Camera Help!
04-16-2007, 02:23 PM
#1
GTcars - Post God !
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: indiana
Posts: 3,781
Rep Power: 791 
Camera Help!
I am looking for a good camera that is like in the 300-400 range that can take really good pictures.. I am not a camera person, so I do not know what to look for.. Could you all give me some ideas on good cameras..
04-17-2007, 03:11 PM
#8
GTcars - Post God !
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Holmen, WI
Posts: 16,092
Rep Power: 1018
Originally Posted by The Black Pearl
But only 6.0 MP?
04-18-2007, 11:16 AM
#9
Junior GTcars Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 247
Rep Power: 685
Originally Posted by The Black Pearl
But only 6.0 MP?
http://s13.photobucket.com/albums/a2...od%20Pictures/
The camera I used for all those photos is a Canon S1-IS. I've got tons of other pictures, but those are the best ones to use as an example of the cam's capabilities. Also keep in mind that these pictures have spent absolutely zero time in photo editing, they're straight off the camera.
04-18-2007, 07:08 PM
#11
Junior GTcars Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 247
Rep Power: 685
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
Read that article to understand why 8.0 or however many megapixels you want is only marginally better than 6.0 megapixels. It's really not the vast difference in image quality that you think it is. Again, take a look at my link in my previous post. Those pictures were all taken with my 3.2 megapixel camera! And make sure you click on the picture to bring it up to 1024x768.
What will really blow you away is that when I open the picture of the Dale Earnhardt decal to full size the decal itself is larger than what my 17 inch monitor can display. I actually need to zoom out to see all of it at one time. Even then, the resolution is, well, picture perfect! I'll post a screen shot to show you what I mean.
There's the same picture at it's original size. Compare that to the picture saved in my photobucket album and you can see just how large the picture really is. Now imagine the fact that it's only 3.2 megapixel resolution. I think you'll find that 6.0 megapixels is way more than adequate for whatever you might be doing with the camera. I hope that I have in some way helped you in your decision making. If anything, I hope I've opened your eyes to the capabilities of "smaller" resolution cameras.
Read that article to understand why 8.0 or however many megapixels you want is only marginally better than 6.0 megapixels. It's really not the vast difference in image quality that you think it is. Again, take a look at my link in my previous post. Those pictures were all taken with my 3.2 megapixel camera! And make sure you click on the picture to bring it up to 1024x768.
What will really blow you away is that when I open the picture of the Dale Earnhardt decal to full size the decal itself is larger than what my 17 inch monitor can display. I actually need to zoom out to see all of it at one time. Even then, the resolution is, well, picture perfect! I'll post a screen shot to show you what I mean.
There's the same picture at it's original size. Compare that to the picture saved in my photobucket album and you can see just how large the picture really is. Now imagine the fact that it's only 3.2 megapixel resolution. I think you'll find that 6.0 megapixels is way more than adequate for whatever you might be doing with the camera. I hope that I have in some way helped you in your decision making. If anything, I hope I've opened your eyes to the capabilities of "smaller" resolution cameras.
