Prev: It sure ain't no NEX lens!!!
Next: longevity
From: RichA on 28 Jul 2010 17:29
On Jul 28, 3:33 pm, Alan Dunlop-Walters <alanswo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/07/2010 22:02, RichA wrote:
>
>
>
> >    Sony HDRCX550 AVCHD 64GB Handycam Camcorder
>
> > Equipped with state-of-the-art technology to help first time users to
> > effortlessly capture breathtaking 1920 x 1080 videos in up to 90
> > different scenes, this 64GB HD Handycam® Camcorder also features a
> > fully manual features set for those with a bit more experience. An
> > "Exmor R" CMOS sensor provides superior low-light performance, while
> > Optical SteadyShot™ image stabilization with Active Mode and 3-way
> > Shake Canceling enables you to capture remarkably smooth video from
> > wide angle to full telephoto shooting. Also captures 12MP still images
> > directly to 64GB of embedded Flash memory.
> > Now $1179
>
> Go on Bich, tell us why.  Can't wait to hear why.
> Your fine opinions are so worthy and anticipated.

Not until you pass the Grey Poupon.
From: RichA on 28 Jul 2010 17:29
On Jul 28, 3:47 pm, ray <r...(a)zianet.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:02:58 -0700, RichA wrote:
> > Sony HDRCX550 AVCHD 64GB Handycam Camcorder
>
> > Equipped with state-of-the-art technology to help first time users to
> > effortlessly capture breathtaking 1920 x 1080 videos in up to 90
> > different scenes, this 64GB HD Handycam® Camcorder also features a fully
> > manual features set for those with a bit more experience. An "Exmor R"
> > CMOS sensor provides superior low-light performance, while Optical
> > SteadyShot™ image stabilization with Active Mode and 3-way Shake
> > Canceling enables you to capture remarkably smooth video from wide angle
> > to full telephoto shooting. Also captures 12MP still images directly to
> > 64GB of embedded Flash memory. Now $1179
>
> Part of the reason is that a decent digital camera does not cost $1179.

Now that's a bit much. You can buy old stock D300's for that now.
From: John McWilliams on 28 Jul 2010 21:19
Alan Dunlop-Walters wrote:
> On 28/07/2010 20:36, Bruce wrote:d.
>>
>>
>> Rich will merely blame the British police, as usual. ;-)
>>
> Or my double barrel. He is so lacking in imagination.

Whatever.

How about you chaps just ignoring his posts??

Novel, what?

--
lsmft
From: Alan Dunlop-Walters on 29 Jul 2010 15:54
On 29/07/2010 02:19, John McWilliams wrote:
> Alan Dunlop-Walters wrote:
>> On 28/07/2010 20:36, Bruce wrote:d.
>>>
>>>
>>> Rich will merely blame the British police, as usual. ;-)
>>>
>> Or my double barrel. He is so lacking in imagination.
>
> Whatever.
>
> How about you chaps just ignoring his posts??

Now where would be the fun in that?


From: John McWilliams on 29 Jul 2010 16:16
Alan Dunlop-Walters wrote:
> On 29/07/2010 02:19, John McWilliams wrote:
>> Alan Dunlop-Walters wrote:
>>> On 28/07/2010 20:36, Bruce wrote:d.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rich will merely blame the British police, as usual. ;-)
>>>>
>>> Or my double barrel. He is so lacking in imagination.
>>
>> Whatever.
>>
>> How about you chaps just ignoring his posts??
>
> Now where would be the fun in that?
>
>

Quite.

As long as you don't complain about the trolls or pests here AND feed
them, no problemo.

--
john mcwilliams


Note:




This space intentionally left blank, except for these words.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: It sure ain't no NEX lens!!!
Next: longevity