[ale] OT: megapixels

[mpdickens at tlanta.com (Marvin Dickens)]

On Mon, 2003-05-05 at 11:08, Sean Kilpatrick wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> The other point to remember is that the smallish 3 megapixel cameras
> tend to come with _much_ better lenses than the cheapie cameras. 

This is an important point. The picture will be no better than the
lenses. I've seen camera's with  < 3 mega pixels that had good lenses
shoot better pictures than 3 megapixel camera's with cheap lenses.
Stay away from digital zooms and such. As a matter of fact, You want a
camera that does not depend on any type of digital enhancement as
related to lens. I own a couple of digital camera's. The cheapest one
that I have is a Fuji 2600Z. I'll put the pictures that camera produces
up against *any* other camera in it's price range: One or two other
camera's *may* take as good a picture, but none will take better. It's a
3 megapixel camera with good lenses (The zoom lens is even real) and it
cost me less than $170.00 over a year ago. 

Also, this is the camera I use when the environment I am shooting
pictures in could kill the camera. So far, this little beast has taken a
real beating and continues to produce great pictures. As a side note,
I've been able to do 8 x 10's with it and they look great. I attribute
this fact to good lenses (Although, I would not put it up against my
Nikon, but then again, I wouldn't take the Nikon to the places I take
the fuji...).

Best

M. Dickens

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale