Subject:
|
Re: Digital Camera
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Sun, 31 Dec 2000 06:31:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
106 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Kenneth A. Drumm, Ph.D. writes:
> Digital camera parameters:
> 1) use it to take pictures of my Lego creations
I think someone mentioned this aspect of your search as being something that
could mean you only need a puny camera. I personally think this is
something that should make you look for the best quality, largest
resolution, etc possible.
Think about it - say you build something truly cool and kinda big. One of a
kind. You may even build something using a large percentage of your parts.
Can you leave it built? Probably not. So you want to document it, take
pictures of it, archive images of it for years to come so you can look at
them, show them to people, say "see, I built this cool model of ____ 2 years
ago."
Now if you think about it that way I think it is clear you want to take a) a
lot of pictures of your creations and b) the highest quality pictures. When
all digicams were 640x480 people took 640x480 pics and looked at them as
great, showing lots of detail, etc. Now those 640x480 pics seem so tiny.
I don't know about you, but 1024x768 might be big enough for the web, might
be big enough to just pop open and get an idea of a creation, but more image
detail, more information is always better than less imo.
> 3) they will not be printed out in any type of quality
Ever? I get what you're saying - I don't print many of my pictures either.
But the difference between the pics I took with my old camera that did just
under 1 megapixel and the ones I take now at 3.34 megapixels is that while I
can pop open some of the best pics I took with my old camera and appreciate
them on the screen, not a single one of them will ever make even a decent
5x7 print. My new camera can do good 8x10's.
A digicam is a cool thing - and if you're going to spend $800 on something
to just take pics of Lego creations that's ok, but you can do a lot more
with it, and I bet you might want to print some of those pics someday.
> 5) the camera must be sturdy enough to take moderate use AND abuse
Dunno if you'll find any piece of electronic equipment that will take abuse.
Moderate use yes, abuse no. I wouldn't look to be able to throw a camera
across the room into the wall - that's abuse. I've dropped mine
accidentally from a few feet - I'd call that heavy use.
> 6) I am willing to spend up to 800 dollars
You can get a darn good camera for $800. I can only speak to the quality of
the camera I own, the Casio 3000, and I love it and think it was the best
purchase for me, but I don't think you can get it for $800. Maybe $900, though.
> 7) must have some sort of internal memory
Most do. Although most of these that come with an 8 or even 16mb card seem
like a joke after you get used to 340 megs of space. :)
> 8) USB connection is a must
Most have those now as well. USB is awesome, but it's kinda funny - when I
download 40-50 full quality images (I only take full quality - why do less
with that much space available?) it does take a little bit of time - not
more than a minute or two, but not seconds either.
> 9) NOT be a battery fiend
You _won't_ find a digital camera that isn't a battery fiend - they ALL are.
There's an easy solution, though. A good charger and two sets of NiMH
batteries. You can get that for $30 or so and not have to worry that you'll
only get 60-70 shots out of a charge.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Digital Camera
|
| Digital camera parameters: 1) use it to take pictures of my Lego creations 2) the pictures will be no farther away than 5 feet 3) they will not be printed out in any type of quality 4) they may go on a website (when I get one) 5) the camera must be (...) (24 years ago, 31-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
