anybody know anything about Mercury (Kobian) digital cameras?

[Martin]

http://www.kobian.com/products.php?productid=327

A local store has this 3.2MP feature rich camera for an insanely low price (170 CAD). I am thinking that it might not be high quality or something...

 

[NutBucket]

Quick glance tells me it might have a harder time in low-light situations. It might also have some trouble focusing if you want to do some close-up type shots. The optics prolly aren't as good so I'm guessing the picture quality will look more like a 2 megapixel. And the most obvious thing, no optical zoom.

 

[Phuz]

No Optical Zoom.

 

[Renob]

No Optical Zoom.

Thats a deal killer in my book.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Renob
No Optical Zoom.

Thats a deal killer in my book.

Still, the Canon A300, which is also 3.2MP and has no optical zoom is $285, compared to $168 for the mercury.


NutBucket, why do you say that? Is it common among cheap digital cameras?

"being an engineer is like being in a street gang, once you're in you can't get out" - OuterSquare
Btw, nice sig

 

[NutBucket]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: Renob
No Optical Zoom.

Thats a deal killer in my book.

Still, the Canon A300, which is also 3.2MP and has no optical zoom is $285, compared to $168 for the mercury.


NutBucket, why do you say that? Is it common among cheap digital cameras?

"being an engineer is like being in a street gang, once you're in you can't get out" - OuterSquare
Btw, nice sig

Yes. It is common. Years ago I bought a $100 1.3MP camera. Man did that suck. Earlier this year I got a deal for a Canon S200 for $200 (US) and it kicks @ss. The A300 would be FAR superior to that other one.

And yes, I like that sig to.

 

[Renob]

Still, the Canon A300, which is also 3.2MP and has no optical zoom is $285, compared to $168 for the mercury.

I dont care who makes it, no optical zoom no deal.

 

[Renob]