Death and Rebirth

[ase]

Dear beloved external hard drive (late April 2007 - about now),

When I named you after Rosalind Franklin, I had no idea what I was intimating for your lifespan. Please cough up my music mixes. Now.

Sadly, A.

---

Now that I have my bonus in hand, and have hit my minimum savings goals, it's hardware time. Since I can get a 1 TB external now for the same price I paid for 350 GB in 2007, the only question is: can my ancient desktop handle modern peripherals?

The other big hardware purchase is the camera. (Camera!) I'm looking at the Canon SX110is with a thoughtful eye. The breakdown:

PROS
- It's in my budget (less than or equal to $400 for camera, batteries and backup, memory storage and backup, and bag - no backup needed)

-Roughly purse-sized. (I tend toward capacious bags.)

-Manual control format.

-Awesome spinny wheel that brings Canon's detailed (cumbersome) interface up to my instant gratification speed.

-10x zoom.

-SD / SDHC card format compatible with the baby laptop's built-in six-card reader. (I am assuming SDHC backwards compatibility: please correct me if I am wrong.)

-takes AA batteries.

CONS

- NO OPTICAL VIEWFINDER. Since my reaction to n storage capacity is to stuff in n+1 items, LCDs tend to have a limited life-span, seperate bag or no.

-Does the lens threading thing mean I can't stick the camera on a microscope? There's a rumor we're getting a dissecting scope approved, and I feel a moral obligation to share the next wacky extraction sample to cross the bench.

-no CHDK for the sx110 (or its megazoom predecessor, the sx100) yet. CHDK is one of the reasons for getting on the Canon bandwagon!

- CNET says "meh". CNET likes the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-H50 more. I don't, mostly because I'm not ready for 15x zoom and (especially) not ready to deal with twice the weight. I think. But the point is, CNET had (minor) reservations. ( A side by side comparison illuminates several pros and cons. The categorically appropriate compare-and-contrast would be the DSC-H50 with a slightly more upmarket Canon, such as the PowerShot S5 IS.)

The other option is to go with two cameras, a small cheap point and shoot and the DSC-H50 or even more upscale, but I mention this mostly so I can mock the stupidity it displays. Jumping back into a hobby by investing in the most expensive option possible is neither smart nor wise.

If anyone has anything to say about the SX110, now would be a really good time to weigh in.

Comments

[charlie-ego.livejournal.com]

Honestly, if I were you I would buy neither camera and take your dad's for an extended borrowing session... :) (and: whoa, are we linked in TV watching? I'm also on DS9, though only on Season 4. I like it way more than I thought I would!)

You know I'm a super-duper fan of the G series. The G10 is really the only current camera in its class except maybe the Nikon Coolpix 6000 (which is too expensive anyway) -- the Panasonic LX-3, the dpreview-ranked-top of the prosumer-bells-and-whistles-PS cameras, is really in a slightly different class (fast lens, small zoom) than the G10 (slower lens, larger zoom). Dpreview has regularly been dinging the Canon G series because they don't show a lot of creativity ("let's add more megapixels!") but they're still great cameras especially if you don't want a cool fast-ultra-wide lens like the LX-3 has and would rather have the zoom... my observation is that taking pics of people and architecture is easier with the former, and nature photos are in general easier with the latter.

Not having used the SX110, so take this with a grain of salt, my prediction is that a) the G10 is a lot more fun to use (I had so much fun with my G7), and b) you will not need the 10x zoom of the SX110 unless you are taking a lot of pics in good sunlight or with a tripod. Because I had a lot of problems holding my G7 still even with just the 5x zoom (I was usually taking them in non-full-sunlight). But you might (probably do) have a different set of needs than I do :)

There may be a dust issue with the G10 and if you are seriously interested you should read about it (the dpreview canon forums) - based on my G7, which I believe has the worst dust problem of all the Canons, I would say it's probably okay as long as you don't drop it. Especially in the sand. Er, not that I have a history of doing this. (My last film camera died when it was dropped in the ocean...) That's when mine started having problems honestly (though it is built like a tank and had no other issues from the drops).

I would be shocked if the G11 had an ultra-zoom. At the very most it might extend it to 6x or 7x, but my understanding is that there's kind of a tradeoff with lens quality and portability and since Canon has the SX ultrazoom cameras holding down that end, I wouldn't hold my breath that they'd also try for that in the G series.

Also, viewfinders on PS cameras are always lame, right? I wouldn't give the G10 negative points for that.

It really comes down to what the function of this camera is going to be. If you plan to keep it as your main camera for several years, and don't mind spending the money (this of course is a big if), get the G10, you will love it. If you plan to get a DSLR really soon and have this be a secondary cheap backup, OR if you really think you'll need the ultrazoom, you may want to get the SX110 because it's cheaper and you will be able to get the DSLR that much sooner (and in that case you will not have to "grow into" it-- it won't be disposable, it will be secondary!)

[charlie-ego.livejournal.com]

my observation is that taking pics of people and architecture is easier with the former, and nature photos are in general easier with the latter.

I meant, people/arch is easier with fast/wide lens (bc you frequently want to get lots of people in the frame in low light situations) and nature easier with zoom (because you often want to get a pic of that thing way over there)