kantonburg
Platinum Member
- Oct 10, 1999
- 2,975
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: Incursion
I went to another store, and the manager hooked it up.
It'll take a good quality conventional camera to beat a good 2MP digital camera under a range of lighting conditions. If you are just an average snapper then 2MP will fit 99% of your needs. 2MP is 1600x1200 which produces pictures larger than most computer screen resolutions, and at a low compression setting can produce excellent quality good-sized photographs. Personally I have a 3MP camera but I think 4MP is starting getting cumbersome for the average user since the photos will end up down-sized and/or compressed anyway... and I just wonder how many photo printers can make good use a 4MP photo.Originally posted by: Dacus
Is 2 megapixel enough? I was looking at a 4 but they are expensive.
Originally posted by: Dacus
Is 2 megapixel enough? I was looking at a 4 but they are expensive.
Originally posted by: Incursion
If you're just using it for the web, then 2MP is enough.
Originally posted by: RossMAN
PHL1365 - Normally yes the extra $95 is worth it but trust me ALL KODAK CONSUMER DIGICAMS SUCK BEYOND BELIEF!!!, they cannot compare to their Canon, Fuji, Nikon & Olympus competitors.
Originally posted by: cmv
Originally posted by: RossMAN
PHL1365 - Normally yes the extra $95 is worth it but trust me ALL KODAK CONSUMER DIGICAMS SUCK BEYOND BELIEF!!!, they cannot compare to their Canon, Fuji, Nikon & Olympus competitors.
The Kodak DC4800 wasn't all that bad. I actually regret selling it after I got my Olympus C-2100 UZ. The only bad part about the Kodak was low light pictures but other digicams of the same vintage have poor pictures in the same environment.
edit: but I wouldn't buy a new Kodak. I think the DC4800 was the last decent digicams from Kodak. I hope they realize their mistakes and get with the program. I'm not holding my breath though...