Well, mine isn't working anymore and I've only had it a year. It won't come on and I tried resetting it like it says online but that doesn't work. Anyone have any suggestions?

I know: Buy another one.

Can you get in contact with HP? I know they offer lifetime customer/technical assistance.

Natsume said:

I was trying to do the online chat thing and my computer froze.

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

Honestly? That's the best advice. HP cameras suck. They just haven't had enough experience as camera makers yet. Go with a classic brand like Canon or Nikon. Even though they're sometimes twice the cost, they're ten times the quality.

I want this camera so badly. My housemate got it for graduation and it's awesome! The Sony Cybershot DSC-P200... and it only costs about $350 on amazon.

Natsume said:

I'd still go with a real camera brand. These electronics companies that more recently have started developing cameras have poor optics and just haven't mastered the overall techonology of photography yet.

I have one....sorry I can't help you.....Mine goes thru batterys fast.....They do suck.

Sorry

retina said:

My sister have gone through two Canons now and both were incredibly awful. Not to mention bulky. So I'll stick with this Sony, thank you very much.

Lizzy7701 said:

Hell yes. I could only get through 10 shots and it would be blinking low battery. I was hoping I wasn't gonna have to replace it before L.A.

Lizzy7701 said:

i have the same problem with my HP camera - it just sucks through its battery like nobody's business. i've had generally okay luck with it overall, but it's hardly what i'd call dependable. i agree with what other folks say - i might be looking into non-HP cameras in the near future, or at least something i can easily dock into my new printer.

Okay, I just had an online chat with HP and they suck. I will never buy any HP products again.

Your HP uses double A batteries? Mine uses a lithium rechargeable battery and I really like it - it costs about $30 for a replacement - and I've only had to replace it once in the three years I've had it. The problem is that I'm out of luck if I run out of battery power while I'm away from home.

TheOrgerFormerlyKnownAs said:

i bought a damn HP printer with a built-in photo port and it won't work with my damn HP camera. i think i'm through with 'em too.

Anxiety said:

I do love my current HP printer, though.

Natsume said:

oh, the PRINTER i love. it was cheap and it does everything except for wash the dishes and give me a nitey-nite hummer!

Anxiety said:

I printed my book on it! Their cartridges last forever if you put them on the fast draft setting - even then the quality is pretty impressive. But the printer stopped working with my laptop so I'm a bit iffed by that.

I had an Epson printer before and it was barfy.

Natsume said:

i had a lexmark before and i might as well have had a monkey with some crayons tied to my computer.

Anxiety said:

My dad has an NEC and it's not even qualified to call itself a printer.

I have been buying my ink from inkquik.com for years! That place is amazing.

Natsume said:

Yeah, my camera uses double As. The guy suggested that i try lithium batteries are get an AC adapter. I was like: WTF? Spend more money on shit that doesn't work?

Like you guys, I do love my printer though.

retina said:

I would agree, I bought a Cannon and it has never let me down. I think it's worth the extra cost, and digital cameras are much more affordable now than they were.

retina said:

That is definitely not the case with Sony. First, they use a Carl Zeizz lense, which is considered the best, and second of all, I had experience with 4 Sony digital cameras, and a few other brands, Sony tops them all with it's quality and color.
Both parent are professional photographer and me and my brother both dabble with photography and we all chose Sony.

Heavenly said:

The Zeiss lens is a really big plus for this camera in my eyes, as I have an older Panasonic (three years; I got it before the big rage hit) and although it's not that swell anymore, the Lumix lens makes it that much more redeemable.

I also like this Sony because it takes photos instantly (no lag!) and the quality is amazing; I guess that's what you get for 7.2 megapixels. I'm a little sketchy on the zoom, though; my current camera has 2.0x and it's just not enough for me. So I don't know if 3.0 would be a really big improvement. What's the standard these days?

Natsume said:

I know there are cameras that reach 6 and more (not including digital zoom)
The Sonys that we use are Mavica, and they do have lag. But the quality is definitely amazing. each photo looks like it was taken out of a National Geographic magazine.
7.2 is a lot. It's great if you want large photo prints, but if you're going for average size photo prints 5 MP is more than enough. The MVC-CD500 (I think that's the model) which my mother uses can record video straight to it's CD-R which means you can make a film up to 156 MBs.
[Edited 6/15/05 18:45pm]