By Milo TsukroffPosted Sunday 29th July 2007 05:36 GMT
Very good review. I've used an S850 since the Spring, when I needed a quick replacement "throwaway" camera that used SD card storage and AA batteries. My experience has been that alkaline batteries last a bit longer than the review stated (perhaps the reviewer accidently bought counterfeit batteries), but I do own a large number of rechargeable LiMh AA's which I use regularly.
The reason that I call the S850 a "throwaway" is that it's just a transitional form. Features that will be upgraded in future models are, no sound while zooming; focus problems when partially zoomed in; default to flash mode when turning camera on every time [drives me nuts]; failure to hold the "S" priority settings if I turn the camera off while on that setting; lack of an optical viewfinder; and numerous other small things that irritate me. I won't own this camera forever. In a couple of years, I'll replace it with something better.
In the meantime, its best features are indeed its excellent anti-shake capability (a tripod is simply not needed any more) and phenomenal picture detail. The ASR is superb. Recording videos is weird when seeing a 1/2-second delay between what I'm recording & what's on the screen.
All in all, the S850 is an okay camera, as long as I think of it as a throwaway.... Thanks for the review.
By Robert HillPosted Sunday 29th July 2007 13:09 GMT
"In one of the preset portrait modes, the background is blurred out of focus around the cutout in the shape of a person"
It's not a "cutout", it's called limiting the "Depth of Field", and I would hope that anyone writing a camera review would be enough of a photog to at least use the proper term for it and know how it works...
Actually mate it is a cut out, these samsungs donts have proper depth of field control. Just a choice of 2 pre focused areas in the centre of shot. So blame the camera not the reviewer
By Anonymous CowardPosted Monday 30th July 2007 13:09 GMT
I echo the comment above about rechargeable vs non-rechargeable batteries: only a profligate fool whose hobby is destroying the environment uses non-rechargeables in such a device. But why "Duracells"? You're just falling for, and paying for, the TV advertising. Those bunnies aren't compared with those using generic *alkaline* batteries - they are compared with those using zinc-carbon batteries which seem to exist purely to show Duracells up in a good light. If you must use dry cells, don't waste your money on Duracells but buy generic alkalines instead.
I have a S1000, which from the article seems to be pretty identical to the S1030 and IMO the noise reduction is a minus.
At 50% pictures look great, but viewed at 100% on a TFT the picture is quite ugly. I would prefer generic noise or (some) jpeg artifacts over the look of this noise reduction.
It's not really a major issue, just don't think about using (a part of) the picture for screen display at "original" size (that equals almost 40" - probably what the author meant with not making poster prints).
Comments on: Samsung S1030 and S850 digital cameras
focus? #
By The Mighty Spang Posted Friday 27th July 2007 16:33 GMT
Intelligent Face Recognition? #
By David Gosnell Posted Friday 27th July 2007 16:33 GMT
"Intelligent Face" recognition #
By TS Posted Friday 27th July 2007 20:12 GMT
Batteries #
By Andrew Hardisty Posted Saturday 28th July 2007 10:10 GMT
BluddyH*ll #
By Christian Gerzner Posted Saturday 28th July 2007 14:27 GMT
Good review - Throwaway cameras #
By Milo Tsukroff Posted Sunday 29th July 2007 05:36 GMT
Er...portrait mode? #
By Robert Hill Posted Sunday 29th July 2007 13:09 GMT
RE Er...portrait mode? #
By Brian Posted Sunday 29th July 2007 22:40 GMT
Duracells #
By Anonymous Coward Posted Monday 30th July 2007 13:09 GMT
noise reduction #
By F Seiler Posted Monday 30th July 2007 17:50 GMT