|
|
|
|
Molly600
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 4803
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 08/19/03 - 11:50 Post subject: digital camera reviews
Ok, we are finally getting a digital camera! Woo hoo! Now the hard part....what to get!
From what I've read, unless you are a serious photographer, 3 mp should be sufficient. Is there any reason to splurge for a 4 mp for someone that is just taking family photos, etc. and not going to be printing out huge pictures? Does the 4 make even smaller photos better, or does it compare to a 3 when you are just talking about 4 x6 and 5 x 7 pictures?
Anyone have a camera they woudl recommend? Or not???
I'm considering the Kodak Easyshare DX6340...anyone have this one? Seems to get good reviews for a good quality middle of the road price camera.
Thanks for any input!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
airehead
Oompa Loofah
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 18788
Location: Between here and eternity...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/19/03 - 14:02 Post subject:
OL can really give you good advice on this.
I ended up buying MrAire a Nikon Coolpix 2100. It has worked great for us and it is super tiny and easy to work. The company supports the product and the site is really well done. They even send you a detailed tutorial in the box for setting the camera up and getting it and your computer together.
Nikon Coolpix has a great line, but I agree: get a minimum of 3 mp. (Ours only has 2.1) They sell some Coolpixes with more mps.
Here is their site: http://www.nikon-coolpix.com/
Last edited by airehead on 08/19/03 - 19:45; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Sahara
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 3345
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/19/03 - 17:41 Post subject:
I recently bought a Fuji Finepix A303... the middle priced model. From my limited research but talking with digital cam experts where I work, if you will want to have prints made (either yourself or through the web) the 3 megapixels is a good choice. I think PH alluded to in a previous thread that if you just want to have the pics available to email or onthe web there's no need to spend the money for that quality.
Other advice from the staff here was not to be fooled by marketing for digital zoom. Optical zoom is more important to retain the quality (resolution) of the picture.
That is my very limited input.
|
|
|
|
|
omega lambda
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 4690
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 08/19/03 - 20:56 Post subject:
| Sahara wrote: |
Other advice from the staff here was not to be fooled by marketing for digital zoom. Optical zoom is more important to retain the quality (resolution) of the picture. |
This is an important point, actually. Digital zoom isn't really zooming, it is in-camera cropping. Optical zoom is the real zoom, and is equivalent to zoom lenses for a 35mm camera. A 3X optical zoom was pretty much standard a year or two ago, but you can probably get more now.
You've already gotten good advice, 3 mp is all you really need, and for snapshots, there are a lot of good quality mid-range cameras to choose from. For your purposes, I would think ease of use is a major factor. If you really want a point-and-shoot for snapshots, you don't want a camera with too many buttons and features you wont use but will pay a lot for.
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
