems that New York photo shops are importing Japanese Cameras and Kodak
Film from Britain by the planeload - this accounts for the fact that you can
get KodaChrome 64/36 exp with Kodak processing for $5.50 - due of course to
the dollars strength compared to the pound)
Has anyone used this camera? Are any of the other compact 35mm cameras equal
in quality for less money?
Sam Chin
allegra!cmcl2!acf4!tsc2597
tsc2597.acf4@nyusan@peora.UUCP (Sanjay Tikku) (04/01/85)
> <<<>>> > > I am thinking of getting a second camera of the "point and shoot" variety. > My price range is between $75 and $125. So far I have my eye on the Minolta > "Talker" > > Has anyone used this camera? Are any of the other compact 35mm cameras equal > in quality for less money? You can also try Nikon AF135. It falls in the same category as Minolta talker and also in the same price range. In my personal opinion it is better. Sanjay Tikku Perkin-Elmer, SDC, Orlando {allegra, ihnp4,...} !pesnta!peora!san
bcdoody@wateng.UUCP (Brian C. Doody) (04/02/85)
[] You mentioned your interest in the Minolta Talker...the only thing strange about that camera is the Japanese accent in the woman's voice that says "no film" or "not enough light", etc. It's really fun to listen to the first couple of times, but I personally would get tired of someone nattering in my ear every time I tried to take a picture. Visual warnings are just as useful, and are not as bothersome to those around you. My vote goes to the Nikon 135AF or 35AF (35 is a bit more but with more features) for sure. Brian Doody bcdoody@wateng University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario
ronb@tekred.UUCP (Ron Bremer ) (04/03/85)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site tekred.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP Path: tekred!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!petsd!peora!san From: san@peora.UUCP (Sanjay Tikku) Newsgroups: net.consumers Subject: Re: Compact 35mm Autofocus Camera query Message-ID: <772@peora.UUCP> Date: Mon, 1-Apr-85 07:11:41 PST Article-I.D.: peora.772 Posted: Mon Apr 1 07:11:41 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 2-Apr-85 01:06:41 PST References: <490002@acf4.UUCP> Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl. Lines: 18 > <<<>>> > > I am thinking of getting a second camera of the "point and shoot" variety. > My price range is between $75 and $125. So far I have my eye on the Minolta > "Talker" > > Has anyone used this camera? Are any of the other compact 35mm cameras equal > in quality for less money? I, too, am interested in a small, easy to use camera. What I have always wanted to know is how long do the batteries last in such a camera. It is my understanding that they autofocus, autowind, autoflash, and autorewind. That seems like a lot of "auto-stuff" for a small battery. Does anyone know how long the batteries last? Ron Bremer Tektronix in Redmond, Oregon tektronix!tekred!ronb
dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) (04/04/85)
> [] > You mentioned your interest in the Minolta Talker... > It's really fun to listen to > the first couple of times, but I personally would get tired of someone > nattering in my ear every time I tried to take a picture. Visual warnings > are just as useful, and are not as bothersome to those around you. That's not a reason for not buying the camera. There's a switch on the back of the camera that turns the voice off. The voice is unnecessary, since the camera also gives visual signals in the viewfinder. I bought a Minolta Talker primarily because Consumer Reports gave it a rave review, and it only cost about half as much as the other cameras they liked that much. The fact that it had the "talking" feature didn't affect my decision one iota. -- Dana S. Nau, Computer Science Dept., U. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 ARPA: dsn@maryland CSNet: dsn@umcp-cs UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!dsn Phone: (301) 454-7932
kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) (04/04/85)
In article <772@peora.UUCP> san@peora.UUCP (Sanjay Tikku) writes: >> <<<>>> >> >> I am thinking of getting a second camera of the "point and shoot" variety. >> My price range is between $75 and $125. So far I have my eye on the Minolta >> "Talker" >> >> Has anyone used this camera? Are any of the other compact 35mm cameras equal >> in quality for less money? I would like to call attention to an article in the current issue of Modern Photograpy, in which it states that all of the "point and shoot" autofocus cameras do not truly autofocus. Instead, there are four specific focussing positions (zones), and the sensor determines which zone is chosen. This criticism does not apply to autofocus SLR cameras, such as the Minolta MAXUM, which have a real servo driving the focussing gear to focus precisely on the chosen object. -- Herb Kanner Tymnet, Inc.
dimare@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/06/85)
I have a Minolta autofocus, but is not exactly the talker, as it doesn't have auto rewind. I didn't want it. It doesn't talk: it beeps. It uses 2 AA bateries that last a lot. I use rechargables, and I really don't know how long they last (obviously, more than what I can perceive). I guess every 2 or 3 36 rolls I have to recharge the bateries, but I really I don't remember. I understand that motors use up a lot of energy, so I guess mine is more 'fuel efficient'. The camera is great, and I wouldn't change it for an SLR (I'm obviously not into fotojrapy <(:-!). I only take faceshots, which is what this little devils are great for. Go for it! Adolfo ///
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (04/08/85)
Since the question of whether auto-focus is desirable or not has been
raised -- I haven't used AF, but my brother refuses to use one again.
It's too slow for action shots -- by the time it has focussed and the
shutter opens, the "picture" is gone. And when shooting through closed
windows and the like, it focusses on the glass instead of the subject.
--
Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!dougcopp@petrus.UUCP (04/10/85)
Do NOT use rechargable batteries in your camera if it has a flash, UNLESS your user manual says it is OK. Cheap flash circuits rely upon the internal resistance of the batteries to limit the current during charging. Rechargable batteries have significantly lower internal resistance. It is easy to fry an inexpensive flash unit simply by using rechargable batteries.
san@peora.UUCP (Sanjay Tikku) (04/12/85)
> Since the question of whether auto-focus is desirable or not has been > raised -- I haven't used AF, but my brother refuses to use one again. > It's too slow for action shots -- by the time it has focussed and the > shutter opens, the "picture" is gone. And when shooting through closed > windows and the like, it focusses on the glass instead of the subject. > -- > Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug I must respond to Doug for the above advise. I disagree with it 100%. I have used Nikon's L35AF with no complaints. Since, it focusses on the subject in the center one should attempt to keep the subject there in times when depth of field is small. With good depth of field it is not critical at all. As far as the slowness is concerned, it is simply an incorrect statement when generalized to all AF cameras. The Cannon's AF ( I can't recall the model # but it is the equivalent of Nikon's L35AF) takes 6 snaps a second and all you got to do is to keep the click button pressed. For taking photographs through glass, well that's easy, all you got to do is to lock focus on a distant object and then take the photo through glass. I have had no problems till now. The AF cameras are good in normal daylight conditions. The difference starts showing up ( say with Minolta's X700) when light conditions are poor or when the frame contains subjects with extremely high contrast. I personally believe that getting a good picture requires skill on the photographer's part and his/her understanding of various fundamentals of photography. I have seen people spoiling films while using them in Minolta X700. Now is that a bad camera. In my opinion, AF cameras are very good for people who do not want to bother about turning knobs and checking settings. It still requires a basic knowledge of photographing. Sanjay Tikku Perkin-Elmer,SDC, Orlando ..!vax135!petsd!peora!san ..!{ucbvax,decvax,allegra,ihnp4}!pesnta!peora!san
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (04/13/85)
In article <813@peora.UUCP> san@peora.UUCP (Sanjay Tikku) writes: > The Cannon's AF > ( I can't recall the model # but it is the equivalent of Nikon's L35AF) > takes 6 snaps a second and all you got to do is to keep the click button > pressed. i find this statement hard to believe. my $400 motor drive with high voltage pack will only do 5 frames/sec. yes, mine's an SLR, but even with the reduced moving mass and parts of a leaf-type shutter, i still find it hard to believe because if i were a manufacturer, i would never put such cappability into the hands of what is most likely to be a beginning amateur. > I personally believe that getting a good picture requires skill on the > photographer's part and his/her understanding of various fundamentals of > photography. I have seen people spoiling films while using them in > Minolta X700. Now is that a bad camera. very true. the camera ultimately just records what the photographer has envisioned with varying degrees of assistance. > In my opinion, AF cameras are very good for people who do not want to > bother about turning knobs and checking settings. It still requires a > basic knowledge of photographing. you'd be surprised how little. i used to sell cameras for a living. most people buy these types of cameras because they don't want to learn if its their first camera beyond an instamatic-type. pro's buy these because they fit into a pocket. > Sanjay Tikku Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu