Anybody have this digital camera ??

[SNAAKE]

Anyone ??

shopathometv.com link

Takes decent pictures ?
Fair price ??

Thanks in advance

[DrewKaree]

While I don't have that camera, from the few stats it gave about it, I wouldn't recommend it.

Why?

It's touted as a 2 megapixel camera. 

If you want nice pictures, you need to be looking at bare minimum 3 megapixel cameras, which can be found for a bit more than that price.  In fact, I've got a Sony that you can pick up at prolly ANY Wal-Mart now for ~$150-175. 

It's also got the same DIGITAL zoom, which means nothing for pictures (more for video), but it's also got 3x OPTICAL zoom.

I'd guess with the megapixels, that'd take some pretty crappy video, if they're anything like the pictures it probably takes.

You're probably better off choosing EITHER a recorder OR a camera.  Double duty usually isn't a strong point from what I've seen of these, until they get a bit pricier.

[danny_galaga]

yeah, you definitely want more than 2 megapixels. mines 3.2 and thats sufficient for me but even then sometimes i wish it was more (for zooming distant shots especially)

[Bones]

Anyone seen a comparison between mega pixels and traditional negative film? (Referring to grain/pixel size.)

For example, is a 2 mega pixel photo roughly equivalent to using ISO 800 film or say 3.2 might be similar to a photo taken on 400 speed film?

I figure there must be a "rule-of-thumb" comparison between the two but never found one.

[Bones]

Found an answer to my dumb ass question if anyone is interested!

http://www.ltlimagery.com/film_v_digital.html

[General Zod]

When I was out looking for a new camera, I started by doing a little research online. Site after site I stumbled across more copy&paste reviews than I could shake a stick at. That is ... until I found this one.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.html


His reviews were more in-depth than any others I found while doing my homework. Something you might want to check out if you're in the market for a new camera.

[ChadTower]

Folks, I worked for Kodak on their digital camera firmware and Easyshare software... what is being said here is a bit misleading.

You do NOT need 3 megapixels to get 'good photos'.  You need 3 megapixels to get large photos.  A quality 1.3 megapixel camera is perfectly capable of getting good 3x5 or even (though this depends on the camera) 4x6 shots.  Megapixels are a lot more related to the SIZE of a photo than the QUALITY because they are a measurement of RESOLUTION.

That said, if high quality is your goal, you get what you pay for.  This camera is a dual function video/still camera at a low price.  SOMETHING'S GOTTA GIVE.  It's going to be the still quality.  Dual function cameras that are good at both are not this cheap for a reason.

Other notes:  This says nothing about lens material.  Don't ever spend real $$ on a camera with plastic lenses (as in every consumer Kodak digital model).  That seriously degrades quality.  It also says nothing about optical zoom, only 4x digital zoom.  Digital zoom is usually used where optical zoom ends, so since this sucker is only 4x digital, you have to assume is has practically no optical zoom.  That's bad for both still and video.

My opinion:  This thing looks like a throwaway camera you buy if you want both functions but don't care about quality in either aspect.

[danny_galaga]

thats fine if you want a 3 x 5 pic in the middle of your computer screen. but if you want to have more options than just printing it off as a little picture then the more megapixels the better...

[ChadTower]

Many people only need 3x5.  You were talking about quality, which is a different metric than size.  We don't know the reason he's looking at this camera. 

[versapak]

thats fine if you want a 3 x 5 pic in the middle of your computer screen. but if you want to have more options than just printing it off as a little picture then the more megapixels the better...

It would not be 3x5 on your computer screen.


I have a cheap 1 megapixel camera that we got for the kids, and it takes pictures at 1152x864 screen resolution.

The camera that I use is 3.2 megapixel, and it takes pictures at 2048x1536 screen resolution.

[danny_galaga]

sigh, what i mean is that if you take a 1.2 meg pic, any size larger than say an old fashioned paper photo will look more grainy than say a 3.2 meg pic. better to have that extra quality to play with so that down the track you aren't wishing you bought a higher res camera...

[Crazy Cooter]

I've got an old 1.3 Mp cheapo ($100 a couple years ago).  It prints little photos just fine.  We're looking at getting a better cam because the girlie wants to print large format pics.  We're looking at ~5 MP for the 8x10 prints.  I *think* this will work.

I wouldn't buy anything without optical zoom.  Digital zoom is worthless.  You can do that in photoshop.  Nice point about glass lens vs. plastic.  I never thought of that.  Good link for that Steves page too.  I'm going to look through it.

[DrewKaree]

You do NOT need 3 megapixels to get 'good photos'.  You need 3 megapixels to get large photos.  A quality 1.3 megapixel camera is perfectly capable of getting good 3x5 or even (though this depends on the camera) 4x6 shots.  Megapixels are a lot more related to the SIZE of a photo than the QUALITY because they are a measurement of RESOLUTION.

Good point.  You CAN get pictures that are just fine for those sizes, but folks normally don't look at those size pictures and say "dang, this is pretty good".  I also thought quality 1.3 megapixel was an oxymoron 

I believe, like danny, in having more of that resolution available at smaller sizes, so in case I wanna go bigger, I won't be hit with as stiff a penalty as having a lower-pixeled camera and going to a larger photo.  Because of that resolution, the pictures generally look better when comparing equal sizes of photos from dissimilar cameras.

Other notes:  This says nothing about lens material.  Don't ever spend real $$ on a camera with plastic lenses (as in every consumer Kodak digital model).  That seriously degrades quality.  It also says nothing about optical zoom, only 4x digital zoom.  Digital zoom is usually used where optical zoom ends, so since this sucker is only 4x digital, you have to assume is has practically no optical zoom.  That's bad for both still and video.

Another good point!  Once that plastic lens gets the inevitable scratch, it'll be the death of your enjoyment with that camera.

I've heard it said that digital zoom is the "floor mats included" feature on cameras.  The digital zoom essentially makes a best-guess enlargement of the of the actual image, instead of using those added pixels to create a nice photo for you.

Good tips Chad.

[ChadTower]

Good point.

[SOAPboy]

my dad has one.. its junk.. nuff said..

[patrickl]

Resolution IS size in digital format.

[versapak]

I'd say you need at least a 5M camera to get really good 5x3 prints right now, but higher than that will still show in the prints.

To say that is a bit of overkill.

My 3.2M camera takes pictures that print 3x5 at 400dpi.


Not that I necessarily recommend getting a 3.2 over a 5, but just wanted to point out that your statement was a little exaggerated. If you have the money, then a high quality camera with the highest megapixels is obviously the better option.


A lot of what needs to be considered is the use of the camera though.

If the sole use of the camera was to be for internet publishing, then the topic'd camera would be just fine (providing it actually takes decent (quality color, clarity, etc) pictures in the first place), as print quality wouldn't really be a concern. 2M is plenty, if not overkill, just for that purpose.

[patrickl]

I'd say you need at least a 5M camera to get really good 5x3 prints right now, but higher than that will still show in the prints.

To say that is a bit of overkill.

My 3.2M camera takes pictures that print 3x5 at 400dpi.


Not that I necessarily recommend getting a 3.2 over a 5, but just wanted to point out that your statement was a little exaggerated. If you have the money, then a high quality camera with the highest megapixels is obviously the better option.

As I said before, the 3.2M they rated your camera actually means it has 3.2 million sensors. The camera will indeed interpolate using 4 sensor inputs floating over all sensors to fill 3.2M pixels, but the actual information in the resulting image is nowhere near 3.2million pixels since all sensors are used 4 times. I'd say it's more like 1.6M.

That's why you still see an improvement if you use a 5M camera for 5x3 pictures rather than a 3.2M one and probably even still an improvement with higher resolutions than 5M.

[versapak]

ahhh ok


I see what you are saying now.


Had a moment of slow.