On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:10:36 -0800, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 07:03:47 -0700
> ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:10:35 +0000, Paulie wrote:
>
>> > 1) What camera brand to avoid?
>>
>> [...] Personally, I avoid canon because of their
>> total lack of Linux support
>
> Really? I wasn't aware that Canon was any worse than the rest
> in this regard. Would you care to elaborate?
Epson and HP support is quite good - e.g. avasys.jp/english carries the
'iscan' software for Linux for using Epson scanners. Most HP printers do
some form of PCL and work very well with Linux. I also have a Brother
laser printer which works well.
>
>> and I avoid Fuji for past business
>> practices. [...]
>
> I avoided them this last time around because they just seemed
> a bit strange. All of the camera makers seem to be in bed with
> the Microsoft monopoly. Has Fuji done something worse than that?
> :-)
There were reports several years ago that they would not allow any
Japanese store which handled Kodak supplies to handle any of their
equipment - is that bad enough?
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 07:03:47 -0700, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
: On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:10:35 +0000, Paulie wrote:
:
: > I have 2 questions I hope you can answer.
: >
: > 1) What camera brand to avoid?
:
: Avoid for what reason? Personally, I avoid canon because of their total
: lack of Linux support and I avoid Fuji for past business practices. Other
: than that the world is my oyster. Caveats: I also avoid anything using
: proprietary memory cards i.e. xd or memory stick - other than that, I'll
: look at olympus and sony models - thinking stronly about a Sony Alpha.
Out of curiosity, what "past business practices" of Fuji were worse than Sony
installing OS-level spyware on the computers of their CD customers?
"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote
in news:tzoXi.42227$c_1.4418@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk:
> Paulie wrote:
> []
>> I have one of those already.
>>
>> I'm looking for a rugged digital camera that is reasonable in
>> price. And which brand to avoid.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> I have been very happy with Panasonic compact cameras, so I
> would suggest you don't avoid that brand. I would avoid
> brands which are not "well-known". I think the Panasonic TZ3
> is reasonably rugged and reasonable in price, but it's not
> designed to be highly ruggedised - that would be inconsistent
> with "reasonable in price". Cameras are precision optical
> instruments (or they should be <G>) and should be treated
> accordingly to get the best out of them.
>
> Cheers,
> David
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:57:04 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 07:03:47 -0700, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
> : On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:10:35 +0000, Paulie wrote:
> :
> : > I have 2 questions I hope you can answer.
> : >
> : > 1) What camera brand to avoid?
> :
> : Avoid for what reason? Personally, I avoid canon because of their total
> : lack of Linux support and I avoid Fuji for past business practices. Other
> : than that the world is my oyster. Caveats: I also avoid anything using
> : proprietary memory cards i.e. xd or memory stick - other than that, I'll
> : look at olympus and sony models - thinking stronly about a Sony Alpha.
>
> Out of curiosity, what "past business practices" of Fuji were worse than Sony
> installing OS-level spyware on the computers of their CD customers?
>
> Bob
Attempting to deny Japanese customers any choice at all. Their policy was
that any store selling any Kodak equipment could not sell Fuji. I guess
that's their 'right' - it's also mine to not buy their stuff at all.
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:39:25 -0700
ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:10:36 -0800, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 07:03:47 -0700
> > ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:10:35 +0000, Paulie wrote:
> >
> >> > 1) What camera brand to avoid?
> >>
> >> [...] Personally, I avoid canon because of their
> >> total lack of Linux support
> >
> > Really? I wasn't aware that Canon was any worse than the rest
> > in this regard. Would you care to elaborate?
>
> Epson and HP support is quite good - e.g. avasys.jp/english carries
> the 'iscan' software for Linux for using Epson scanners. Most HP
> printers do some form of PCL and work very well with Linux. I also
> have a Brother laser printer which works well.
Silly me. I thought the subject was cameras. Do you avoid Canon
cameras because they don't care if they sell printers or scanners
to Linux users? That seems counterproductive.
> >> and I avoid Fuji for past business
> >> practices. [...]
> >
> > I avoided them this last time around because they just seemed
> > a bit strange. All of the camera makers seem to be in bed with
> > the Microsoft monopoly. Has Fuji done something worse than that?
> > :-)
>
> There were reports several years ago that they would not allow any
> Japanese store which handled Kodak supplies to handle any of their
> equipment - is that bad enough?
Bad enough. Has Japan not got anti-trust laws? Oh, I forgot.
Microsoft tried similar anti-competitive stuff in the US, and Bush
mostly let them off the hook. I guess we don't have anti-trust
laws either. :-)
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 17:28:09 GMT
"Jürgen Exner" <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Marvin wrote:
> > Paulie wrote:
> >> 2) I'm wanting to buy a camera under $200 to put in luggage or
> >> car glove box. One that may take a bit of abuse.
> >
> > I doubt that any camera will stand up well to the high
> > temperatures in a car's glove box in the summer.
>
> Very true for film, but AFAIK not an issue for digital.
> Does anyone have a credible source to the contratry?
I'd expect the sensor to be screaming with noise after baking
in a car's glove box all afternoon. It would settle down after
cooling off, but that would take a while.
I'm not sure I'd want to test the temperature limits of Li-ion
battery chemistry in my car's glove box. What do you say we
do the experiment in *your* car? :-)
On Nov 5, 2:17 pm, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
> Attempting to deny Japanese customers any choice at all. Their policy was
> that any store selling any Kodak equipment could not sell Fuji. I guess
> that's their 'right' - it's also mine to not buy their stuff at all.
How exactly is that denying them 'any choice at all'? Fuji and Kodak
offer highly competing photographic processing systems, so I can
imagine them (and Kodak) being fussy about what brands were carried
by, say, a Fujicolour processing shop. I have visited many
photographic stores and noticed quite popular brands very
conspicuously absent (eg Pentax, Olympus, Kodak, Fuji) - and I've
never thought of it as denying me my choices.. I have feet.
And given that I don't think I have *ever* heard you recommending
anything other than Kodak, up until this thread... I think the
question of bias might be asked! Can you supply links/references to
the practices being alleged? Would you perhaps be referring to the
failed case by Kodak against Fuji at the WTO? Here's the Fuji take: http://www.fujifilm.co.jp/eng/special/sp022.html http://www.fujifilm.com/info/wto/index.html
Although I think that was more about film, not surprisingly Fuji seem
to think it was Kodak who were the naughty ones..! If you were
referring to something else, please provide links.
Jürgen Exner wrote:
> Marvin wrote:
>> Paulie wrote:
>>> 2) I'm wanting to buy a camera under $200 to put in luggage or
>>> car glove box. One that may take a bit of abuse.
>> I doubt that any camera will stand up well to the high
>> temperatures in a car's glove box in the summer.
>
> Very true for film, but AFAIK not an issue for digital.
> Does anyone have a credible source to the contratry?
>
> jue
>
>
Well, if one lives in the US southwest, temps in a car in the summer can
top 160F, which would be bad for batteries. Shouldn't hurt the camera
itself, but might generate noisier pictures until it cools.
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 02:30:07 -0800, mark.thomas.7 wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2:17 pm, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Attempting to deny Japanese customers any choice at all. Their policy was
>> that any store selling any Kodak equipment could not sell Fuji. I guess
>> that's their 'right' - it's also mine to not buy their stuff at all.
>
> How exactly is that denying them 'any choice at all'? Fuji and Kodak
> offer highly competing photographic processing systems, so I can
> imagine them (and Kodak) being fussy about what brands were carried
> by, say, a Fujicolour processing shop. I have visited many
> photographic stores and noticed quite popular brands very
> conspicuously absent (eg Pentax, Olympus, Kodak, Fuji) - and I've
> never thought of it as denying me my choices.. I have feet.
>
> And given that I don't think I have *ever* heard you recommending
> anything other than Kodak, up until this thread... I think the
> question of bias might be asked! Can you supply links/references to
> the practices being alleged? Would you perhaps be referring to the
> failed case by Kodak against Fuji at the WTO? Here's the Fuji take:
> http://www.fujifilm.co.jp/eng/special/sp022.html
> http://www.fujifilm.com/info/wto/index.html
It was widely reported in the news media a number of years ago. If you'll
carefully reread my previous posts, you'll find that I seldom recommen
that a person buy a Kodak camera. I think they have some very stron
points, especially in the now discontinued P series. I've used them as an
example of a manufacturer which produces an EVF that I can stand to use -
the woefully undersampled ones, I just can't abide. And for the record,
there are now other manufacturers also making EVFs with decent resolution.
>
> Although I think that was more about film, not surprisingly Fuji seem
> to think it was Kodak who were the naughty ones..! If you were
> referring to something else, please provide links.
The point is that Fuji was trying very hard to get a total monopoly in the
Japanese market. Excuse me, but I don't like such tactics.
Re: 2 General camera questions 
Linear Mode
