Digital-Camera Reviews

This 0.3 megapixel marvel is a toy. It is not meant for video or serious digital photography. It is a great entry-level camera for a kid, because he can 'shoot' his friend with it. Then, they can go back and see what they 'shot' without hurting anyone. It is a fun camera, but follow my advice, THIS IS NOT FOR SERIOUS PHOTOGRAPHY. It is great fun. Works with Windows 98 and Windows XP (Not as well as other digital cameras).

Form over function!

Spent yesterday at trade show at which my buddy had one of these cameras. Drew a LOT of attention and started quite a few conversations.

BUT it has some drawbacks:

The biggest one being that there's no display screen to see what you've taken - and isn't instant gratification the idea behind digital photography? No idea how the pictures turned out until you take the camera home and dump them into your computer. (Ya might as well be shooting film!)

Every time you turn the camera on, you have to tell it what mode to use - still or video - before it'll work. Ought to default to stills so it's a quick point and shoot. Also have to manually tell it whether or not to use the flash. Ought to be automatic. (It's not like the technology doesn't already exist!)

Mike also had trouble with the software - he never did get it to work even after an hour with tech support who talked him through going into his computer's BIOS to tell it to activate the USB ports. Lucky for him, he had software on his system from another (Polariod) digital camera that happened to have been compatible.

On the up side, it's definitely a WAY COOL looking camera! And because it has 8megs of internal memory, this Phazer holds more pictures than similarly priced competitors.

Bottom line: Assuming you can get the software to work, it's a GREAT TOY but definitely NOT a serious camera. Perfect for quick snapshots to email to friends and family. Worth the $60 going rate but for a little more, you can get better. Pick one with a display and maybe even interchangeable memory. But it won't look as COOL as this Phazer does.

It's simple, fun, and has many uses. You can use it as a camera and save as many pictures as you can take. You just plug it into the usb slot in the computer and download. It comes with software that lets you make mosaics, etc. You can use it as a webcam on your computer. You can take it on trips in it's slick carrying case. It pays for itself, because it doesn't use film and doesn't need developing of film. It's simple to learn and fairly lightweight. Carry it in your pocket. I give it 2 thumbs up!

This camera was my first digital camera. It served the purpose at the time. You really need to fool around with the controls to get a good picture. I suggest that you get rechangeable battery unit as it eats battery life. I found the camera to be very heavy. People who have Windows ME operating system do not buy this camera. Afga at this times does not have drivers for the CL 30 for Windows Me. For the price, you can get a far better camera with higher resolution. (...) Digital cameras have come a long way in 2 years. (...)

After my old Kodak at work gave up the ghost, I read some reviews, including yours, and decided on the Agfa CL30. Shortly after installing the software in the computer and connecting the camera, the batteries got very hot and it ceased working permanently. The first (and only) pictures I took were of far greater quality than my old digital camera. In other words, while it was working, I was very pleased. But obviously, there are some quality problems

After searching fruitlessly for months for this camera's cheaper little brother, the ePhoto 780c, I decided to spend the extra $100 and get this one instead. I'm happy I made the choice-- this camera has MUCH higher resolution, a very nice in-camera user interface (it's remarkably easy to set the focus and flash and step through your pictures on the camera's LCD screen)and great connectivity features-- it handles CompactFlash memory nicely, and has both serial and USB (the BEST! ) connection options. I easily hooked it up to both my PC and my Mac; it's a snap.

There's only one problem, and it's a big one: this guy gobbles batteries like crazy. If you're using the flash and LCD viewfinder to frame your pictures, expect to burn through a set of 4 AA batteries in about 35 minutes. Using the optical viewfinder and remembering to use the flash judiciously (this camera handles low light well, even without the flash) will extend battery life, but even so, you'll only get about 3-4 hours of life out of each set of batteries, MAX. The solution is to get a set or three of NiMH (nickel metal hydride) batteries and a charger; particularly, if you're getting this camera as a gift, throw the batteries and charger in! Once you've got those, you've got one dynamite little camera.

I have owned 3 JVC camcorders or similar type DVM3, DVM5 and DVM50U. I have loved the size, capability and quality of video image, but all 3 have had significant and expensive repairs. So much so that I gave up the DVM5 because the repair cost was more than I could buy a new and more recent model. At the moment the DVM50U is in the shop after about 5 months ownership and the DVM3 has troubles holding selected zoom mode. I have also owned 3 JVC VCR's and 2 JVC televisions. One VCR bombed out with expensive repairs that dis not correct the problems, but the others have been great. I am not sure I would buy another JVC camcorder.

I loooove the small size! Because of that, it gets more use. HOWEVER, had to send it for repairs 3 months after I bought it. Warranty covered the expense, (but not the shipping), and I'm afraid of the next time it will break, since the warranty has now run out. I would recommend some other brand with a better repair history. I don't recommend purchasing extended warranties, since it's damn near impossible to make them pay.

I was shopping in the camcorder industry for about two months when JVC released the GR-DVM50u I thought the price was absurd. But when I found it at a price I thought was good I had to have it. I have not had any problems with the camerea in the nearly 2yrs I have owned it. The quality is incredible and the ease of use is outstanding. The only obsticle that I have ever found with this camera is the size of the lens mount is 27mm this is very small compared to industry standards. I found in order to purchase any attachments it FAR FAR cheaper to buy a 27mm-37mm stepping ring and then buy the filters lenses etc.. there are TONS of items in the 37mm size for the camera and it makes worh the extra price it costs. This camera should be rated as a PRO-sumer unit because of its quality and it functionality. My wife was hesitant at first because of all the doodads but don't let all the features scare anyone. It has a completely automatic mode that works pretty well. TONS of features and effects. Plus (with a not included firewire card and cable) this thing makes awesome videos on the computer. I am darn happy I purchased this thing.

I got this with my computer and used it for about a year until I got a new camera. This camera was easy to set up, but the picture quality is horrendous. If picture quality isn't a big deal to you, the Intel Easy PC Cam pack will work for you; but if you like having quality images, save your money and invest in a better webcam (like the Intel Pocket PC Cam).

If you can find one of these you won't be disappointed. The video is crisp and clear and, unlike some webcams, sending video does not slow your computer to any noticeable degree. Installation is simple and the swivel mount makes aiming easy. One small problem - the camera does not work with CUSeeMe software for some reason. But it works great with NetMeeting, Paltalk, Yahoo, ICUII that I know of. They are tough to find - don't know if they are out of production or what. Far better than several others I've tried.

I love this camera! Let me start by saying that I have had expiriences with other PC Camera's under 100$, and they were all dissapointments. This was the only Camera I was satisfied with (at that price), and I'll tell you why. With other camera's the lighting was always off. For instance if a light in the room was on, then the camera would appear very bright, and if it was dark in the room, You couldn't see anything. Although with this camera it uses new lighting technology, so that it senses the light in the room, and workes with it so that you get the best lighting you can get, and I think that that was the greatest advantage this this camera had over the others.

While this gadget does what it says it will do, it falls short on several levels. First of all, when I bought it, I needed to download the Windows ME driver (a fix not indicated anywhere in the literature) - then it worked fine.

I used it regularly as an MP3 player at the gym. Took it to Mexico with me on a vacation - it crashed. Came home - it worked! Go figure...

One of the advantages of digital photography is being able to see you pictures immediately after you take them. For this camera, you'd better have a computer close by as there is no viewer window.

One day when I took the camera out to use it, I discovered the tiny plastic hinge on the battery compartment door had broken (this is not the type of damage that some unknown person could have done - it was in a protective bag, just sitting on a shelf). I continued to use it holding the batteries in by hand when needed (ugh!).

Now for the real disappointment - I purchased a new computer system using Windows XP, downloaded the driver from Pretec's site - no go. Camera won't work. Tried to contact tech support via the web - filled out their web form and - imagine this, when I hit "send" I got "Page not found" (after a couple of tries too). So, refusing to give up, I called their headquarters. The recording said they were open 9-5 Pacific time (oh well, it WAS only 8:54 Pacific - no point in getting there early I guess) and asked if I'd like to leave a message for tech support - I pushed the appropriate number and...GUESS WHAT? It wouldn't take my message because THE TECH SUPPORT BOX WAS FULL! I wonder why....

This was a regrettable purchase.

You can't really hold this camera in your hand and take a picture because it will turn out too blurry. But if you place it on a tripod or flat surface it works allright. People don't realize that for everyday pictures 640x480 is pretty sharp. There's a 20 second timer which is also great and the video out is convenient enough (there's no way to preview window on the camera).

The MP3 player works well, and I have minimal complaints with the voice recording (what can you expect for [the price]). It's poor sound quality and the mic is a pinhead sized hole on the camera.

There were some problems using as an internet camera in NetMeeting where the picture started bleeding and there were artifacts in the display as if the update was too slow, but again in a pinch it's not terrible.

All told I'm glad I got it. I'll take a picture or two with it and play music on it while I commute or walk around. I can't really speak about battery drainage either. I'm trying to find an AC adapter for it.

I found this unit while looking for a combination webcam digital camera. I had also desired to purchase a compact flash MP3 player. Double bonus, and a audio recorder to boot, what a deal.. The pictures are suprisingly detailed and with accurate color reproduction, something I would expect in a higher echlon camera. It is not a multi-megapixel unit, but can hold its own in its class. Detail on images taken inches away lacks resolution, but anything taken with more than a foot has enough definition and will suprise you. The USB connection transfers images quickly and the TV display connection is nice. It does not have a LCD screen on the unit, but its price is enticing to say the least. The mp3 player works great. Another bonus that both pictures and mp3 songs exist on the same memory card. The camera creates a folder on the card for its images. Triple mega bonus, both the mp3 songs and jpeg pictures are immediately accessible on my Windows CE PDA!!!! Unbelievable... My friend just spent $300 for a Sony mp3 player and an absorbant amount on a Sony maciva digital camera and is disappointed that the memory sticks are not readable by both and his files are not transferable to his PDA.

If have the need for a digital camera, mp3 player and webcam look not further as this is the unit for your. It will work great in capturing moments and memories while providing countless hours of music entertainment.

If you are looking for a digital camera to produce high quality prints to display and frame, you will need a higher end mega pixel unit and some good digital imaging software.

This camera takes decent pictures, but is a real battery hog. You'll need to buy rechargeables or buy the battery pack offered by Sony. The memory stick supplied with the camera won't give you many pictures, so you'll also need to buy a bigger capacity stick.
The LCD screen is fragile and easily broken. If that happens, you just have a paperweight.

I primarily bought this camera to put photos of stuff on e-bay. The camera is ok for this use, but I found the OEM Sony batteries to be unreliable and expensive. We got the error warning mentioned by others and the same cold reception from Sony. I warn others considering this or any digital camera to make sure it does not use a proprietary battery. For the cost of the Sony battery we were able to buy a charger and 4 NiMH 2200 mAh batteries. The camera cycles faster with the flash and it appears that we get more photos per charge, plus we have a back up set. I don't see a down side with the non-sony battery. On the otherhand it takes pretty good pictures and its easy to cheat the shutter for special effects. We get very good close ups, but I always use a tripod for these and I bracket shoot at a few distances. After all there is no film, why not take several shots and pick the best one?

I bought this camera for the (...) price everyone has it for now. I was impressed with the clarity of the pictures, being only 1.3 megapixels. The camera drains batteries as can be expected, but instead of the (...) reachargable battery from sony, i bought a (...) rechargable AA kit, with 4 AA's and a charger and these seem to last much longer. The only problem i have experienced is difficulty in getting clear pictures, as i seem to have a problem keeping the camera steady. With a tripod or a monopod, extremely clear pictures could be taken. The night picture option worked better than i thought, it actually took great pictures on a cloudy, dark day. The 4mb memory stick will take about 15 pictures on the 1024 std setting. Overall, i am very pleased with this camera and feel it is the best value on the market today.

(...)Here are my comments:
The Good:
1. The color is very vivid compared to the 3-year old Creative webcam I had before.
2. Can be cliped on the laptop. The clipping mechnisim is very simple, and it worked for my laptop (a Dell Inspiron).

The bad:
1. Since the base of the camera also serves as the clip, it's very very light (just two piece of plastic), so sometimes it has trouble staying put.
2. On Windows XP, I had trouble with the control application that comes with the webcam (the application that let you take snap shots, take the video, etc). Upon exit of the application, the program crashes. However, I didn't experience any problem with the driver, so the cam works fine with Yahoo and MSN messenger on XP. I don't know if this has anything to do with an earlier version of the Creative application (for my old webcam). I ended up uninstall the old program but haven't had the chance to re-install the new one yet. So I don't know if this problem will go away. I checked Creative's website, there is no software patch available. I didn't have this problem with Win 2000.
3. Had a minor problem when used on my Win2000 machine which has a 4 port D-Link USB hub. When attached to one of the port, it complained serveral times about not enough bus bandwidth. I switched to a different port and the problem seemed go away.
4. Performance under low light condition is somewhat below my expectation.

In general, this is a so-so camera. Not as good as advertised, but then what do you expect from 59 or 79 dollars?

I recently purchased a WebCam Pro eX. It's the first web cam I've ever used or owned. I don't know of any others since I haven't used them. Some observations:

Pro: Good picture quality in adequatly lit conditions. CCD sensor. People on the other side of the ocean have told me that this web cam gives has good picture quality, but needs proper lighting source. Good Color quality. User can adjust brightness, saturation and contrast levels in accordance to the time of day. Software provided is easy to use. Comes with a microphone. Has a wide choice of resolutions - up to 1024 x 768. Works extremely well with Windows 2000. I don't use Windows XP, nor do I have any desire to upgrade to it, due to hardware compatibility problems this operating system has, and problems in general. If people have problems with this webcam using XP, it isn't because Creative produces poor drivers or a bad product, it's just that XP (Home or Pro) isn't a very good operating system. It's a poor O/S overall and I've had nothing but problems using it.

Cons: No digital zoom. It's difficult to save compressed Windows Media Player files with low frames rates without encountering problems with video and voice synchronization. Perhaps someone can tell me how to correct this problem. Picture quality degrades under poorly lit conditions. Camera requires a secondary light source. Micorphone is so-so. I use another headset instead.

This small baby is my fifth webcam.

Easy to install in Windows XP. I do not follow the instruction on the manual. Plugin the webcam first, XP reports there is a new device, insert CD-ROM. Do not follow the autoplay of CD-ROM, let XP search the driver, and it's done, 2 minutes is enough.
If u still want to install other software, insert cd-rom again, but unchecked the driver option, and u will install the left.

The picture is clear and sharp, color saturation is good, very stable to stay on my laptop LCDs. Creative has a good product.

It's far better than Logitech Quick Cam Express, and Intel cheapset one. For my point of view, picture quality is better than logitech Pro 4000, which is the comparable product of this one.

Here is some cons: no lens cover, the picture not as good as the Intel pccam Pro, which is the best one i ever use.

I've only had this camera for a week now, but I'm very pleased with what I got for the price. I have a degree in cinema & photography, so I like to think I know a few things about cameras.

PROS

Nearly all the controls can be manipulated with one hand, thanks to the scroll wheel. Pushing it in brings up the menu, and scrolling the wheel allows you to select the menus and features you want to change. Another push of the wheel selects the menu item you want to change. This is a great feature that pretty much sold me on the camera, as the Sonys rely on a touch-pad LCD. The trouble with that is you must have the LCD screen out whenever you want to alter a setting, and therefore you have to take the camera away from your eye and use both hands. You also use up your battery twice as fast, and you'll eventually wear out the LCD screen and get it dirty. No thanks, Sony.

It also has a built-in LED light for low-light shooting. This doesn't compare to the infra-red of the Sonys, but then again infra-red gives you a green "night-vision" picture. If low-light shooting is important to you and you don't mind the greenish video, then go with infra-red.

It uses a separate SD memory card for digital stills (card not included).

The viewfinder is color, not b&w like some camcorders.

Analog-to-digital pass-through for converting your old analog tapes (VHS, etc.)

Remote control included! Big plus in my book.

It has a bigger lens than the Sonys (but still not as big as the Canons). This should result in better picture quality; however, it does make the camcorder slightly larger and heavier than the Sonys.

The optical zoom is 16x, versus 10x on the Sonys. (Canon even has a camcorder with 22x zoom.)

JVC bundles MovieWOW software for editing your videos. I haven't used it yet, but it's a freebie so it's worth trying out. You can also download Microsoft's Movie Maker software for free if you don't like MovieWOW.

At less than $400 it's the best value out there. (...) CONS

The viewfinder doesn't tilt up -- strange that JVC wouldn't incorporate this feature, as it would be a big plus. I'm over 6' tall, so when the camcorder is mounted on a 5' tripod I have to stoop to look through the viewfinder. (Yes, I can pop out the LCD screen and angle it up to view the picture instead, but this eats up battery power as I said. I could also get a 6' tripod, I suppose.)

There's no hot shoe on top to mount an external microphone or flood light -- another oversight on JVC's part.

No included SD memory card for digital stills. Oddly, you can only select "tape" or "tape & SD" for capturing stills, so either way it's going to record the still to tape. Why JVC didn't give you the option of writing stills strictly to the SD card is beyond me. No matter -- the stills any camcorder takes are low-resolution, so if you want good digital stills then buy a digital still camera instead.

Image stabilization is disappointing, but that's true with all the camcorders I tried out. It's somewhat helpful, but it's certainly not going to turn your camcorder into a Steadicam. Use a tripod when at high zoom levels, or keep the lens as wide as possible when hand-holding to smooth out your tilts and pans.

Night vision mode slows down the shutter speed, making your video a bit choppy.

OTHER ADVICE

Go to a camera or electronics store and try out the different cameras before making a decision. You might be surprised by the features you hate and the ones you love. This is what steered me away from the Sonys and to this JVC model.

Turn off the digital zoom -- it's worthless (this is true of any camcorder).

Make sure you add on a UV filter, if only to protect the lens. This should be standard issue for all camcorders.

Also consider a polarizing filter for sunny outdoors shooting -- makes a big difference.

A flourescent filter is a good idea if you will be shooting indoors where flourescent light dominates (office or industrial settings, for instance).

If zoom is important to you, consider adding on a 2x or even 3x telephoto multiplier. This will turn your 16x zoom in a 32x zoom, or 48x zoom, respectively. But be warned -- at those zoom levels, you'd better have a rock-solid tripod to keep the picture as steady as possible.

You need a firewire connection to your computer to get the best transfers. If you don't have firewire on your commputer, you'll need to buy an add-in card.

Enjoy!

After researching online and trying out several brands and models, I chose the JVC GRD72. I purchased it at Costco for $400.

Low light performance, the remote control, and analog input were the main reasons I purchased this camera and they all work very well. I have also found the 16x9 squeeze mode and LED light to work better than I expected. I have had no trouble capturing video on any computer via firewire.

This camcorder does not take very good still photos, and provided software is only fair. You should look at another camcorder if these features are important to you.

Overall the performance has been better than expected and I am very happy with the purchase.

I spent over 20 hours researching my recent camcorder purchase. The best site was camcorderinfo.com. In fact, they just posted a thorough review of the GRD72 and also have reviews of one model down (D33) and one model up (D93) from this one. Also be sure to check out the competing models' reviews (Sony and Canon).

What I was looking for in a camcorder, was, surprise surprise (!) good video performance in a range of lighting conditions. I had read that low-light performance on ALL so-called consumer camcorders was very poor. The D72 (and D33) have the best low-light performance of ANY camcorder priced $600 or less! That's saying a ton considering these models sell for almost half of that! Seriously, check out the Sony HC20, 30, or 40 and the D72 beats them all! Plus it has decent still image capability, includes LED lights, and has analog-to-digital passthrough. Can't be beaten! What a deal!

Super easy to use and great video - what more could you want? Some of the other reviews on amazon for the D72 seem bizarre and based only on the software that comes with the camera. You likely won't use the software that comes with ANY camcorder you buy. What do you want out of your camcorder? Good video performance, versatiliy, and ease of use are the only criteria that matter! Dig around on the Internet for reviews of other models to convince yourself, but if you take this reviewer's advice alone, you'll save yourself a dozen hours of work! :-)

You can either use an A-B switch on a single parallel port, or do as I do and install a second parallel port. A "Hi-IRQ" card is best, so you can use an IRQ of say 10 or 11; most cards only offer IRQs of 7 (already used by the printer port) and 5 (usually used by a sound card).

Quick Cam Pro is easy to use and delivers pretty good quality for video conferencing, video recording, video mail, and photos. I have been using it mainly to video conference with my dad in L.A. and show him my new born daughter using Netmeeting 3. I had purchased Kodak DVC323 also, but returned it for Quick Cam Pro. While Kodak does have superior image quality for stills and motion video, Quickcam pro has avi-to-rm conversion and compression so that you can e-mail videos easily; you usually need to compress files down to 1 meg to email. Kodak did not have compression or conversion to real media format. Also, Quickcam supports larger screens (640x480) for video, whereas Kodak's largest screen for video is 320x240. You may not notice the better picture quality that Kodak offers when the camera is used for video conferencing since the Internet traffic tends to degrades the video quality to the point that you would not notice noticable difference in video quality. I would say Kodak is good if you plan to use the camera for mainly capturing stills and videos and not sharing them with anyone. Quickcam is better for video conferencing and video e-mailing, and pretty good at recording stills and videos.

I have now used my logitect quickcam for almost three years and I am just as pleased with it now as when I first bought it. It was the first webcam I purcased and without knowing much about computers I found it very easy to install the webcam and get started. I use it regulary (3-4 times a week) both the video conferencing (using netmeeting) and the picture captures using the quick cam pro software that comes with the webcam. I have had no problems with the video conferencing, the picture and speed is very great. I have checked the speed of the video conferencing by talking on a regular phone at the same time and found that the movements of the lips fits with the sound over the phone. I am also very pleased with the quality of the pictures and they are very easy to email. A great product that has helped me keeping my longdistance relationship last.

I can highly recoment this product to others and hope they will be just as pleased with the product as I am.

Maria.

Ok, the other reviews go into detail after detail so I won't repeat it all. Here's the points:

First, no where will you find a 4 megapixel camera for under $ that has ALL features on it. For under $, yes, you will get a cheesey lens cap. You will get a lower grade of plastic in the camera body, and no, you will not get a camera that compares with a $ camera.

More basics: ALMOST ALL digital cameras eat alkaline batteries like candy, so stop complaining! Buy a set (or two) of NiMh rechargeable batteres and a charger and you don't have to worry anymore. Also, if you are one of these "I've used an SLR film camera and am switching to digital" people, then yes, you will be disappointed; buy a "digital SLR" for five times more, and you'll have your match.

The lens on this camera is a Canon lens - which is good. Images capture a good amount of detail. Sometimes odd lighting will cause a blue-ish cast to the images. The tiny 1.5 inch silicon screen is small, but is viewable outdoors in sun. Focusing indoors in low light is not the best - it has no auto focus assist light that comes on to help the focus work, so if it's dim, you may get a blurry photo. Those with larger hands may have a cramped time of it - the hand grip is a bit too close to the lens barrel so larger fingers will rub against it (no harm in it though).

I'm giving it a "three star" because of the odd colors under some conditions, the tight hand grip, and the fact it has no auto focus assist light. But for the price, it's hard to beat.

This is my first digital camera and I did a fair amount of research regarding price and features.This camera has the auto mode for beginners like myself that want to take pictures out of the box but also has a host of manual settings so one can learn and experiment with advanced photography techniques.As far as picture quality goes, it does take great pictures.In very low to poor lighting it helps having manual control over exposure etc.The software that is supplied is very basic but compliments Windows XP and its Picture Viewer sofware just fine.I do recommend it.Also,you should use NiMH batteries and they will last 3 times longer than regular alkalines.

This camera is causing my trusty 35mm SLR to stay in the closet. The Canon lens, identical to the one used on the Canon G2 and apparently the same in design and construction as 7-21mm f/2 zoom lenses used elsewhere under the names Carl Zeiss and Leica, is the best feature. There are plenty of exposure modes, including full manual; there's exposure bracketing and gamma bracketing, macro mode, etc. Image quality is quite good, and the regular "auto" mode handles most scenes well. The large maximum lens aperture makes this camera suitable for available-light use in most circumstances; that's good, because the built-in flash, like all built-in flashes, is best avoided except for fill with manual exposure. The bright, detailed color display is usable in daylight and very good in other conditions, and for people used to an SLR viewfinder, it's the only way to go--although those of us over age 40 will want to keep a pair of powerful reading glasses handy to see enough detail on the tiny screen.

So, what would make the VE-CG40U better? (1) manual focus mode (autofocus is unreliable in low light), (2) a hot shoe for an external flash unit, (3) better battery life (NiMH rechargables are a "must," as Alkalines are drained very quickly), and (4) an eyepiece adapter for the LCD screen (easier than those reading glasses).

For [$] or less, this is probably as good as it's going to get for a little while. It's not quite in the SLR class, but it isn't far from it, either. I've used mine for scenery, people, flower close-ups at near-macro range, and commercial images for the web. You can get crisp (in 35mm terms) 8x10 prints, even with some cropping, provided that your printer is up to the task.