Subject:
|
Re: Cameras
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.castle
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Jun 2001 15:50:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
838 times
|
| |
|
|
Kung-Khoon Quah wrote:
>
> I second this choice. I started out 4 years ago with the C2000 Zoom which
> was great and then upgraded to the C3030 Zoom 2 years ago. All the pics
> from my website are taken with the camera. From readings in newsgroups,
> the Olympus and the Nikon 990 does very well in low-light situations i.e.
> for me- flash deliberately turned off to capture natural light so that the
> pics don't look white washed.
> Other point is at 2 mega pixel quality or greater, 8 x 10s look just fine
> which is the max largest pic I have made so far.
> KK
> http://web.tampabay.rr.com/kkqwebpage
There is a strong dependency on what you will be taking pictures for.
For web purposes, I think a 1.3 megapixel (1280x1024) with a good macro
is more than enough. Actually, a 640x480 with good macro is almost
plenty. I have an Olympus D260 (or something like that). Unfortunately,
in some ways, I think I would have been better with a Mavica MD80 with
better zoom and macro capability but only 640x480. Ability to work in
low light situations is another important feature. For web purposes,
higher resolutions will just piss off your viewers who don't have DSL or
T1.
If you actually want to print out pictures, then the highest resolution
you can afford is worthwhile.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Cameras
|
| I second this choice. I started out 4 years ago with the C2000 Zoom which was great and then upgraded to the C3030 Zoom 2 years ago. All the pics from my website are taken with the camera. From readings in newsgroups, the Olympus and the Nikon 990 (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.castle)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
