cool !!
But is the camera good for actually taking pictures ?
It has a lot of cool features, but what about picture's quality ??
Anybody has played with that Pentax OptioS ??

I'm looking for a very small/light camera, for job related EDC : taking pix of customers installation make it easier, when calling them on the phone, to explain what they should do, which cable in which box they should move/connect a.s.o. ...

I just keep a disposable in the glove box in case there is a car accident or when one of my mates gets bogged <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Not that model, but I have friends with some of their older models which are pretty good. (by older I mean last year or 2 models)
I've used Pentax SLR's for years and now have their ist digital SLR, and haven't ever had a problem with them.
They are a funny company with funny marketing. But my experience with them has always been good.

You back, or have you left yet?

Quote: "You will not be disappointed with the fx9... I have fx7 in 3 feet radius on me all the time and it is a great little gadget. "

Matt,

Two days left and counting before delivery. I can’t wait. I plan having it handy at all times. I almost jumped on the FX7 (very cool camera), but had just purchased the FZ5 and needed some time for my piggy bank to recover. Panasonic came right back with the FX8 (better battery life), but it is a gray market product here in the states. My patience will be rewarded with the FX9. The LCD resolution is greatly increased as well as some of the speed specs. I have been doing my camera business with Vann's in Montana. The prices are great and the service superb. Bonus: no taxes, free shipping.

Vann’s
http://www.vanns.com/shop/index.jsp

I don’t even bother with the rip-off, cut-rate, New York/Jersey hack shops. I won’t subsidize these joints and their games.

B&H also has decent prices and good service.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

One Call can have some good deals on equipment too.
http://ww2.onecall.com/

Unfortunately they are here in WA State, requiring payment of sales tax. (It also pains me greatly to subsidize politicians and their games).

Below is a list of my favorite digital camera review sites.

http://www.megapixel.net/html/reviews.php

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/

http://www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.html

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/cameraList.php

http://www.imaging-resource.com/WB/WB.HTM?view=dp_all

P-man knows what he's saying. Great links!!

Though my Nikon D70 dSLR is my favorite camera, I tend to like the photo quality that comes out of my Kodak digital cameras very much - great color quality.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com is indeed a great place to buy. They are sort of the campmor.com of photography. I spend way to much $$ at both.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ is also my favorite source for camera reviews. They do a great job and show no bias.

Some other bits of advice for digital camera users (based upon my biased opinions):

1. Buy an external card reader. I find them easier to use.

2. Take a look at Adobe Photoshop Elements. For about $100 it provides a wealth of photo organization/editing capabilities. It comes with an auto-card reader so all you do is pop the card into the reader and the software guides you from there.

3. Get a tripod. Though some will say you need to spend big bucks on one, I think a lower cost one is far better than not having one at all. They allow you to takes some time to frame the picture as you want it, and, more importantly, they give you clear blur-free pics.

4. If you don't have the camera with you, you won't get the picture. That is why I have a smaller point-and-shoot camera as well as the better one. I try to carry it when ever I can.

Yes, a Canon PowerShot SD100 Digital ELPH. I'm taking classes toward a certificate in digital photography.

-- Craig

My cellphone has a camera built in ( Motorola A1000 with 1.3 megapixs) takes decent enough shots and is always with me,EDC'ing my Konica KD20M would overload my pockets <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I do find haveing the abillity to take shots to use as instant referance very usefull.
P.S does anyone use the video clip facility on camera phones? I videod a friend tying some knots that i allways scew up <img src="/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />, now i have my own little tutorial <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> its no Hollywood production but really helps.

Does anyone have any recent experience or knowledge about whether film photos (where you actually have a negative as proof) have any more weight than a digital photo in a legal proceeding, like in a lawsuit? I don't EDC a camera now, but I always think I should put one in the car.

Before digital cameras were readily available, I was on a jury for a civil lawsuit. A guy got rear-ended and was suing the other driver for damage to his car, some medical costs, and some pain and suffering. The pivotal evidence for me was when the other driver's insurance-company-provided lawyer produced photos of the guy's car from a year before the accident. They showed that the guy's car already had the damage that he was claiming happened in the accident. None of us jurors had any doubt that the photos were real and undoctored, but today, in the era of Photoshop and drug store photo kiosks, it's pretty simple to alter a picture and produce a print (real photo, not inkjet print). And not just altering the car, but also, say, placing a tree in front of a stop sign so the guy can claim it was obstructed...all kinds of shenanigans.

E.g. I could easily see a situation where I'm in an accident and say the other car had a damaged front bumper and that's it. A couple weeks later, I learn that he wants my insurance company to fix his bumper, a cracked windshield, a smashed fender, both headlights, yada-yada. Just wondering if having a digital or film photo of the original damage would be more credible in case it went to court. I have no idea how vigorously attorneys attack digital photos in court these days. I mean, I watch lot's of Law and Order, but it's never come up in an episode yet! <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> And those Perry Mason reruns aren't any help either...

Then again, maybe so few people have cameras with them (cell phone cameras are changing that) that having any photo impresses the jury and it doesn't matter so much if it's digital or film.

Listening to a police scanner, I hear "Any unit with a digital camera on the north end, contact Sierra 11". So, uh, if the police use it, it's probably good. However, I'm sure that any disks used are serialized, and a good chain of custody is maintained.

Now, realize I'm not a lawyer, and really consulting one that deals with DUI's, domestic cases or traffic accidents will be a good thing. Most of the times I've heard the camera being used, it is to record bruisings as a result of batteries, and sometimes car accidents. They can tell you what you need to know.

But, there are some things that may help them be credible in court.

First, most of the newer cards today use encryption to store the actual photo to the portable disk. When you "decrypt" the file you get an image. As long as you cannot write back to the disk an image from outside the camera at anytime, then it is as good as a fingerprint. If you can, then you won't be able to guarantee the authenticity of the digital photograph.

Second, all new digital cameras have a timestamp function. Make sure the date and time are correct.

Third, you're talking "big" items and "low cost/benefit ratio". Is it worth it to professionally edit photographs, risk detection, just so you can save $150 every 6 months? Taking the photograph, along with your statement, will probably serve as a good "complete package" of your testimony.

One things I will do if ever using a digital camera to take photos for legal things, is to take ALOT of pictures, from different angles, distances and finally panoramic shots. The reason being that I would have to digitally alter EVERY SINGLE picture in EVERY SINGLE ANGLE. Make sure key landmarks, or things that can be measured, are included. The simple location of a median with relation to the vehicle may help. Street signs, traffic lights, business signs, and even lane markings. If need be, someone can go into the "real world" and measure all those things. With the timestamp function, you might even be able to find things that confirm times. i.e. a police officer/ambulance/fire truck, taxi was known to be responding to another call. Maybe even the traffic light timing might confirm the time.

All of this together can reduce the possibility that the photo has been altered. Plus, someone can print these photos out and go around asking potential witnesses if this is what they saw.

Consider using the movie recording function, if your camera is equipped.