Re: APS Sucks.

Michael Benveniste wrote:

> DaveT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>
> > > This points out an aps feature that is often overlooked. If you don't 
> > > have the camera with you then you can't take a picture at all. APS is a 
> > > perfect fit for casual non-professional use.
> >
> > Absolutely correct.  I have an Elph Jr. that carries in a pager-sized
> > pouch on my belt.  It has a razor-sharp four element f2.8 non-zoom
> > lens that gives a very good account of itself.  My main camera is a
> > Canon A1, but anymore, I take many more pictures with the Elph.
>
>
> APS is one offering to the "grab camera" market, but far from the
> only one.  Let's compare that Elph Jr. to, say, an Olympus Stylus 
> Epic 35mm:
>
> Lens:
>      Elph Jr. -- 26mm 4 element/4 group lens @ f/2.8
>      Olympus  -- 35mm 4 element/4 group lens @ f/2.8
>      Note     -- Elph is roughly equivalent to a 33mm lens for 35mm.
>
> Size:
>      Elph Jr. -- 3.5" x 2.4" x 0.9" -- 4.4 oz.
>      Olympus  -- 4.3" x 2.3" x 1.5" -- 4.7 oz.
>
> Minimum Focus and required light:
>      Elph Jr. -- 1.5 feet. EV2
>      Olympus  -- 1.1 feet. EV1
>
> Rangefinder Magnification:
>      Elph Jr. -- 0.35x
>      Olympus  -- 0.45x
>     
> Flash Range at ISO 200:
>      Elph Jr. -- 17'8"
>      Olympus  -- 19'1"
>      Note     -- These are computed values.
>                  Elph Jr. quotes 12.5' with ISO 100, but ISO 100
>                  numbers are moot unless you can buy ISO 100 film.
>
> Auto Film Loading?
>      Elph Jr. -- Yes
>      Olympus  -- Almost.

Certainly true although there are handling difference that APS film 
shines in but this kind of camera would suck also from the original 
posters view.

> I could go on nit-picking, or I could run similar numbers against
> any of a number of small digitals.  But to what point?  All of them
> are roughly the same size, and all will produce a nice looking print
> up to about 8x12 or so.  The 35mm Epic does better at 11x16, but a
> goodly number of users don't really care about that.

Digitals are much more expensive on the front end and eat batteries or 
require frequent recharges. They still have made few inroads into the 
not computer savy groups.

> So in my mind, we're back to square "A" as in _A_dvanced Photo System.
> APS has some nice film handling and recording features.  At least in
> theory -- the last time I brought a roll of APS into my local 
> Walgreens, they ignored the H/C/P settings and printed everything as 
> a 4x6.  Twice.

Try Longs, they do fine.

> Balance those features against paying a little more for developing 
> (at least where I live), with fewer choices for film, and the film 
> goes on sale less often.
>
> Does APS suck?  I don't think so, but I also don't think it has
> sufficient advantages over 35mm to justify the higher cost, let
> alone any decrease in quality.  It's even more vulnerable to
> competition from digitals.

Your choice, but the PQI does help under some conditions so the 
percentage of pictures is better. Digitals are not the average 
housewife's choice.

Dale

--
    _      _     Dale DePriest
   /`) _  //     http://users.cwnet.com/dalede
 o/_/ (_(_X_(`   For GPS and GPS/PDAs