|
Shutterbug Strasse A photographer's haven for the lastest in digital or traditional film cameras. |
For Sale Ads |
Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.
Original Message
Re: resolution vs. quality
Posted by serus on June 29, 2004 at 22:50:23:
I own a 1.3 megapixel Vivitar. It's large and uses 4 AA batteries, definitely not state of the art. But - the lens is excellent with very low distortion and large glass area, the autofocus works vary well (it has no zoom) and the light metering is just about optimal.
I recently bought el-cheapo 3.3 megapixel camera that's small and light, but when it comes to quality of picture for posting on the web, I find that the higher resolution buys me nothing, since I always reduce the size of the image files to acceptable levels, and that would require reducing the resolution anyway.
I end up going back to the old trusty Vivitar...
Of course, if I'd paid $400 for the new camera then probably it would have benn closer in optical quality to the Vivitar. But I recall you saying a "cheap camera"...
So my advice is to look for the features you need, not just the megapixel or bells and whistles that you don't.