Tweet
I am thinking about getting a digital camera. The various makes and models have already confused me but I think I'm leaning towards a Kodak. My question is, other than the price, what's the difference between a 2.0 and 3.2 Megapixel? If you're not a professional photographer and just want a digital camera, is a 2.0 megapixel adequate?
-
-
Re: Digital Cameras
Compry you may want to read through this post first:
-
Re: Digital Cameras
Compry, PM me the info of the ones you are condsidering.Comment
-
Re: Digital Cameras
J-kid, you just added to my confusion even more. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]Originally posted by J-kid:
[qb] Compry you may want to read through this post first:
http://www.jamaicans.com/cgi-bin/ult...;f=32;t=000048 [/qb]
Green_Biscuit, I looked at a Fuji 3.2 and a Kodak 2.0. The Fuji was $250.00 and the Kodak $179.00. Because of the price difference I want to know what if you're not a professional is the Kodak 2.0 OK.Comment
-
Re: Digital Cameras
Compry, was it di title of di link dat confused you? [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]Comment
-
Re: Digital Cameras
Too much information man. I'm going to do the inny minny miney moo thing when purchasing. I just select 2 or 3 that I like and whichever one moo ends on...that's the one I'm buying. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]Comment
-
Re: Digital Cameras
I just got a Kodak easy share digital camera
and I have foun it easy to manage and operate and it werks jus fine.Comment
-
Re: Digital Cameras
I bought a Canon 2 Mp (PowerShot A60) for $140 recently; I'm very happy with it.Comment
-
Re: Digital Cameras
Fuju Finepix
It's the bestess [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]Comment
-
Re: Digital Cameras
I didn't look at the Canon. I will check it out.Originally posted by RambleOn:
[qb] I bought a Canon 2 Mp (PowerShot A60) for $140 recently; I'm very happy with it. [/qb]Comment
-
Re: Digital Cameras
Thanks LadyZ, I'm looking at that one too.Originally posted by LadyZ:
[qb] Fuju Finepix
It's the bestess [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/qb]
I still want to know about the 2.0 verses 3.2 megapixels.Comment
-
Re: Digital Cameras
Di ongle problem mi hav wid di Fuji, is dat it LCD rear panel noh good inna very low light. Yuh caa si nutten pan it inna wan auditorium. Di Sony brands are much better wid dis function.
Go wid di 3.2 megapixels.Comment
-
Re: Digital Cameras
If you can afford the 3.2 Mpixels, go with that one. You'll get clearer, more focused results than the 2.0. i have the 2.0 Nikon Coolpix 775...it's a great little camera, but I don't always get the results I want, missing important pictures....Comment
-
Re: Digital Cameras
To answer your question:
Don't buy a camera by someone who makes televisions or microwaves - buy a camera made by people who make cameras - Cannon, Minolta, Nikon - I suppose a camera made by a film manufacturer is somewhere in between. The difference is in the lens - and the lens makes a difference. (Think of looking through a really nice piece of glass)
Go with the higher mega-pixel. That means you can blow up the size of the picture more, the more mega pixels. So, if a 4 megapixel is in the budget, go for 4. Even tho' you aren't professional, you will appreciate the results.
If you want to know more, email me - I have Nikons, so I can't really speak to any other camera. Of course, I love my nikon. The photos on my website are all nikon. Some are film, some are digital.
Also - get a decent sized memory card - 256 mb or larger - you can fit about 150 "fine" mode pictures on a 256 mB disc.Comment
-
Re: Digital Cameras
Well in a nutshell a 3.2 megapixel will obtain sharper and clearer pictures than a 2.0 megapixel.I am thinking about getting a digital camera. The various makes and models have already confused me but I think I'm leaning towards a Kodak. My question is, other than the price, what's the difference between a 2.0 and 3.2 Megapixel? If you're not a professional photographer and just want a digital camera, is a 2.0 megapixel adequate?
The more pixels a camera has the better picture it is able to capture.
Bear in mind also that you are also paying for the name brand!Originally posted by Compry:
[qb]J-kid, you just added to my confusion even more. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]Originally posted by J-kid:
[qb] Compry you may want to read through this post first:
http://www.jamaicans.com/cgi-bin/ult...;f=32;t=000048 [/qb]
Green_Biscuit, I looked at a Fuji 3.2 and a Kodak 2.0. The Fuji was $250.00 and the Kodak $179.00. Because of the price difference I want to know what if you're not a professional is the Kodak 2.0 OK. [/qb]
What you should concentrate on first and formost is the spec of the camera and what it can do.
If you are not fussy and want to have fun with family/friends pictures then the 2.0 pixel will do. If you want to produce higher quality pictures for DTP software or the internet then the higher 3.2 pixel is a better bet.
Some of the things to bear in mind when buying a digital camera:
1. can it produce high or reasonable quality pics
2. does it come with image editing software
3. does it have a USB or the later USB2 port and lead
4. does it have zoom effect
5. how far can it zoom in
6. does it have auto zoom
7. does it have picture stabilizer (reduce jerkiness when pictures are taken)
8. is it compatible with a tripod stand that you can add later if you so desire
9. does it has facility to reduce/eliminate red eye
10. has it got the capability to add/increase memory via the memory stick/card.
11. does it have timer/remote function so you can take pictures of yourself etc.Comment
Comment