| |
Guys,
Not that you aren't giving good advice, but remember this guys
application -- posting pics of items to Ebay. He doesn't need Megapixels,
640x480 would work just fine.
I'd look for a cheap 640x480 or 800x600 camera with a flash and a USB
connection. It'd be nice if it used CF cards, but for this application --
probably taking a dozen shots and selecting a couple -- total capacity
probably doesn't matter.
Sure, it'd be nice to have a $500-$1000 camera, but it doesn't make sense if
all he wants to do is take a couple of quick pictures. I got a 640x480 with
a flash from Earthlink for $69. It's not a great camera, but it's good for
carrying around all the time and snapping candid shots of the kids. I don't
have to worry about dropping it or getting it wet or anything else. I've
got a good camera and film scanner and a video camera, but sometimes you
just want a quick shot.
When uploading to the web (especially Ebay) size matters (both KB and
pixels) so spending the money to buy a 3 or 4 megapixel camera and then
taking shots at it's lowest resolution doesn't make much sense.
Mike
--
Mike Faunce
mike at faunce dot com
"Mike Stanley" <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in message
news:G6CE3J.8xH@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.general, Bram Lambrecht writes:
> > It does eat batteries fairly quickly, but I was able to get two sets of • NiMH
> > AA batteries and a charger for less than $30. The camera also comes with • a
> > 16 MB card and a USB cable, so you don't need to buy a card reader. And • if
>
> Ditto on the batteries - digicams eat them like popcorn. Here's a good • site
> for batteries and chargers:
>
> http://www.thomas-distributing.com/
>
> > you take pictures at half resolution (1024x768) which is fine for most
> > computer applications, you can fit 78 pictures on the card that comes • with
> > the camera.
>
> 78 - not bad. :) At full resolution (2048x1536) I get 245 with my Casio
> 3000 and microdrive. At half resolution I think I can fit just under • 1000.
>
> I think the Nikon's are awesome cameras, maybe even a little better
> quality-wise than the 3000 (the 990 anyway). But they were dumb in not
> making them able to use CF II cards. To get the kind of space I wanted so • I
> wouldn't have to worry about dumping pics during the middle of a vacation
> day I would have had to spend hundreds more on a couple of 128mb CF cards.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Digital Camera
|
| (...) To be perfectly honest I had no intention of responding just to the original poster's message - otherwise I would have replied to it and not to two messages written after it. That's how threaded conversations work - they start at one point (...) (24 years ago, 29-Dec-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Digital Camera
|
| (...) Ditto on the batteries - digicams eat them like popcorn. Here's a good site for batteries and chargers: (URL)you take pictures at half resolution (1024x768) which is fine for most (...) 78 - not bad. :) At full resolution (2048x1536) I get 245 (...) (24 years ago, 29-Dec-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
28 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
