If you had to choose... (Digital Camera)
11-30-2005, 10:04 PM
#1
Senior Member
Certified GM nut
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Reutlingen, Baden-Wurttemburg, Germany
Posts: 1,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you had to choose... (Digital Camera)
Would you go with a brand with a better lens (aka Canon, maybe Sony), but settle for having a lower MP rating (4.0)?
or
Would you sacrifice the better quality lens, and go with a "lesser" brand (aka Kodak, Panasonic, etc) but be able to get a 5.0 MP camera?
Looking at getting my first digicam, and I'm really leaning towards the Canon, as I've heard there is more to picture quality than just MP rating.
or
Would you sacrifice the better quality lens, and go with a "lesser" brand (aka Kodak, Panasonic, etc) but be able to get a 5.0 MP camera?
Looking at getting my first digicam, and I'm really leaning towards the Canon, as I've heard there is more to picture quality than just MP rating.
11-30-2005, 10:20 PM
#3
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Megapixels means jack if you don't have the image/colour quality to back it up.
Me and Sol are Canon fanboys, so you know what we'd recommend...
Me and Sol are Canon fanboys, so you know what we'd recommend...
11-30-2005, 10:22 PM
#4
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Farmington, Minnesota =MWBF '05 SURVIVOR= =CEBF '06 SURVIVOR= =August '06 COTM=
Posts: 9,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm using a Sony Cybershot 7.2 MP.....3X Zoom.....Takes great vid and pics.
Harofreak is also whoring with a Sony Cybershot, except he'* got the 5.1 MP model.
I've always used Sony'* and have loved them. So that'* where I stand.
Harofreak is also whoring with a Sony Cybershot, except he'* got the 5.1 MP model.
I've always used Sony'* and have loved them. So that'* where I stand.
11-30-2005, 10:35 PM
#6
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montevideo, MN MWBF '05, '06, '07 WCBF '06 '07 survivor
Posts: 3,882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went for 10x optical zoom with a good lens. megapixels ment nothing. ended up with 4 mp. and a very inexpensive, nice camera.
11-30-2005, 10:40 PM
#7
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta, _______Canada._______ West Coast Bonneville Fest ___05,06,07 Survivor___
Posts: 8,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kodak easyshare DX6440 4.0mp, takes good shots, vids are kinda lacking.
11-30-2005, 11:17 PM
#9
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,910
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Megapixels don't mean a thing for me. I don't print images.
It'* all about the sensor. Image quality is what matters. You can buy a 6 or 7 megapixel cam for cheap but the quality may absolutely suck on it. Most of those digi-cams can only give decent images at incredibly low ISO speeds, which require a slow shutter and renders it useless in lower light.
Compare a digital SLR with a APS-C or full frame 35mm sensor and shoot at ISO 400, and compare it with a digi-cam at ISO 400, and well ... enough said.
The glass is also important. I would stick with companies such as Canon or Nikon, which focus solely on optics, and nothing more. Not to knock Sony or Panasonic or anything, but Canon and Nikon have done great things with their optics. Even in their digi-cams they have decent lenses. Sony and Panasonic use lenses from Zeiss and Leica (which have a great history of awesome lenses), but they aren't up to par with the quality of their SLR lenses.
So I guess to answer your question in a shorter way ... don't worry so much about the megapixels if you don't print. Look for the good optics. I'm partial to Canon, but Nikon makes great stuff too.
If you really want a sweet digi-cam and are willing to spend a few bucks, look at the Canon Powershot Pro.
It'* all about the sensor. Image quality is what matters. You can buy a 6 or 7 megapixel cam for cheap but the quality may absolutely suck on it. Most of those digi-cams can only give decent images at incredibly low ISO speeds, which require a slow shutter and renders it useless in lower light.
Compare a digital SLR with a APS-C or full frame 35mm sensor and shoot at ISO 400, and compare it with a digi-cam at ISO 400, and well ... enough said.
The glass is also important. I would stick with companies such as Canon or Nikon, which focus solely on optics, and nothing more. Not to knock Sony or Panasonic or anything, but Canon and Nikon have done great things with their optics. Even in their digi-cams they have decent lenses. Sony and Panasonic use lenses from Zeiss and Leica (which have a great history of awesome lenses), but they aren't up to par with the quality of their SLR lenses.
So I guess to answer your question in a shorter way ... don't worry so much about the megapixels if you don't print. Look for the good optics. I'm partial to Canon, but Nikon makes great stuff too.
If you really want a sweet digi-cam and are willing to spend a few bucks, look at the Canon Powershot Pro.
11-30-2005, 11:22 PM
#10
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 5,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sol
It'* all about the sensor. Image quality is what matters. You can buy a 6 or 7 megapixel cam for cheap but the quality may absolutely suck on it. Most of those digi-cams can only give decent images at incredibly low ISO speeds, which require a slow shutter and renders it useless in lower light.
That'* another thing. Most non digital SLR cameras are rather ****-poor at high ISO - even my Canon PowerShot A75 is horrible at 400 ISO.