User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/6/2002 9:02:03 PM EDT
[#1]
For web use I find that a single megabyte is more than enough. Who in their right mind is going to stand still for a web page to down load that has even a couple hundred kilo's of pictures?
I've had six different digital cameras from an Apple QuickTake 150 to my latest a Cannon Elph. At work we've got 5 Mb cameras which are a pain in the behind to use as I have to take each picture slowly and painfully into PhotoShop to shink the thing down to 1024 x 768 size normally. The machine I use is a 1.2 Ghz machine with 512 Mb of RAM and even it's slow throwing around these multi-megabyte files. I guess if I was printing these out bigger than 5x7" I'd want more than 2 Mb but 99% of my stuff is for email and the web which means 640x480 vice four times that. My old Kodak 1.2 Mb camera is the one I enjoy the most. It's slow between pictures but its color is very true and has external flash connections for my bounce flash. It's 1/60th shutter setting allows for external slave flashes too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2002 9:41:07 PM EDT
[#2]
When I set up my last boos with a computer and a digi-cam He got a 3.1 Mpixel. The only reason you need that kind of resolotion is to take pics and be able to zoom in or enlarge the picture. Most cameras have lower resolution setting so that the originals are not as large of files. I believe his had 3 or 4 resolution setings. HE took a picture of a car from about 100 yds without any zoom set on the camera, at high resolution and if you zoomed in on the picture on the computer you could easily read the liscense plate. 3.1 Mpixs is plenty unless you have very special needs or want bragging rights.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2002 9:45:40 PM EDT
[#3]
You may want to wait for a little while. A new CMOS (digital receiver that interprets the image) just came out called the Foveon X3. The technology will completely change the landscape of digital photography. The first cameras just came out that use it and the results are nothing short of amazing. Here is a tech brief from the developers:
[url]http://www.foveon.com/X3_tech.html[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2002 12:04:03 AM EDT
[#4]
I personally think that anything above 2 megapixels is too much for consumer cameras.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2002 12:33:00 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: You may want to wait for a little while. A new CMOS (digital receiver that interprets the image) just came out called the Foveon X3. The technology will completely change the landscape of digital photography. The first cameras just came out that use it and the results are nothing short of amazing. Here is a tech brief from the developers: [url]http://www.foveon.com/X3_tech.html[/url] Heard about this when they announced last year. Which manufacturers are making them, and how much are they charging? I didn't think they could make it to market so quickly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2002 12:42:21 AM EDT
[#6]
... There is a limit on megapixles. For a year now I have been betting that the quality of digital cameras would reach the quality of a good 35MM.
... The technology is not quite there yet for "average consumers" but maybe available to us in six months or so. Woo Hoo! ... I'll buy one then. You see, a 35MM has the resolution of 600 megapixles and most on the market now peak out about 5.2 megapixles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2002 12:57:04 AM EDT
[#7]
I have a 2 megapixel Canon. I always have it at the lowest resolution and smallest size or the pics are a bear to email.
You can pick up the Canon S100 for about three hundred bucks and the thing is so tiny you can take it in your pocket no problem. It is also 2 megapixels which is good for awesome 5x7 or good 8x10 prints if that is what you want to use it for. I have the S10 which is the same camera, just twice as big. BTW, it uses flash media which is pretty cheap right now. I picked up a 128mb card for 50 bucks which will hold over a thousand pictures at the resolution I use. Great for going on vacation, all pictures on one card. I know you are looking at a SLR type, but for your stated purposes having a small camera would be much more practical as you are more likely to take it with you. We now use the Canon 95% of the time cause it is smaller and more convinient than our Nikon SLRs. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
