Guest Sammi&torontofilm Posted December 1, 2004 Posted December 1, 2004 (edited) Thin Manul book ,light weight ,cut audio plug,Body like crap plastic,pp model is ok,auto focus trans is good ,lots extra button won't be use at all .Lens only go 54 ,lighter than PD-170,worse than PD-170 ,resolution can't feel better than PD-170 when show on TV ,didn't try connect to HD TV yet. Edited December 1, 2004 by Sammi&torontofilm
Premium Member Elhanan Matos Posted December 1, 2004 Premium Member Posted December 1, 2004 Can someone decrypt that for me? All I got was worse than the PD-170. Can you please tell us how you came to that conclusion?
Alvin Pingol Posted December 2, 2004 Posted December 2, 2004 Can someone decrypt that for me? All I got was worse than the PD-170. Can you please tell us how you came to that conclusion? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Thin Manul book ,light weight ,cut audio plug,Body like crap plastic,pp model is ok,auto focus trans is good ,lots extra button won't be use at all .Lens only go 54 ,lighter than PD-170,worse than PD-170 ,resolution can't feel better than PD-170 when show on TV ,didn't try connect to HD TV yet." The user manual for this camera is quite thin. The camera itself isn't very heavy at all. Something about an audio plug... The construction of the camera seems very weak, as if it is made entirely of plastic. Something... pp... is just fine. The autofocus system works well, and there are a lot of buttons on the camera that he thinks he won't ever end up using. Something... lens 54... The camera is lighter than a PD-170, but at the same time, is also worse than one. He feels that, when connected to a SD monitor, the resolution of the camera's images is not better than those from a PD-170. A connection to an HDTV has yet to be tested. So yeah, I'm lost on about three of the little phrases. Anyone else care to take a shot? :D
Recommended Posts