Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40
  1. #11
    < Banned User >
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,304
    Thanked: 1

    Default

    Can't stay...bye bye, now...
    Last edited by urleebird; 12-21-2006 at 03:32 AM.

  2. #12
    Senior Member azjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    USA - Arizona
    Posts
    1,543
    Thanked: 27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by urleebird
    So, ... what video camera should I buy?
    Easy... whichever one appears on the market just after you buy the new one Isn't that the way it always seems? You wish you'd waited?

    Honestly, Bill, I don't know... I don't even own a VCam anymore. I finally discarded mine... one of the first RCA Camcorders made. It was a monster and consisted of the camera (which was about the size of the cameras you see today's news crews carrying), and a separate briefcase sized unit containing the electronics and tape being recorded, and still another briefcase sized unit for playing back the tape. It still worked, but wasn't exactly "portable" by todays standards.

    Now, if you had asked about a new camera I'd have referred you to dpreview.com. But you'll have to get a recommendation for the VCam from someone who follows them. Sorry...
    Last edited by azjoe; 09-30-2006 at 06:06 PM.

  3. #13
    Robert Williams Custom Razors PapaBull's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    East Liverpool, Ohio
    Posts
    971
    Thanked: 324

    Default

    The Canon PowerShot cameras from my A530 up offer a lot of outstanding features at a really remarkale price. I consider them "best in class" at this point. I did a lot of research into a camera for online images and the Macro, low light performance, automatic options, manual overrides and general function were most impressive for the Canon PowerShot dollar for dollar, in my opinion. User Group reviews on it were good and I was impressed because it performed better than expected and I had some pretty high expectations. It's low light performance for indoor photography is superb and it's FAST. It powers on and is ready very, very quickly.

  4. #14
    Senior Member gfoster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    555
    Thanked: 0

    Default

    I'll second that. I just upgraded my ancient nikon koolpix 950 to a canon powershot A530 because I wanted a better camera for my upcoming honeymoon in Italy.

    It's not the best camera out there, but it's the best camera for under $200 that I could find and it's better than a lot of more expensive cameras. The pic I took of the shaving mug Scott made for me was with the 530.

    -- Gary F.

  5. #15
    Senior Member azjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    USA - Arizona
    Posts
    1,543
    Thanked: 27

    Default

    For those camera junkies who are truly megapixel "obsessed" -- here's a 160-megapixel beauty -- yes, that's not a typo, it's 1 6 0 .

    So, if you have something akin to 50 Maestro Levi razors to trade, you could own one of these!

    see: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093007seitzd3.asp


    [Note -- JLStorm, you don't want to read this... If you were to get the camera bug and become hooked again on "bigger is better", you'll have to open another wife-advice thread for sure, ]

  6. #16
    Senior Member ToxIk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    667
    Thanked: 73

    Default

    160, posh! That's nothing.

    go checkout the 4 gigapixel (4,000 megapixel) camera. The image gallery really has some spectacular images.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Joe Lerch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,331
    Thanked: 8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by azjoe
    It isn't the megapixels that make a good picture. It's the lens, lighting, focus, etc. Anything over 2mp will work fine for posting here. In fact, large MP cameras make it necessary for you to resize the pictures to convert them to a manageable size file for uploading to the site. Here's a good article on the [Megapixel Myth].
    I have to agree with this. The megapixels only give you the maximum available resulution. The rest depends on the lens, focus and exposure. If you can get the maximum resolution out of your camera, the resolution of the photo will be determined by how much you enlarge the picture you took. So, a 1mp camera will give you 1000 pixels in height and the same in width.

    If you blow it up to quadruple each dimension, you'll have a 4x4 print with a resolution of 250 dots per inch in each dimension. That's a super quality print, and about the size of what you would display. Even if you went to 6x6" you would have a pretty good print.

    The reason photos with a 1 mp camera are unsatisfactory is that the other factors have had their effect. They're usually cheap and made foe snapshots. The more expensive cameras have better lenses, better focus systems and better exposure control. With the pixel counts growing you can get a fine quality 3mp camera at a very low price. That should be excellent if you get a brand that has a reputation for cameras- Minolta, Nikon, Canon, Sony, to mention a few. When you find ones that interest you go to "stevesdigicams.com" and find out about it.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Joe Lerch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,331
    Thanked: 8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by azjoe
    For those camera junkies who are truly megapixel "obsessed" -- here's a 160-megapixel beauty -- yes, that's not a typo, it's 1 6 0 .

    So, if you have something akin to 50 Maestro Levi razors to trade, you could own one of these!

    see: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06093007seitzd3.asp

    That's quite a camera. It's shooting a panoramic, large format: 6x17, and it has film equivalent speeds from 10 to 10,000 ASA. That ought to give some great razor photos. I can't wait until January.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Joe Lerch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,331
    Thanked: 8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ToxIk
    160, posh! That's nothing.

    go checkout the 4 gigapixel (4,000 megapixel) camera. The image gallery really has some spectacular images.
    Amazing! The ad says:
    "It would take a video wall of 10,000 television screens or 600 prints from a professional digital SLR camera to capture as much information as that contained in a single Gigapxl™ exposure."

    If your camera could capture the detail, that kind of resolution would allow you to take a family photo and crop down to a good photo of a freckle.

  10. #20
    Senior Member ToxIk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    667
    Thanked: 73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Lerch
    Amazing! The ad says:
    "It would take a video wall of 10,000 television screens or 600 prints from a professional digital SLR camera to capture as much information as that contained in a single Gigapxl™ exposure."

    If your camera could capture the detail, that kind of resolution would allow you to take a family photo and crop down to a good photo of a freckle.
    Yeah, they have a picture on the site of angel's window, grand canyon. If you look closely at the full frame picture you can see a few blips on the picture. The really only look like little black dots, barely discernable at all. This camera has such incredibly pixel density, that when zoomed/cropped to 0.05% of the original photo, there is still enough detail to make out each one of the people that these little black blips are, and see the chain link fence.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •