On Jul 24, 1:45*pm, rw56 wrote:
On Jul 23, 5:05*pm, Giles wrote:





On Jul 23, 10:28*am, JR wrote:

On 7/21/2011 9:19 PM, Frank Reid © 2010 wrote:

On Jul 21, 7:26 pm, *wrote:
On Jul 21, 5:27 pm, *wrote:

Doesn't need to be waterproof, but lightweight (truly shirt-pocket
size), good zoom, good resolution in low light, and good macro.

Under $200 a big plus, in case I do drop it in the drink....
I reallly like the Panasonic LUMIX......

I'll vouch for the LUMIX as well. *If it can survive me, it can
survive anything.

I'm not sure I want a camera that will survive things I won't survive
(g), but thanks for the recommendations, guys.

- JR

Good point. *A camera that survives things you won't leaves open the
possibility that in someone else's hands it will demonstrate a tawdry
demise. *In it's absence you, like so many other historic.....and/or
mythological.....heroes, will undoubtedly acquire the sort of
reverance you deserve.

giles
whose presumably ultimate demise has been carefully mapped out. *one
cannot be too careful with an all too often capricious
posterity......cf., brahe, scott, kepler, quetzacoatl, earhart,
darwin, enkidu, cleopatra, zoroaster, baker, et al., etc.

The award for most pretentious, turgid post of the month goes,as
usual, to Wolfgang (aka Giles), a perennial contender who dominates
not only this category, but who also is unmatched in the gratuitous
nastiness competition.

You don't learn.
g.
who, to be perfectly honest, can't get all excited about the price of
feathers and **** as long as immitation doughballs (yeah, the real
thing has gotten expensive.....but i've been telling y'all that for
years.....and nobody listens) are cheap and deadly.

AND who is preternaturally humble in the face of those who respond
with an uncanny semblence of pertinence to things they NEVER
read.