Sony DPF-D70 Digital Photoframe was £99 now £46.89!!Red or Black @ M&S!!

emweaver

has anyone had theirs deliverd or even despatched as yet?

emweaver

Donnie wrote: »

The 'cheaper ones' in my post also have internal memory. 128 MB against 256 MB with the Sony.

So for an extra £20 you get double the memory, double warranty period and a much much better brand. You cant ever compare sony to a cheap, unrecognised brand

loaky

emweaver wrote: »

So for an extra £20 you get double the memory, double warranty period and a much much better brand. You cant ever compare sony to a cheap, unrecognised brand

After the recent firmware / bluetooth stuff-up on my 2 month old PS3 i've just gone through. And currently typing this looking at my faultless 3 year old AG Neovo monitor, I beg to differ!

emweaver

I cant comment on ps3 but as far as other electronics go such as tv, cameras, camcorders ive always found sony to be the best

Donnie

loaky wrote: »

After the recent firmware / bluetooth stuff-up on my 2 month old PS3 i've just gone through. And currently typing this looking at my faultless 3 year old AG Neovo monitor, I beg to differ!

I concur... I have a similarly aged monitor by the same manufacturer; using it now. Most people don't seem to realise that a lot of these goods are manufactured by generic/no name manufacturers to Sony specification.

Therefore not difficult to produce similar products for sale at a lower price...with paying a premium for a brand name.

Remember that we are looking at a product considerably cheaper than the Sony.

If I look the same price point at the discounted Sony, the specification rises considerably.....making the Sony look bog standard.

For instance; the Technika X80 High Resolution Multimedia Frame with Motion Sensor for £44.97 from Tesco Direct. It has a superior screen resolution of 800 x 600 pixels, which means your pictures are shown in the way that they were taken by the average digital camera and not cropped or squashed as they will be with the Sony, with it's 800 x 480 resolution.

In addition it can play video(wouldn't expect too much from this to be honest) and sound files and comes with a remote control.


The Sony is a basic digital photo frame with a compromised screen ratio. I'm not disputing that is well made, but is it good value for money? You decide.

At that price I would be looking for a screen resolution of 800 x 600 pixels.

Coby DP800 8" High Resolution Digital Photo Frame £39.99

Donnie

simmmy wrote: »

You have him/her quoted at saying "most" , most is not all .

I don't think even 'most' is appropriate at the price point as the discounted Sony.

emweaver

if anyone ordered red and thei orders not showing as despatched then it appears we wont be getting them, as they are out of stock. i rang regarding something else with my order and this came up. apparently their stock system doesnt reserve items when you order its not yours until its picked so if out stock now then when comes to picking your order will be cancelled. i dont think this is fair personally as those who ordered later than myself but paid nominated delivery will get it and i wont

cuffie

The M&S Philips one has better reviews (although £66 down from £139). One of the tech bods at M&S said the Sony ones were being left on the shelves because this one was a better deal. Depends on how much you want to spend I suppose, but we went for the Philips one. x

b1g1an

Donnie wrote: »

For instance; the Technika X80 High Resolution Multimedia Frame with Motion Sensor for £44.97 from Tesco Direct. It has a superior screen resolution of 800 x 600 pixels, which means your pictures are shown in the way that they were taken by the average digital camera and not cropped or squashed as they will be with the Sony, with it's 800 x 480 resolution.

For someone obviously so clever that's a classic schoolboy error, that's an 8" screen and therefore, at those pixel dimensions, is lower res and therefore less sharp than the Sony :rotfl:

A landscape 800 x 600 format is also far less pleasent to look at in landscape which is what most peoples photos are, although to be fair it's OK in portrait for portraits, yes you do have to crop them but you would if you had the photos printed and put them in a normal frame.

Anyway, at the end of the day it's a personal preference thing so stop making an !!!! of yourself by preaching, particularly when you're getting your facts wrong. The two frames I was considering were the Sony and the AG Neovo and I preferred the look of the Sony.

Oh yes, and I am right with 'most' as you've only quoted one example from the dozens of frames out there and the rest ARE mostly the lower res 7" frames at that price point.

Donnie

b1g1an wrote: »

For someone obviously so clever that's a classic schoolboy error, that's an 8" screen and therefore, at those pixel dimensions, is lower res and therefore less sharp than the Sony :rotfl:

A landscape 800 x 600 format is also far less pleasent to look at in landscape which is what most peoples photos are, although to be fair it's OK in portrait for portraits, yes you do have to crop them but you would if you had the photos printed and put them in a normal frame.

Anyway, at the end of the day it's a personal preference thing so stop making an !!!! of yourself by preaching, particularly when you're getting your facts wrong. The two frames I was considering were the Sony and the AG Neovo and I preferred the look of the Sony.

Oh yes, and I am right with 'most' as you've only quoted one example from the dozens of frames out there and the rest ARE mostly the lower res 7" frames at that price point.

The only person who looks like an !!!! is yourself. The 8" screen is superior in terms of size and aspect ratio.

The simplest way to describe your form of idiocy is to explain to someone that a picture on the LCD screen on the back of their digital camera may look sharper, that may not be their preferred way to view their pictures.

Invariably they prefer a larger screen and most certainly at the correct aspect ratio.

So rather than squinting at the detail on the Sony they can relax their eyes a little and view their pics on a larger screen at the correct aspect ratio.

The only person who has made a school boy error is yourself. :rolleyes:

A landscape 800 x 600 format is also far less pleasent to look at in landscape

Isn't that like saying a film shot in Widescreen is far less pleasant to look at on a Widescreen TV?

I'm pretty sure that anyone who reads your statement will be more than a little confused.

You really shouldn't post straight after you return from the public house. :rotfl:

I am confident in my statement that people would prefer to view their pictures as they were taken and not cropped to fit the Sony screen.

Most consumer digital cameras shoot in 4:3, therefore their picture would be better displayed with a frame with a 4:3 ratio.

Sony uses a 15:9 ratio....I'm happy for you to tell me of a single camera that shoots using that ratio.