|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Also, the s90/95 seems to getting a lot more shout-outs than the G12- is that mainly because the s95 is a little cheaper and smaller, or are there other advantages over the g12? They have the same sensor and processor, so the picture quality is the same: yet while the S90 will fit in a shirt pocket, the G12 needs to be fitted with wheels and dragged around. The S90 is also 1 stop faster and as the final punch inthe G12's balls, it is cheaper. It's really a no-brainer unless you really, really need a viewfinder, a hotshoe or big buttons to play with. EDIT: to quote The Rock: quote:Canon's G series has a cult following, but I'm not a member. I prefer the smaller and lighter Canon S95, which is the same thing as the G12, in a more compact package with a better lens and a bigger LCD for $100 less. The S95 has exactly the same sensor, photo, audio and video features and performance — with a better lens and LCD — for less money and with less than half the weight. People who love the G series love it, and they still buy them. God bless the free market system!
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:28 |
|
|
Alright I just read/skimmed this thread, and I think you have already sold me on an s90/95 (whichever I find a better deal for...) but I figure it won't hurt to post and get opinions. I was hoping for a price range close to 200 - 250 than 300 - 350... but I am willing to drop the extra cash to get a really awesome camera that fits all my needs. Does it sound like the s90/95 is the way I should go, or is there a cheaper alternative that you think would be a better place to start? My trusty 10 year old HP Photosmart is showing signs of wanting to kill itself (specifically the display is acting glitchy and it's crashed a couple times, but it's still trucking for now). I've beaten the hell out of this thing and it deserves a rest, and it's probably time for me to upgrade to more features anyway. That said, my experience with actual features on a camera is very limited. This old thing doesn't have a lot to it besides select mode, point and shoot. I want to learn about the finer details rather than letting the camera think for me, but I am willing to start on a lower tier camera first if it seems the wiser course of action. What I use the camera for: Hiking trips, with your standard "big social event/trip" and random "something is happening get the camera!!!" shots. But mostly hiking, which is primarily landscape pictures of the views after we get to the tops of mountains, and wildlife pictures of whatever runs across our path on the way. My primary concerns for a camera are: Size. I do not want to be lugging a heavy, bulky camera up a mountain. My brick-like photosmart is almost too big as it is, but the modern point and shoots look great for being stuffed into whatever nook and cranny is available in my hiking gear, while still being accessible for whipping out for wildlife encounters. A fast boot-up would be a bonus. The HP is decent but it still takes maybe 5 seconds, and most of the time I don't even really think to grab for it if a bird lands in front of us and it's not already turned on. Durability. And also one of the reasons I was hoping for a lower price point. I'm terrified to take a 600 dollar camera up a rocky trail and then trip  . I realize no camera is going to enjoy being banged around, but withstanding banging around in a hiking pack is a bit of a priority. My HP is a trooper in this category, with scratches all over the casing. I imagine a smaller camera will be easier to slip into a more protected pocket, too.And absolutely number 1, which this thread did a lot to allay my fear for: Batteries. My old photosmart eats batteries like they're candy. I get maybe 6 - 10 loving pictures with the flash on before it spits them on the ground and bitches about the batteries being dead. Fortunately I get 30-40 shots without flash, and outdoor shots don't require it, but it is my number 1 complaint. Packing around a ziploc full of 80 batteries is something I would like to get away from. My concern with the new rechargeable ones was that I wouldn't be able to plug it into the nearest tree while out in the woods, so what happens when they discharge?? But this thread has solved that concern for me by pointing out the cheap spares. My NEW concern with batteries that I don't think has been brought up in this thread!: How long do the batteries take to discharge when NOT being used? I tend to use the camera heavily during hiking season and then only sporadically at other times of the year, which could mean it sits for awhile. With my current camera, it's almost always dead when I pick it up, but I can just chuck some fresh AAs in there and off we go. I'm worried that we'll have a dry spell and the camera will sit, and then something amazing will happen outside but all my batteries will be discharged and I'll be SOL. I was under the impression that just leaving them charging when not in use is bad for the batteries too... can I just leave it charging so it's good to go, or am I going to have to remember to charge them periodically even when not in heavy use? Other random things I dislike about my current camera, that I'm sure the s90/95 will be great at: It sucks rear end in low light. It's great for the outdoorsy stuff, but whenever we go inside at like a zoo or something, all the pictures go to poo poo with exaggerated blurriness and camera shake (and also use flash which blows through batteries). A camera that doesn't poo poo itself or require me to set up a tripod for a not-blurry picture in low light would be nice for a change. I've always been disappointed by the macro mode on this thing. I've managed to take a couple nice macro pictures, but it's INSANELY picky about how it wants to take the picture and refuses to shoot unless I hold it just-so, and in half of the pictures I actually do get to be un-blurry, it's decided to focus on the background instead of the subject. It's too finnicky to even bother with most of the time, so I am looking forward to a macro mode that does not suck. There's plenty of bugs in the woods that I could be photographing!! I always kinda wanted shutter controls to try long exposure shots with. Is this common on most modern point and shoot digitals? The HP has a video camera mode, but it is so hilariously awful that it's not even good as a joke. The few times I've tried it it took 20 minutes to process the drat video, rendering the camera unusable until it was done. Once it's done, I'm left with a terrible MP4 video that is an absolutely tiny resolution and is so blurry you can't even make anything out. Even my lovely Java cellphone takes better videos than this thing, so any modern camera will be a delight to try. So what is the verdict here? Should I go straight for the 350ish dollar camera that does everything I need and more... or do you recommend something cheaper that still fits all the above? Tagra fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Jun 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 19:04
|
|
|
spog posted:They have the same sensor and processor, so the picture quality is the same: yet while the S90 will fit in a shirt pocket, the G12 needs to be fitted with wheels and dragged around. Thanks- that's kind of what I thought. Looks like the zoom is a bit longer on the G12 too, but only 5x vs 3x? Probably not enough to make that much difference. I actually like the idea of a viewfinder and a slightly larger camera (I find them easier to hold steady), so I guess I might end up being one of those suckers. I'll have to try them both out. Either one would be the smallest camera I've ever owned...
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 19:08
|
|
|
I used this logic... I'd rather have spent $399 now than $250 now, have a year's worth of "if only I had gone for the better camera I'd be much happier", then end up spending $399 the next chance I get and trying to make half my money back selling the slightly cheaper one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 19:09
|
|
|
Actually I have another question about actual technique... One thing I've always had trouble with is conveying steepness. Like, standing at the top or bottom of a really steep hill on a trail, I want to take a shot to show everyone just how loving steep that hill is. But it's always underwhelming when I look at the pictures because the camera isn't really capturing the context of the situation. If I angle the camera down at the trail, it looks like it's just flat and unimpressive. If I point the camera straight out from the trail, then you can't even really see the trail because it's too loving steep. At the bottom, if I point it up the trail, then it just looks flat. If I point it straight at the trail, sometimes this works, but usually it just looks like a really short (flat) section of trail. I just assumed this was something I couldn't really convey with a picture, because you need to be standing there and feel how steep it is, and a 2D representation is just never going to do it for you. But is there actually a technique I could try?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 19:36
|
|
|
Tagra posted:Actually I have another question about actual technique... A wide angle lens could be the ticket. Wide angles (~14-24 mm focal length for a 35mm film camera) exaggerate the perspective, while longer lenses (>80 mm for a 35 mm film camera) flatten the perspective. A 50 mm film equivalent lens is supposed give a "natural" perspective, i.e. something similar to human eye. Also, in addition to the S90/95, I think the Olympus XZ-1 is something to consider for anyone who is buying a point-n-shoot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 20:47
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Anyone have a Nikon P7000? I saw one at a store last night and I really like how the controls look. Reviews seem pretty down on it though, at least compared to the equivalent Canons. As far as specs go, IIRC, it's a trade off. You get a little more reach on the G12 and the aperture on the S90/95 opens up a little bit wider. The other advantage is that the G series have hot shoes on them, however, I doubt you'll ever use a speedlite with a point and shoot. Looking at specs alone, I'd personally still go with an S series because I find a wider aperture is more useful than a bit of extra reach. As for size, this is actually one of the most important features for us DSLR owners. Most of us want point and shoots so that we can carry a camera on us when we can't/don't want to lug a DSLR around. The G series are jacket pocket cameras, where S series can fit in a jeans pocket.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
The secret to good landscapes is to use a long lens, not a wide lens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
spf3million posted:The secret to good landscapes is to use a long lens, not a wide lens. Tell that to Dread Head, who uses a 10-20mm. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3170577&userid=82296
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 01:34
|
|
|
I'd go and have a play with both if possible. Personally I'm a big G-series fan, yes they are bulkier but they are far nicer to use/hold, articulated screen and still relatively portable. The viewfinder is pretty much useless if you're used to even a low end DLSR though By the way while the S9x has a faster lens at the very wide end things change as you zoom in: S90/G11 f2.0 / f2.8 (28mm) f2.5 / f3.2 (35mm/37mm) f3.2 / f3.2 (50mm) f4.5 / f4.0 (85mm/83mm) f4.9 / f4.0 (105mm/--98mm--) (s90 full zoom, g11 slightly less zoom) f4.9 / f4.5 (105mm/--114mm--) (s90 full zoom, g11 slightly more zoom) n.a. / f4.5 (n.a. / 140mm)
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 01:53
|
|
|
spf3million posted:The secret to good landscapes is to use a long lens, not a wide lens. this has to be a troll right? Or explain yourself i guess. Niagalack fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Jun 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 01:58
|
|
|
Niagalack posted:this has to be a troll right? Absolutely not. Long lenses are great for isolating elements of the landscape. My personal favorite example:  (More of my long lens landscapes in a set just for you here.) That said, it doesn't answer Tagra's question - in that specific situation of looking down the trail, yes, I think wider would be better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 02:39
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:That said, it doesn't answer Tagra's question - in that specific situation of looking down the trail, yes, I think wider would be better. Why not shoot from slightly off the trail? The problems you described are lack of reference problems - if you shoot down the trail, or up the trail, you can't directly see the angle of the trees against the ground, so you have no reference to know which way is perfectly up. But if you were somewhat off the trail, you would be able to see the angle of the trees against the ground, giving your eyes a reference, telling the viewer which way is straight up. Oh, an ultra-wide would also give this effect, but I don't think the 24mm equivalent would be wide enough to find out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 03:56
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:Anyone have a Nikon P7000? I saw one at a store last night and I really like how the controls look. Reviews seem pretty down on it though, at least compared to the equivalent Canons. The p7000 has the longest lens while retaining RAW and a larger sensor (for a P&S), that said, I think the Xz-1 has better image quality and a much much faster lens. I don't have any experience, was just looking for a backup camera recently. I personally am leaning toward a Casio FH-100 because it has a 240mm lens, reasonable quality, is cheap as poo poo, and can shoot raw if you wait 14 seconds for it to write.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 10:55
|
|
|
Actually they are pretty good example! I still have a lot to learn...
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2011 13:42
|
|
|
Niagalack posted:this has to be a troll right? Or explain yourself i guess. Here's an example @ 135mm: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 14:38
|
|
|
spf3million posted:Nearly all of my landscapes are shot on a longer lens. Wide angles make it difficult to find an actual subject unless you're shooting Half Dome in Yosemite or something. I know Dread Head shoots great stuff, specifically coast-scapes, with a 10-20. To me, many of the ultra wide landscapes start to look the same. Favourited so hard. That is awesome. I'm with Niagalack, in that I never considered a long lens for landscape, but man, they look amazing!
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 19:22
|
|
|
The real secret is there no single focal length/lens that works perfect for every situation. As we've just seen you can take great landscapes with a wide or telephoto lens. You can also make great portraits with a wide angle lens if you know how to use it right (think environmental). Best thing is not limit yourself to one approach and experiment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
I posted this about 2 weeks ago but never got a reply. In short I've got a Nikon Coolpix S560, I want to throw like 300 or 400 bucks at a new point and shoot camera, and I like to go to concerts. What's recommended as a definite upgrade to my current camera? Current camera's specs here: http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Produ...tTabs.TechSpecsEpi Lepi posted:I want to upgrade from my Nikon Coolpix S560. I mostly take pictures at concerts and my Nikon takes some great pics from up close or outdoor during the day. I've even got some good pictures from the balcony with no flash because I was leaning against the rail. But I'm hoping if I chuck around three or four hundred bucks I can get something that's easier to get good shots at range, especially since I'm seeing a couple stadium shows and a festival this summer.. I know the general recommendation is the Canon S90/95, but the fact that I'd be going to a lesser optical zoom makes me wary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 03:03
|
|
|
I picked up an XZ-1 today. So far I'm very impressed with the build quality. I, unfortunately, haven't been able to use it on account of the OLED display literally failing within a second of the first power on. Back to the store it goes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 06:42
|
|
|
Epi Lepi posted:I posted this about 2 weeks ago but never got a reply. In short I've got a Nikon Coolpix S560, I want to throw like 300 or 400 bucks at a new point and shoot camera, and I like to go to concerts. What's recommended as a definite upgrade to my current camera? Current camera's specs here: http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Produ...tTabs.TechSpecs You're not going to get good long distance shots in low light with a P&S, no matter how good it is. So, you can cross that requirement off your list as a realistic expectation. S90/95 have good low light performance. I believe that some of the Panasonic stuff has a pretty good rep (not a fan myself)
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 08:55
|
|
|
Epi Lepi posted:I posted this about 2 weeks ago but never got a reply. In short I've got a Nikon Coolpix S560, I want to throw like 300 or 400 bucks at a new point and shoot camera, and I like to go to concerts. What's recommended as a definite upgrade to my current camera? Current camera's specs here: http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Produ...tTabs.TechSpecs Yeah, sorry man, I've just not had much experience with cameras in that price range for that purpose, so I wasn't sure what to add. The XZ-1 that HeyEng mentions is meant to be great, and has (according to the gospel of dpreview):
But I've never handled one or seen one in the flesh, or know anyone personally who has, so who knows?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 10:59
|
|
|
Oh, hey, look what just got a 5/5 review on the Photography Blog. I'm not really seeing it, myself - I'm not floored by those sample images, and the low-light performance doesn't sound all that standout. It may be another option to consider, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 11:26
|
|
|
Tagra posted:I have the S95 and I think you'll be fine with every one of your concerns. Size/boot-up time - great and very good. I just started up mine in Auto mode and it's about a second to get the display up. Low-light - I haven't tried any 'around the campfire' pictures with mine but I just tried a picture under the desk in my office and I could clearly pick out all the crap under there. If you're in any doubt, shoot in Program mode and shot RAW + JPEG and you can post-process to your heart's content. Batteries - lithium-ion batteries last for AGES when charged. I bought 2 cheap spares and keep them in my mini camera bag where the S95 lives Dropping it - ...don't? obviously if it's in your hand, use the strap if you're walking, but if you're doing anything technical like negotiating a cliffside scree trail stick it in a camera belt bag. Macro - I've been pretty happy with the macro mode, right now I'm shooting mostly in manual mode and as long as I'm close enough it focuses on what I want it to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 12:32
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:Dropping it - ...don't? obviously if it's in your hand, use the strap if you're walking, but if you're doing anything technical like negotiating a cliffside scree trail stick it in a camera belt bag.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 14:33
|
|
|
Bought an S95 specifically for a road trip proposal to MY GIRLFRIEND. Very happy with the results, and love the fact that it will shoot RAW. Campfire pics turn out great after you process them. I kind of have a thing for making things warm, WB-wise, but feel free to check out the gallery from the trip, if you want to see what a simple point and shoot can do: http://www.plazaphotography.com/galleries/cps/
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 15:49
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:I have the S95 and I think you'll be fine with every one of your concerns. I went out and bought it (last one at the store, whew!) and I have been running around gleefully taking pictures of random poo poo in my house. I am VERY happy with the macro mode, and I was really impressed when I shoved the camera up close to something (in auto) and it immediately changed to the macro icon. My old camera took so much cajoling to even consider focusing on something when set to macro, let alone deciding the correct times to do it all by itself. I have absolutely no experience with the more powerful features of it (my old one was literally point and shoot, no options at all), so I spent about an hour in front of the fish tank dicking around with ISO levels and shutter speeds. This is going to be fun to learn. In the meantime it's great to be able to turn it on and instantly take a picture in auto, and not have it turn out like poo poo (well, at least not the cameras fault that it's poo poo  ). We'll probably go for a short hike tonight, or definitely this weekend, and I'm excited to try some landscape shots with it.My next step is going to be learning how to do post processing. I'm a little disappointed I can't shoot raw format in auto, but I'll learn how to do this manually pretty quick.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 18:40
|
|
|
Tagra posted:My next step is going to be learning how to do post processing. I'm a little disappointed I can't shoot raw format in auto, but I'll learn how to do this manually pretty quick. Use P, not Auto. It's just as easy to use, but you have the ability to tweak it as necessary, plus shoot in RAW.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 18:50
|
|
|
Ill be receiving another XZ-1 tomorrow. Give me a few days and I'll post a small write up with some photos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
spog posted:Use P, not Auto. I messed around with it and my concern was I couldn't figure out how to adjust the focus. Then I read the manual P it is. Krushgroove posted:Dropping it - ...don't? I didn't necessarily mean able to withstand dropping or shockproof, I just meant my hiking pack is prone to jiggling around, so I wanted to make sure I didn't buy a fragile (expensive) flower of a camera that had sensors mounted upon gossamer strands that would shatter if not handled with the utmost delicacy. The metal body of the 95 feels nice and solid, and since it's so slim it can be tucked into a snug secure spot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
spog posted:You're not going to get good long distance shots in low light with a P&S, no matter how good it is. So, you can cross that requirement off your list as a realistic expectation. My current camera has a 5x optical zoom and the S90/95 has a 3.8x optical zoom. I don't really want to downgrade in that respect. Festivals are all day affairs, so there will be plenty of sun for a lot of the day but I'll still need distance. To be fair, I have no idea how noticeable the difference will be, but I'm still concerned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2011 01:09
|
|
|
If it helps, my old P&S took some REALLY good photos at the Lady Gaga concert a few years ago. It also took some terrible ones, but I was shooting in full auto the whole time so I'm sure if I set it to manual I could have gotten them all good. It doesn't go past ISO400 and even then does a lot of noise and is hands down the worst low light camera I've ever used, but has 10x optical zoom which I think it basically essential if you're just in the crowd. I can post some photos if you want of examples taken with it, since that concert I figure that low light isn't as important as a good zoom.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2011 01:13
|
|
|
HookShot posted:If it helps, my old P&S took some REALLY good photos at the Lady Gaga concert a few years ago. It also took some terrible ones, but I was shooting in full auto the whole time so I'm sure if I set it to manual I could have gotten them all good. It doesn't go past ISO400 and even then does a lot of noise and is hands down the worst low light camera I've ever used, but has 10x optical zoom which I think it basically essential if you're just in the crowd. I can post some photos if you want of examples taken with it, since that concert I figure that low light isn't as important as a good zoom. I'd appreciate some example pics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2011 02:02
|
|
|
No worries! Here are some of them, these have had absolutely zero post processing done to them (you can probably tell they could benefit from a bit of fill light but it's still quite good), my camera was a Kodak Z650 if you want the exact specs. We were two rows from the front, and it was a pretty dark show. I'm just put up links to the full size image so that you know what they look like straight out of the camera at 6MP. http://i.imgur.com/OS6aE.jpg http://i.imgur.com/VCxTn.jpg http://i.imgur.com/iG1e4.jpg http://i.imgur.com/HwMNg.jpg http://i.imgur.com/3IzMW.jpg http://i.imgur.com/G2bAw.jpg http://i.imgur.com/Q3XE4.jpg
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2011 04:28
|
|
|
Those costumes are pretty wow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2011 11:06
|
|
|
Epi Lepi posted:My current camera has a 5x optical zoom and the S90/95 has a 3.8x optical zoom. I don't really want to downgrade in that respect. Festivals are all day affairs, so there will be plenty of sun for a lot of the day but I'll still need distance. To be fair, I have no idea how noticeable the difference will be, but I'm still concerned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2011 12:45
|
|
|
I've got a new question. I'm looking for a spare battery for my s95, something that will likely just sit around but be available to charge up and shove in my bag for "emergencies" on longer trips. Off brand batteries are ridiculously cheap on Amazon, like 50 cents. Is a 50 cent knockoff battery going to be just fine, or should I worry that it will explode while I'm charging it some day  Since it's only going to be occasionally used it's a little better, but still a little inducing. Especially if it explodes inside the camera...The Maximal Power brand was recommended by a lot of people, but it's out of stock 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2011 02:20
|
|
|
Tagra posted:I've got a new question. I'm looking for a spare battery for my s95, something that will likely just sit around but be available to charge up and shove in my bag for "emergencies" on longer trips. Off brand batteries are ridiculously cheap on Amazon, like 50 cents. I didn't buy the 50¢ batteries but I did buy something that was two for under $10 off Amazon for my S90. I don't remember the brand but what ever I bought has been working great. If there is a difference in battery life, it isn't immediately obvious. Even if it were much less than OEM, they're so small and cheap it's easy to carry around a few of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2011 05:49
|
|
|
I have a very modest budget of around $200, and a Canon Powershot A80 that I've loved for years, but now takes unrecognizable, streaky images (works ok after about a five minute warm-up), and weighs too darn much anyway. I'm looking at maybe getting a new Canon as a replacement, but I have a very limited budget, so the S90 is out. I'm open to other brands as well, but I want them to have an image quality that is at least as good as my old A80. I originally spent around $230 for the A80, I figure I should be able to get something of at least the same quality for a similar price, with the same flexibility (Tv and Av, etc.), and at a much smaller size. So far, considering the Elph 100 HS or the 300 HS. Thoughts? Is the 300 HS worth the extra bucks? Extra: I got burned on buying a Pentax Optio H90 (~$110). It had great reviews, including from a site that I previously trusted. It has so many awesome and helpful features. I figured that a P&S camera from 2009 would at the very least be able to take pictures at least as well as the creaky old A90. How very wrong I was. The little extra features it has just underscore how poorly it performs its main function. It tries so hard, and gets so far, but in the end it just takes lovely pictures. doctorfrog fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Jun 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2011 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:28 |
|
|
Haggins posted:I didn't buy the 50¢ batteries but I did buy something that was two for under $10 off Amazon for my S90. I don't remember the brand but what ever I bought has been working great. If there is a difference in battery life, it isn't immediately obvious. Even if it were much less than OEM, they're so small and cheap it's easy to carry around a few of them. Shorter life wouldn't be too much of a problem since it's literally only going to be used when the OEM battery wears out. I'm just a little skeptical because if I saw these on ebay with Hong Kong written under them, I'd run far away because I've gotten burned by chinese electronics before (Literally. It started melting within minutes of being plugged in ). But they're on Amazon marketplace... but it's essentially ebay 2.0 now...It's the same seller selling This, This, and This. But the one listed specifically for the S90 is This. Aside from the name of the camera in the title, shouldn't it be the same battery? So why the price differences? Every other battery on there has seems to have the same stock photo (no "brand" name) with wildly varying prices, except for the Maximal Power one that was recommended, and is out of stock I guess I can just go for one and see what happens, I'm just worried about getting dodgy electronics
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2011 18:37
|
|