First impressions of the F11

It's compact but feels reasonably hefty, it has a big display but no viewfinder (which isn't really helpful in bright daylight), 3x optical zoom, a reasonable macro mode, variable ISO setting (80-1600), Auto, Shutter and Aperture priority and a lot of configurable settings (white balance, exposure compensation etc.).

I took it out for lunch but didn't take any real photos as I couldn't find anything interesting (and the sun had suddenly disappeared) but I took some candid shots from the hip at a wedding party at St. Andrew's, tried out the macro mode on some plants etc.
( Photos with descriptions )

I'm going to take a few more during the weekend to see what else it can do (incl. video) but it seems OK so far. It also has drawbacks.
While it has a large res (the same as my D70), the image quality doesn't come close (I'm going to take some comparison pics tomorrow). It has various features for controlling the imaging during shooting but they're all hidden down several levels of menus rather than being accessible with one button so it's not very practical.
Images taken at ISO800 and above seem incredibly noisy. Again, needs to be tested further.

Other practical drawbacks are the lack of a viewfinder, a proprietary battery which means if it's dead you can't just put in spare AAs, and one really stupid one:
The automatic flash and the automatic ISO setting aren't talking to each other. I had everthing set on auto and took a pic of my rather dark room. Naturally, the flash went off but when I checked the details I saw that it was also set to ISO 800 (which was adequate for the situation). How stupid is that? No problem for me because I won't use either feature in auto mode but for your average user this could be annoying.

Still, it's good for what it is, a compact you can just take with you anywhere. However, it just shows that megapixels aren't everything if they aren't backed up by decent camera hardware.

CSI

Note: I don't watch it religiously or even regularly, just when it takes my fancy and nothing else is on. Not a problem because the episodes are usually standalone cases.

Now, one of the main things they say about CSI is that it's allegedly very realistic in portraying the forensics and scientific sides of the investigations. I'm not an expert in genetics, biology and other sciences so I'm concentrating on something that really irritated me today.

In today's Las Vegas episode on 5, one of CSI types (Sara?) used what was clearly a digital SLR as if it was a compact with a display viewfinder, i.e. she was holding the camera away from her face and was looking at the display. SLRs don't work like that (when you're not taking a picture, the mirror's down so the image is reflected from the lens to the optical viewfinder, when you release the shutter, the mirror flips and reflects the image onto the film/sensor), you don't have a "live picture" on the display! On top of that, the sound you heard was that of a film SLR with motor (i.e. the mirror action with the short film transport sound after).

If they can't get a simple mechanical detail like that right, I have not a lot of confidence in their "science", either.

Then there's the fantasy computers but that's US TV heritage, I'm used to that. My old X-Files spoof RPG even had the "Tapping Keys Randomly" ability instead of Computers. ;oÞ

More TV

Oh dear, Tales from the Crypt: Demon Knight is on SciFi.
I remember seeing this on video in my "gap year" between Uni and being gainfully employed, i.e. being an unemployed bum playing XCOM: Terror From The Deep and watching rented videos all day (and night). My excuse was that I was doing research and practising my English as the Cinemathek had a reasonable choice of undubbed titles. ;o) Gods, I watched some bad (and so bad they were good) mostly horror/slasher and mindless action flicks in that year...

ETA: The blood-spattered Brock icon is good for this one, too, I think. :o)