+briansnat Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 (edited) If you aren't willing to buy at least a 5mp, you should stick to your picture phone. Huh? Maybe if you're making posters . Most photo contests will only allow a minimum of 5mp's Interesting photo contests you're entering. The ones I've entered look for good photos and I get them from my 3.2 mp camera. 4x6 shots look just fine with 3.2mp. I have photos I've shot with my 3.2 and there is little difference between those and photos shot with 400 film. Heck, Kodak's Tri-X was probably used for more award winning photos than any single film amd my B/W phots with my 3.2 mp camera are way sharper than anything I ever took with Tri-X. Edited December 23, 2004 by briansnat Quote Link to comment
+Searching_ut Posted December 23, 2004 Share Posted December 23, 2004 I'm sorry I thought you said you like grainy pictures. Most photo contests will only allow a minimum of 5mp's. York photo and other online photo services will only do post processing on 5mp's or better. Besides, 5mp's are $200 cameras. You probably spent more on your picture phone. I’m getting confused by some of these “facts” you’ve been sharing. Isn’t camera resolution an issue primarily based on final print size? For a 4X6 or 5X7 print, 3mp will generally pretty much max out the capability of the printing device. For portraits etc 3mp cameras generally work fine even at 8X10 output sizes or larger as many scenes benefit somewhat by softness. My second question would be why if you have such an affinity to grain would you be shooting a Sony f828 point and shoot camera? Point and shoot cameras are known for noise, and the f828 is one of the noisier ones. Besides starting with an imager that doesn’t capture very well for the rated resolution, you loose a lot of detail with post processing noise reduction in many situations. A 5mp DSLR will do at least as well every time, and the higher resolution DLSR’s capture a lot more detail in virtually all situations. Another question is why someone concerned with photo quality would be sending work to an on-line processing place for post processing? If sending it offsite, I would think you would use a service that you have a good profile for that does no post processing. As the one that knows how the scene should look, you’re the one that should be doing any required adjustments unless you’re in a high volume situation where that just isn’t possible. I can’t imagine a pro photographer would be asking advice in a geocaching forum, so we’re most likely looking at individuals that will use local 1 hour services, or be using reasonably priced on-line services where the auto setting of the machine is virtually all the adjustment that will take place. These places don’t care if you have a small file size. Finally, regarding photo contests requiring 5mp or better file sizes ??????? I’ve seen publishing places that only take film, or have minimum file sizes for digital submissions, but no digital photo contests that require resolution that high. To what competition are we referring? Quote Link to comment
+Team Cotati Posted December 24, 2004 Share Posted December 24, 2004 Say gang, does anyone have a suggestion for a 'good' digital camera? Quote Link to comment
+Rakusan Posted December 26, 2004 Share Posted December 26, 2004 I bought a Minolta Dimage X20 as a second camera - it's sturdy, tiny, and runs on two AA batteries (same as your E-Trex). Fits in my shirt pocket. 2-megapixel images. Good lens (check imaging-resource.com for more on that). Price under $200 ... what's not to like? Something that helps make it rugged: Instead of a lens that telescopes out of the front of this camera, they mounted it as a 'periscope' that's enclosed safe inside the body at all times. Upgraded this summer to the "Dimage X31" - same body, periscope lens and AA-battery power, but a 3.1-megapixel imaging element. Still less than $200. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted December 26, 2004 Share Posted December 26, 2004 Say gang, does anyone have a suggestion for a 'good' digital camera? Check the first few pages of this thread for some recommendations. I and several others mentioned the Canon A70/75, which I think is a great choice. I like the fact that it has settings that allow some manual control over the camera, including full manual mode, aperature and shutter priority as well as full automatic. That isn't seen much in that price range. Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Say gang, does anyone have a suggestion for a 'good' digital camera? Check the first few pages of this thread for some recommendations. I and several others mentioned the Canon A70/75, which I think is a great choice. I like the fact that it has settings that allow some manual control over the camera, including full manual mode, aperature and shutter priority as well as full automatic. That isn't seen much in that price range. I agree the A75 is very nice all purpose digital camera for under $200. I just got my daughter an A75 for Xmas. The A75 is loaded with nice features! I also picked up a 512MB compact flash from Ecost.com for only $24! Canon cameras are always rated very highly as well. If you need more zooming capability than 3X read some of the previous recommendations in this thread. Quote Link to comment
+GeoKender Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Look here and make your own well informed, educated guess. Digital Cameras Quote Link to comment
+leatherman Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 You can't go wrong with a Canon. They have been in the top five snap shot cameras on CNET.com, for years. The Canon s40 was the best of the best when I bought it years ago. The line is still very good. Picture quality is just one of their strong points. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.