in 1996 (when i bought the QV-100 @ $600), it was the 'neetest' thing on the market at the time & i made many 5" X 7" acceptable prints with it. i even took it apart and made a connection for an external flash unit. i still have it 'tenderly' tucked away in the closet from a 'bygone' era. i have the original box, original everything it came with & it's a trip down memory lane everytime i see it there on the shelf. it was a lot of fun at the time! i've owned a lot of digital cameras since ...View review in forums Leave a comment on this review
You think the QV300 is crap. Try the QV100, only major difference was the case colour and software provided. I won it in a company competition. This was Casio's first ever foray into digital imaging......and it shows ! Problems: This camera was a total waste of time and an embarrasment to Casio !View review in forums Leave a comment on this review
I had one of these cameras when they were first introduced and they represented, at the time, a good overall product with a nice feel and were on the whole, easy to use. However, battery power consumption was very high and the image quality, even then, left a lot to be desired. With 640 X 480 resolution on the best setting, you can imagine how poor the picture quality was! Problems: None.View review in forums Leave a comment on this review
I had this camera from day one of the d-camer era.It is a vary poor camera with no flash and no pictureviwer, that menas that the lcd display is on allways, which eats your batteries in lees than one hour (4 AA). The lack og flask menas that 7 out of 10 times you can not take pictures, and if the sun is to high your will get greenish light pictures. It tahes ages to upload the pictures to your pc by the serial connection provided. The only good about it, is that it hold 104 poor quality ...View review in forums Leave a comment on this review
|Arch-itecture by Nilesh Trivedi|
from Random Items - Challenge #30
|Rocky Mountain Elk by evancj|
from Odds are...