File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
/p/, how does this compare against the Superzoom 321?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Thread hijack!

There's a review of that one absurdly-high FPS camera up at the New York Times website.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/technology/personaltech/03pogue.html?_r=2&ei=5090&en=8fbe6
dd91eb097af&ex=1364875200&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&p
agewanted=all&adxnnlx=1207253193-pBXIs/Bx/G+7BilJvlPWMg

(I didn't want to start a gear thread to talk about it, but I wanted to mention it, and this thread didn't seem likely to go anywhere important)
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>153599
Wow, that is one hell of a url. This one should work just as well:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/technology/personaltech/03pogue.html
>> Anonymous
Damn, I might actually buy it.It's either that or a price-like miniDV cam.. It may not be meant for video, but it sounds very nice. Does anyone know the resolutions of video at different framerates?
>> Anonymous
>>153604

• Standard: 640 × 480 (30 fps)
• HD: 1920 × 1080 (FHD HQ/FHD Normal, 60 fields per second), 1280 × 720 (HD LP, 30 fps)
• Hi-Speed: 512 × 384 (300 fps), 432 × 192 (600 fps), 336 × 96 (1200 fps)

lulz... $1,000 for that
>> M/A !n21TE7QU8U
i lol'd SOO hard at:
"...when your subjects are wildlife (including children),..."
>> Anonymous
>>153599
Say goodbye to intelligent composition.
>> Anonymous
>>153674
We already did that years ago