Kinda off topic, But on topic...

[IImportSupra]

Im going to purchase a new camera soon. Does anyone use this type of dig cam? And whats the average megpixles, that takes good quality pics?

heres the camera Ill probally buy
also tell me if its any good


http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....2&type=product

[Vric]

we can't see the link

give us the model, it will be usefull

[sugarfree]

i personally will suggest u to get nikon camera. they are the best overall, in my opinion. i wud go to 2Mpixel+. dont go lower. well, thats how the market is nowadays. 4MPixels is nice sharp image. its depends on how big u want to 'blow' ur pic. ive got 4.3MP nikon coolpix, n i can blow it up to 1280 x 960 pixels. which is... very big, thats a size of ur background windows. but then again, research is the only thing u can do apart of ask around. good luck.

[Vric]

Originally Posted by sugarfree

ive got 4.3MP nikon coolpix, n i can blow it up to 1280 x 960 pixels.

are you sure you have a 4.3Mp ?

4.3Mp is 2400 x 1800
1280 x 960 is 1.3Mp

[supermod04]

for cameras: fujifilm makes great cameras. i have the older fujifilm finepix1400 1.3 mp. it is a great little camera. it is about 3 years old. my grandpa is really big into digital cams, and he has 2 fujifilms. his latest one is a small pocket sized 1.3 mp. he got off ebay for 45$ shipped. do a ebay search for fujifilm! i am sure you can find one under 100$ or even under 50$

[proosen]

I suggest that you think it over carefully, what do you need and what are you going to use the camera for? Maybe you will get to use the camera for more advanced tasks later? I had some things I thought was important in my camera. It had to be relative small, fast, being able to work with it manually. After looking around, reading a lot in magazines and on the 'net we (my wife an I) came to the conclusion that a Minolta F300 would do the job. I'm still learning to use it but all in all I'm quite satisfied with the performance. Many digicams has a built in lag, so that it takes a while from pushing the shutterbutton until it actually takes the picture. Makes it hard to work with moving targets, almost impossible to take pictures of our son for example. With the F300 this isn't such a big problem because it's a fast one. But again the best tip I can give you is, think it over, find out what you expects from it and don't buy the cheapest cam around. Put in some money and get a better cam from the start instead. One other thing that our cam doesn't have that the next one will have is the ability to save the files in RAW-format, this gives you full control of the picture after you have taken it.

Good luck!
Niclas

[proosen]

Don't know what i managed, take a look at the Minolta Dimage F300-thread that should have been here instead

Niclas

[proosen]

This was meant to be an answer to the digicam questions. Don't know what I did, but it ended up here instead. Shortcircuit in the head, perhaps!?

Niclas

[drunken monkey]

isn't RAW just an 'untouched' file?
anyway.
you don't really need it unless you are going to be doing highly detailed work for big output.
to be honest apart from the file size, you won't really notice any difference....

the thing is, ALL digital cameras have shutter lag.
think of it as the camera version of paddle shift:
just cos you tell it to take the pic, it won't take the pic until it is ready.

as for your camera, the F300, it IS a damn good camera.
i would say it is one of the better spec'ed cameras out there.
ther are always going to be somethings taht some high-end or the more specialised camera will have that you don't; things like additional lens attachements, macro/super macro, better optical zone, better compression, better something.

just remember, there aren't many cameras out there with focus tracking....

anyway.
my last word will have to be look for what you want in camera.
don't just get the 'best' or the most expensive as at the end of the day, you want to be happy with it.
you CAN always be unhappy with the £500 cam and happy with the £200 one.

[ozstrider]

I think about 3.2mp is the standard these days. And of course you want it to have a macro. Also check out out if its got Vid with sound, and check for any sample pics if you can.

[proosen]

With RAW you can go back and adjust a picture the same way it would be done in the camera. If you for instance took a picture with the wrong settings so it didn't come out the way you wanted, you can go back and work with the RAW-file and add whatever settings needed to get that perfect picture. No more waisted pics, everything but out of focus can be corrected in the computer at home.

Niclas

[pettercardoso]

Hmm, I would recommend a visit to www.dpreview.com. They have lots of information about almost any camera, and many example pictures.

[IImportSupra]

heres some details... (damn link)

Hewlett-Packard Photosmart 3.1-Megapixel Digital Camera

Model: 435



Snap photo-quality digital shots one second, share them the next. Instant Share does it for you at a touch.

3.3 total, 3.1 effective megapixel resolution

5x digital zoom

1.5" LCD display; optical range viewfinder

I dunno if it has marco mode. When i go to best buy, i'll just ask around. I have 150 buks to bust, thats my limit.
Thanks for the tips...

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....&skuId=5767146

[ozstrider]

Look for something with optical zoom. Digital zoom is useless. It just makes the pixels bigger, not actually zoom on a certain point. Macro, optical zoom and a veiwfinder is what you really want.

[sugarfree]

Originally Posted by Vric

are you sure you have a 4.3Mp ?

4.3Mp is 2400 x 1800
1280 x 960 is 1.3Mp

thats what my camera says n thats whats all my photographs resolution depth. dunno if i can make it even bigger. mm a bit correction, its my younger brothers camera... so he set all the things. im playing with film SLR's. hehehe.... but... digital's works fine by me. i think im goin to get some digital SLR's in the future.