Casio QV-300

Opinion: 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 '96, (currently have a d-70) but the casio was like my first car at 17, with many trips to the amusement parks, air shows and outings under it's belt.

all the best,
tom

Opinion: 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 !

Opinion: 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!

Opinion: 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 pictures in the onboard memory.

Opinion: I bought one of these in 1997 for $600, more than 3x what my current Olympus D-360L went for. It's currently held together with mailing tape and superglue. The quality is not very good at all and never was, and it takes awful indoor photos, but it's held together through a LOT. Would totally be worth it for $20 used if you're looking at digital photography but not sure if you're really interested.

Opinion: Image quality is excellent because, more pixcell more money needed.

When taking a picture, you will get the right picture. The QV-300 does not begin to capture the frame but gets the one you see.

Opinion: I used this model for years in the early days of digital cameras.
It is a great camera for fun shots and could be used for pics used on the web but little else.
At 0.35 million pixels image quality is poor at best.

Opinion: It sucks. Pictures always come out dark and blurred.
And it eats battery for breakfast,lunch and dinner!

Four AA batteries is cooked after uploading 15 pictures or so.