So, my Nikon digital camera went to the heaven of cameras, after an agony of several days.
I am ready to substitute the tramp, so I would appreciate if you could recommend something. I am not an expert, so I tend to think more megapixels is better, but please feel free to preach about digital cameras.
The use is merely recreational.
Also, I want something below 350 Euros. I am far from a pro, so I don't want this hybrid, manual-digital, Olympus professional stuff with all ready to become a photojournalist for the football magazine.
Thanks in advance.
Originally posted by SeitseMegapixels mean nothing! It's all about the quality of your lens, baby!
So, my Nikon digital camera went to the heaven of cameras, after an agony of several days.
I am ready to substitute the tramp, so I would appreciate if you could recommend something. I am not an expert, so I tend to think more megapixels is better, but please feel free to preach about digital cameras.
The use is merely recreational.
Also, I want some ...[text shortened]... uff with all ready to become a photojournalist for the football magazine.
Thanks in advance.
Originally posted by Daemon SinI wouldnt say "nothing" but the lens is also important indeed.
Megapixels mean nothing! It's all about the quality of your lens, baby!
I have a Fujifilm digital camera for serveral years now, still works very good
I think cameras are pretty fragile tho, so you might want to buy an protective suit for it (when not included).
Im not an expert tho:p
Originally posted by zozozozoAre you happy with the Fuji?
I wouldnt say "nothing" but the lens is also important indeed.
I have a Fujifilm digital camera for serveral years now, still works very good
I think cameras are pretty fragile tho, so you might want to buy an protective suit for it (when not included).
Im not an expert tho:p
Which model do you have?
2 edits
Originally posted by Seitsemegapixels are meaningless when you get under $500. The photo sensors are too small to manage the big pixels. If you get a like a 10 megapixel cheapo camera, you'll notice a big time lag between the time you can take photos.
So, my Nikon digital camera went to the heaven of cameras, after an agony of several days.
I am ready to substitute the tramp, so I would appreciate if you could recommend something. I am not an expert, so I tend to think more megapixels is better, but please feel free to preach about digital cameras.
The use is merely recreational.
Also, I want some uff with all ready to become a photojournalist for the football magazine.
Thanks in advance.
Check out cnet.com for the best reviews.
I bought the Cannon SD1100 ultra compact. It takes great photos if you are just a point and shoot guy and want a small size. It fits right in my pocket, is slim and weighs next to nothin.
http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/canon-powershot-sd1100-is/4505-6501_7-32826179.html
1 edit
Originally posted by uzless"Big pixels"? The size of the pixels isn't what the mega in megapixels means.
megapixels are meaningless when you get under $500. The photo sensors are too small to manage the big pixels. If you get a like a 10 megapixel cheapo camera, you'll notice a big time lag between the time you can take photos.
Check out cnet.com for the best reviews.
I bought the Cannon SD1100 ultra compact. It takes great photos if you are just a poin ...[text shortened]...
http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/canon-powershot-sd1100-is/4505-6501_7-32826179.html
Having said that, your point is valid. Tiny sensors with tiny photon receivers don't handle huge numbers of pixels very well.
Daemon sin's point is also fairly valid, although a little fundamental. The lens is what makes the photo, the sensor only captures what the lens creates. A good combo is what you are looking for, not something which goes overboard on 1 aspect (resolution) and penny pinches on other aspects (lens)
Things to look out for when buying a digital camera are resolution, quality and speed of your lens (lens should at least go to f2.8 wide open. Even faster would be better), face recognition is important for a point and shooter, and it tries to ensure that faces are in focus and exposed correctly. If you have any interest in actually directing your camera as to the photo you want to take, then manual controls are important. If you know that you will never be that bothered, then obviously they are less significant.
I have a slide upstairs detailing all the aspects that you need to consider when buying a digi. If I get a chance later, I'll post some of the points.
My recommendation would be the Canon Ixus 870IS (on this side of the water) for point and shoot use (although uzless' is probably just as good) or if you think you may become interested in photography, then the Canon G10 is superb and would provide a good intro to manual controls, while also taking superb shots on fully auto.
D