| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 42936 | 2004-02-27 05:38:00 | Digital Camera's | Sherilee (4441) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 218554 | 2004-02-28 02:39:00 | That one is certainly not worth the $199 price these days. At less than $100 it might be OK. $200 cameras are gettting better and better. For a "quick snaps" toy, it's probably perfectly acceptable. The critical thing is: how many pictures will it store before you have to download? That's the "feature" that will annoy you first. It won't have exchangeable memory cards, so you are limited by what's soldered in. |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 218555 | 2004-02-28 09:48:00 | Whoa Metla. That is incredible! Who would have believed that amazing cliff and forest was behind those old buildings. :D | Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 218556 | 2004-02-28 09:56:00 | So my pen'orth is buy a cheap camera and Chill has pointed the way. Ideally you shouldn't get less than 3.2mp but there is a cost. Buy the basic one, then you have it, and get a really good one in a year. The prices are dropping all the time. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 218557 | 2004-02-28 10:50:00 | I think those pictures Metla posted are horrible. Even on a stationary ditch digger in the 1.3MP photo you can see horrible pixilation and twisted lines.... arggh! Even the 2MP picture is out of focus and a bit blurry. The rockface doesn't even look real, its that pixilated. Background trees look slightly better than you'd see off a VHS tape and shoddy television. |
PoWa (203) | ||
| 218558 | 2004-02-28 11:05:00 | ditch digger? I see no man standing around holding a shovel? And,any chance you can pinpoint the pixelisation on the bank?......The bank looks just as good in the pic as it did when i was standing their looking at it. To my eyes anyway. And i must say,i printed that pic out on plain paper at a4 size and it looks excellent. |
metla (154) | ||
| 218559 | 2004-02-28 11:25:00 | Metla> I think that was Sarcasm :p I showed those Pics to a friend of mine who is a Professional Photographer, and his comments were: "Wow, thats pretty damn good. Perhaps I should really look into getting a Digital Camera if the shots are that good!" Admittedly that was probably the best shot out of XYZ pics taken, but none-the-less, its still very nice Metla :-) Chill. |
Chilling_Silently (228) | ||
| 218560 | 2004-02-28 11:27:00 | > I think those pictures Metla posted are > horrible. Even on a stationary ditch digger in > the 1.3MP photo you can see horrible pixilation and > twisted lines.... arggh! Sorry POWA but i guess you should be thinking about getting a pair of glasses. My browser was set to resize images even though Metla said not to do that. I can see the difference somewhat between the 1.3 and the 2 Megapixel only just though. Did you blow these up to an A4 and/or zoom in a lot? > > Even the 2MP picture is out of focus and a bit > blurry. The rockface doesn't even look real, its that > pixilated. Background trees look slightly better than > you'd see off a VHS tape and shoddy television. I have had the odd disagreement with Metla in the past but I have to agree this time. Pictures look fine to me. Maybe I am the one who needs glasses. |
Elephant (599) | ||
| 218561 | 2004-02-28 15:28:00 | Plenty there for us to all ponder. Thanks Sherilee, I guess it boils down to whether you want photo's for the content, or for the technique. R2 |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||