Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 57488	2005-05-04 01:55:00	Buying a Digital Camera	Raewyn (946)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
351942	2005-05-05 09:40:00	If you really are worried about printing them couldnt you go to one of those Kodak Print Centres?? My point isn't so much that "this is a specific problem" as one of - if you're going digital for the first time there are issues - eg memory and printing - that get swamped and overlooked in the decision on camera. This can lead to disappointment and possible unexpected budget blow out. Be aware of them.	Mercury (1316)
351943	2005-05-05 10:43:00	Wow. I'm so not going to read everything in this thread. Canon. You won't regret it.	ninja (1671)
351944	2005-05-05 11:14:00	Kodak has bloated, crappy software and make plasticky cameras, Some Sony's have issues with the drive motor on zoom lenses and expensive media. Some canon models have some issues with drive motors on zoom lenses. Fuji dont tend to put infared focus assist lights for low light shooting on thier cams and have no image stabilsation for their big zoom lenses. and the software is rubbish. Casio are overpriced. Same with panasonic Microtek have shocking build quality. Aiptek take over saturated, soft pics. I could go on The point is no camera is perfect. It's how you use it and what you do with it that counts. Of all my cams I use a 1.2 megapixel casio exililm most of all. I can carry the bugger all day in a shirt pocket. The battery lasts forever. The image quality is equal to most 2 and some3 megapixel cams. I can pull it out turn it on, shoot and have it back in my pocket in under ten seconds. A low resolution camera that your not afraid to break,that is immediately available and not stored in a padded case in the car or at home is always going to catch the moment you need.	the highlander (245)
351945	2005-05-05 11:16:00	Well, I am still wondering how your hubby reacted when he found out you trashed your new camera . . . ! :lol: :D :lol: Anyhow, that thread you started last year was very informative! LOL taking shots of him . . . :p 4x4 ing . . . . LOL haha beetle	beetle (243)
351946	2005-05-05 11:31:00	Film you also need to manage resolution too. Most labs these days are digital mini labs. A household version pro photog would have a dedicated film scanner and a printer. V few places now process film via a wet darkroom. Film may have the adv that you the typical user don't need to manage resolution as its done at the lab. The guy doing the film would still work within constraints. 35mm film is considered printable for high quality up to A3 maybe a little bit larger. That piece of film when scanned, yes it can be 20MP or such but the quality is not there. A tradeoff is made but obviously if its a poster you it does not need to be as clear as a postcard as its supposed to be viewed at a distance. With 6MP digi on the net, pple have done amazing sized photos, A2 .. A1.... Aside, digi is cleaner than 35mm film at low ISO's - less grainy. If you wanna talk resolution then jump to medum format with 120 or 220 sized rolls of film. 4-5x size of 35mm film. Or get digital versions at huge prices or better yet go with large format and use sheet film or the digital version. Edit Not sure how it applies to the more basic digicams but for many you can interpolate the pix to 2x the size (increasing size by 1 fold) and you may not see the difference. Can be interpolated larger or printed at 240 dpi as opposed to 300dpi for a bit larger still..... This is how a 6MP dSLR obtains postcard quality A3 prints and still maintain its 300dpi. 240 dpi is v good to pple still... many pple choose to use this instead.	Nomad (952)
1 2 3 4 5