Digicom?

I took an unusually careful look at my credit card statement last week, and, unfortunately, noticed an unusual charge:

DIGICOM 866 569 101 OF 01866-5691010

for $50. Then after looking back several dozen entries, I noticed two smaller charges, from the same company. Since I buy a lot of stuff online, at first I thought it was just an weird billing name for something I had bought. But more careful research brought me to this website: http://www.digicom.com/digicombilling.html

It seems that I'm not the only one who has been defrauded. Apparently, this is such an issue for this similar-sounding company, that they had create a webpage telling people that, no, they are not the company that had charged them, and that they did not know why this company was using their name. So I called the number (imagine that, the number is 1-866-569-1010 - I felt silly for not figuring that out).

On my second try, I was able to reach a live person. She told me that the smaller charge was a test trial, and that the $50 was for an "unlimited long-distance calling card", whatever that means. I told her that it was absolutely impossible that I would have approved such a charge.

"Aha! But it's not impossible sir!" Apparently, I did agree to this charge, and to future charges, and she had the month-old recorded telephone conversation to prove it! So she clicked a few buttons, and voila: what played back was what I had thought was a phone survey. Back a month ago, a lady called telling me that my credit card company had partnered with them in a new viral-marketing scheme, and that I had been selected to participate. I would be asked to listen to three test advertisements, and would then be asked to rate how appealing the ads were. Also, for my trouble, I would be given three $25 gift certificates to Target/Costco/other stores, courtesy of my credit card company.

Since I didn't have to give up any personal information, I saw no problem with participating. Naive Bobby! They asked me if I understood that this was just a survey, and that I should decline all three mock offers. I gave them an "uh-huh" and then the ads started. That seems to be what they took as approval to charge my credit card. So I demanded that she cancel those charges, which she very grudgingly accepted, but only after scolding me for having "accepted" in the first place. Then I called my CC company, and told them to make sure those charges were cancelled, and that I wanted my credit card cancelled and then re-issued. I also wanted to know why this company had my credit card number in the first place, but they assured me that they would never give away any information to third parties. So that leaves me with the question of how they got my full credit card number, name, and address, since I certainly did not provide that information. Gah!

Review: Canon PowerShot S500

A review of Canon's Powershot s500.

I was shopping at Best Buy with my friend, who decided on the SD110, the smallest in the ELPH series. However, after a little research, I found that the s500 is only marginally larger than its smaller sibling. Even so, this marvel can slip into my front pocket easily and takes superb pictures. The s500 also has the distinction of having 5 megapixels--fully 2 more than the SD110, and 1 more than the cheaper s410. I'm thinking if I'm already going to be spending so much money ($500 with an additional battery pack), I might as well go all out for the best, or just stick to a cheap $200 camera. Right? And who wants to buy cheap electronics? :-P

I also have the Canon A70 and the Sony Cybershot U40. While the A70 was my trusty workhorse last year, it is rather homely and bulky. While not *very* large, there would have been no way to slip that brick into my pocket, with it's protruding grip and lens. Also it is only 3.2 megapixels. From looking at the pictures I took today on the s500's "shakedown" around the neighborhood, I can already tell that it takes far more detailed, sharper images than the A70, which suffered from a minor "softness" in the pictures it took. Also, the s500 is less a camera than it is a work of art in it of itself. When off, the camera has a slim, elegant look. It has an nostalgic air of Art Deco about it. From the front, the highly polished silver and handsome gold rings around the lens will catch anybodys' eye immediately--a breathtakingly beautiful machine to take breathtakingly beautiful pictures.

On the other hand, this camera is not nearly as small as the Sony U40, which was about the size of my index and middle fingers put together. However, that had no zoom and took only marginally acceptable images (2 MP and rather grainy)--I bought it primarily so I'd have a throwaround camera. In any case, the s500 is not *as* small, but it still fits into my pocket without any hassle (you'll know it's there, but it won't bother you), and the optical zoom and high image quality more than make up for it.

Again, the image quality is superb, and all in such a portable package.

Manual controls are light. There is AUTO, Manual, Panorama, and Video mode. In Manual, you can control the ISO and F stops, but they are not readily available, and require fiddling with the menu to access. I don't care, personally. I bought the camera for it's portability and ease of use when I want to snap pictures. I leave the wheel on AUTO and I am perfectly content with the images I get--for the average picture taker, too, I'd imagine.

The movie mode is decent. This is a camera and not a camcorder, it's still part of the package, but I'll not put it into consideration when rating this camera. Subpar. My A70 could take 640x480s at 15 frames/second while the s500 only takes a sluggish 10. It's is quite choppy, but bearable. The s500 can have 15 frames a second under the two smaller video resolutions, but they still do not look as good as the videos I captured with my A70. There is just an element of choppiness that I do not like. Perhaps the increased megapixelage necessitates a decrease in smoothness, I don't know. However, the movie mode is just an additional nicety in this otherwise superb piece of machinery, and it decent, acceptable, just not as good as I know it could be, for Canons, but I know this feature is important for many people considering digital cameras.
The proprietary battery is also something that I do not like (I prefer AAs) but I suppose there have to be some trade-offs--I'd suggest getting a spare, since it's theoretically supposed to last only about 2 hours per charge. I'd also suggest getting the skin-tight leather cover for this cam, since you can still fit it in your pocket while keeping that lovely luster intact, away from the coarseness of your pockets.

I'd also suggest getting a CF that has as high a write speed as possible. When taking pictures at maximum size(2592x1944) and maximum resolution (super-fine), my card took about 1-3 seconds to finish recording. I could continue taking more pictures almost immediately afterward, but I would still have to wait for the images to finish writing before turning off the camera. I did not notice this when I took superfine photos at the Medium size settings. Speaking of CF, I'd also suggest getting as big a card as possible. This monster takes pictures at 1-3 Mb each which means about 100-200 picture for me--my 256Mb card doesn't seem so adequate anymore. But it's fine.

So definately a great buy. It takes wonderful, superb pictures, and decent movies. By itself, it is a work of art, and truly is a handsome camera. All this, and is still compact enough to throw in your pocket or for the ladies, purse. There are slightly smaller and cheaper ELPHs, the sd110 and s410, but you will already be spending so much, and if you are, you might as well spring for the full 5 megapixel goodness that the s500 offers--3 megapixel cameras belong back in 2003. And there are other brands to choose from, but I honestly have not seen a more handsome camera that takes such spectacular images, and I think if you are considering this camera at such a price, that surely, you will be considering the aesthetic value of what you are buying. This camera is sure to please.

Was this post helpful? Interesting? Not? Leave a comment, ask a question, or rate this post using the star control below!

Review: Sony DCRHC20 MiniDV Digital Handycam

My actual first post for this blog is here: http://bobbypd.blogspot.com/2008/01/first-post.html

A review of Sony's DCRHC20 Camcorder.

This is a great little camcorder. It feels sturdy, is lightweight, and I can hold it in one hand securely. The video is also quite excellent.

I was debating whether to buy this or one of the Canon ZRs. Even though I was not sure if I would be shooting a lot indoors or not, I like knowing that I can, especially with the Sony's infrared light. The reduced zoom compared to the Canons was a minor issue for me, but I thought that the improved low-light quality of the Sony compensated for it.

The touch screen only functionality of this cam took some getting used to, but as this was my first camcorder, I was not used to any other system. It does not appear that LCD-only buttons is a major drawback, and in fact, I got used to it quite quickly. Also, I can appreciate that there are fewer buttons on the body itself to add to a cluttered appearance.

The built-in lens cover is quite nice as there is no losing it, and also, I think, could be useful for quick manual transitions when shooting. The camera itself is very compact, and slim. About 2" thick, I can slip this baby into my pocket and go, albiet, large pocket, but it's still amazingly small.

The zoom is very rapid, and the rocker allows variable-speed zooms.

The photo function is nice to have, but I wish that the 7-second audio with each picture was variable, or could be turned off altogether, but as with all camcorders, the photo function is just a nicety, and serious photos should be taken with a real camera, not a video camcorder.
All in all, this is a great miniDV camcorder. I have no basis for reference as this is my first, but I love it, and have no regrets in spending $460 of my limited college-student budget =) on this. I recall three years ago my friend and I were making a film for science class with his hi-8 camcorder, especially the pain of having to manually control a VCR to tranfer the film onto a regular VHS tape. But no more, with miniDV, I can edit and output a film in just a few minutes. WIth the help of a firewire cord (sold separately), on the first day I was able to import the film onto my computer and make a short film clip using Windows Movie Maker. It worked beautifully, so I didn't bother installing the software that came with the cam, since I've heard that it is useless.

PROS:Lightweight and compact. Excellent film quality. Infrared Lamp. Bright, functional LCD

MINOR CONS:Constrained still-photo function. Relatively short zoom

Was this post helpful? Interesting? Not? Leave a comment, ask a question, or rate this post using the star control below!