Tim Downie wrote:
>> why not buy a 35mm compact?
>
> Mostly weight. It's a 50K race and I'm not planning on carrying too much. I've already got a
> drawer full of 35mm compacts but they're all heavier than plastic disposables.
True, but are a few ounces that critical? My tiny Olympus XA weighs only 225g, just double the
weight of the 113g disposable you mention below. Is 4 extra ounces that big a deal? (4 extra ounces
for an excellent quality camera in this particular instance)
> But I don't want a zoom. I'd rather have a true wide-angle lens.
The XA has a 35mm lens I think, there's a different XA model with a 28mm lens.
> Well, I was asking around today and it would seem that there are several disposable "panoramic"
> cameras available, but they're all APS ones that only crop a standard focal length image.
So they're not really panoramic then. Technically the Fuji 617 isn't panoramic either when used with
a standard focal length lens. They should specify "panoramic format" as opposed to true panoramic.
> For an example of what I'd really like see:
>
>
http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=details&sku=KCDCWF
Looks very nice, especially if it really is a 17mm lens. Probably horribly soft in the corners
though, with ghastly grain from the ISO 800 film included. Pity you can't get a proper compact with
a lens like that, it would be a shame to throw it away after use.
But again, if it's designed to be thrown away, the lens is going to be **** anyway. It's really a
question of how much you value image quality, and I'm not talking about great quality compared to
average, I'm talking about mediocre (cheap compact) compared to atrocious (throwaway - quite
literally).
But as I said, I'm probably biased.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749