You are now talking about a completely different beast, though. And be aware that while the picture might be big the pixel number you get on a bog standard TV is at best comparable to that of the (much smaller) digital photo frames. Also the power needed for your TV is higher.

And, last but not least, you can't enjoy your pics when viewing TV programmes (or the many adverts in between programmes).

(I'm assuming here that you spend your money for cameras and lenses and not the latest HDTV gizmos... (and don't get me started on the many different standards of HDTV or digital video broadcasts))

I have some experience with a digital photo frame. My father in law was in hospital and we thought that a digital frame would bring some joy to him. So off I went to the next electronic mega market in town where I picked one randomly (I think it's an Aiptek "Monet" for about 150 Euros. I think the resolution is 800 x 480 pixels and the size of the screen about 15 x 10 cm (6 x 4). I uploaded some pics (at or near to the 800 x 600 resolution) on an old CF card and tested it.

I have to say it's quite amazing and the limited resolution isn't really noticeable on most pics (it's close to the size that one submits for the WEB anyway and most pics come across quite well at this size).

Vertical viewing angle is a bit of a problem since the picture varies a bit, but if you carefully place the frame to be in a good position for your most likely viewing spot it's fine. Horizontally the viewing angle is wide enough for most settings I would say.

Of course the picture changes at preset intervals (in the case of the model I bought there are three settings from fast to slow; would have wished for an even slower option).

It convinced me (and SWMBO) to get one ourselves, perhaps a bit bigger (the standard German flat is a bit bigger than the standard UK one). My wife was nagging for some time already to get one but I didn't want to buy into this fairly new gadget family until the market sorts itself and prices drop a bit. Having seen it with my own eyes, though, I'm ready to go ahead.

I haven't read any tests recently (though I remember there was one in my favourite computer magazine not so long ago) so I don't know if I was lucky or unlucky with my purchase. It did convince us, though, to buy another one. I think it is a great gadget (and probably not essential to have; the hallmark of a real gadget, then).

Prieni

P.S.: If you are really really interested in the specs of that model I will endeavour to find out (my memory gives conflicting information to Googling that model).

Yes, I would be as well!

I stumbled across another method today. Sounds interesting but definitely not for the faint hearted:
http://www.sensor-film.com/

Basically it's a polymer film that is applied in fluid form and then left to dry. After it dried you pull the film off (like sellotape).

Seems to work a treat and when reading the infos on the website I got the feeling that this guy is not BSing but giving all relevant information (i.e. including disadvantages) of the method.
I would give it a try if I had the power supply for the *istD (wouldn't like to see the shutter closing because the batteries are drained).

That's exactly what I would say (probably a bit less eloquently put). The 10-17 is a fantastic lens and there's a lot of fun you can have with it. You have to learn though how to make best use of it (i.e. how you produce the pics you like and many others may loathe).
A fish-eye lens is probably the Marmite of lenses (I don't like Marmite but I like the 10-17).

Prieni

Thanks for your comments!

Clarky,

it's not a crop (or if it is, it is a very slight one) and was taken with my *istD kit lens, the FA J 18-35 @ 35 mm (or so it says on a site where I posted it; I thought that I took it with the Kiron 70-210 but apparently I haven't).
It must have been late morning as we arrived fresh and early

Prieni

As I enjoyed the Sydney harbour pics from Chris and Clarky so much, I thought I put one in myself. I only had 7 hours in Sydney as I only had a short break between plane rides going to Fiji, but I really enjoyed the walk through Sydney. I have a few more from that day but this of the SOH was the only one I could find that I posted on the WEB.

Yet another view (it really is a terrific building):

Thanks Martin,

even a blind chicken like me finds a grain once in a while.

All right, since I don't host this week, I may as well submit one. This is strictly out of competition, though (not that I'm assuming anything) as I will be away until the end of the month.
This theme was just too tempting as I like this shot...
*istD, Sigma 105/2.8 EX DG Macro, 1/350 s, A8, ISO200.

You are absolutely right, I have been more than tempted as this already is a crop. I had the Sigma 105 on the camera, got the tripod up, mounted the camera and took the shot. Even then it was clear that the scene was asking for a longer lens. So I swapped the 105 for the 70-300 but by that time the leaf drifted away to join some twigs and other stuff. So the opportunity was gone.
When cropping more than this I would loose some of the blue sky, which is needed IMO to understand the "framing" of the leave (i.e. where the water is dented by the leaf).
So while I'm reasonably pleased with this result I know that I very nearly got a much better picture...

Thanks for all your comments!

Prieni