Digital Camera ?

[dilsburger]

I hope this isn't an inappropriate topic. If so I understand.. I'm looking to buy my first digital with a limited budget for sending "everyday" and a few trip pictures to email to friends and family.

Anything above 2.0 MP is out of my budget so my question is - is there enough difference between 1.3 & 2.0 MP to warrant a $70 or so price difference for a true novice.

I realize there are pic quality varainces in brands but I'm generally speaking. The Fujifilm 2650 model is going for $169 on Computers-4-Sure and seems to be a good value for features. Thanks!

[Vic 970]

depends what you want from it. I believe that a digital will never produce to the standard of a 35 mm. so bear that in mind.
Having said that, digi cams are very useful tools. but tend to get throgh lots of batteries, particularly if you use a screen, luckily I've found somewhere to get my batteries cheap, and bearing in mind there are no processing costs. !!!

mine is a DSC 350 which is now discontinued, but replaced by one with a flash

http://www.dlink.com/products/usb/dsc350f/

in high contrast mode the pics are very acceptable, this I found was the best available in the price range, I only got it as a starter, but it does all I want it to do (apart from flash) so I am quite happy with it.

I am not suggesting that it would be suitable for you, but you may get some idea from the spec. of the type of minimum requirements that you want.
I'm sure that there will be other advice.

[Budfred]

If you want to produce high quality photos to frame and hang in your living room, get a 35mm. If you are ok with decent photos that look good on the web, the 1.3MP will do fine.

Budfred

[dilsburger]

Thanks to you both. I tend to worry too much over details like megapixels when all I am looking for is something decent to send around to family etc. I always think I may be missing out on something I'll never need or notice.... or afford!:)

[Mark Miller]

Hi Vic,
Just a quick note I have a Sony f707 and it takes better shots than our Nikon 35mm. My wife is semi pro and she says she will never go back. Sorry to interupt post.
Mark

[dilsburger]

No interruption Mark. I'm just looking for feedback/opinions to help with my decision. I'm all ears, thanks! :)

I've gone from a low-end 3 in 1 camera to now thinking I just want a decent digital and figured I'd ask. I only know a few people who use a digital camera at all. Some folks get them as gifts and never really learn how to use them and 1 or 2 others swear by them. So all opinions count as far as I'm concerned.

[Budfred]

I have several rolls of film for my 35mm that I think will go bad before I ever get around to using them. I have a Kodak 1.3MP and it is so easy to use, edit photos and delete bad ones that I have no real motivation to use the other camera. As long as I am only using the pictures for the web, it will take something like 500 decent pictures with the memory I have in it.

Budfred

[dilsburger]

Budfred, realizing all camera's are different. Is the use of "high-res" mode which will use more memory something you prefer for your everyday shots? I'm also assuming that hi-res will use the highest resolution the camera can use like 1600x1200 and standard-res would more likely be 640x480.

I'm thinking 1.3 - 2.0 MP with these specs.. and yes this is web use/cd-rom usage. Not printing.

[Mark Miller]

Hi Dils,
For web use you can use the lower res. Much less space taken and easier to e-mail.
Mark

[jabarnutcase]

Hi dilsburger
I think you will be very happy with anything in the 1.3 to 2 MP range.
I actually have (what is now an OLD) 1.3MP HP camera that takes very good pics for my purposes...Which are the same as yours- Saving occasional photos, e-mailing friends or posting a few on the web.

For that matter, I even print a few with photo paper on a high resolution printer and even they come out much better than you would think. I'm not familiar with the fuji you are looking at, but they make great high end cameras so I doubt you would be disappointed.

As far as the "memory", you dont worry too much about that. You can buy all different size memory cards. I think way back when, mine came with a 4MB card. Someone gave me a 64MB card that holds over 100 pics at the highest resolution. And yes, that would be the "super fine" setting or what ever the best your camera is capable of.

Furthermore, once you save the pics to disc or whatever, you can just delete the photos from the camera and use the same card over and over again anyway, so it's more a matter of how many you want it to hold until you can get back to your computer and download them.

While I would love one of the "latest and greatest" (which by the way have come VERY close to achieving the same quality of a good 35mm), for what I use it for, my "antique" 1.3MP still suits me just fine for my needs. ;)
Good luck!
BTW- As mentioned before, they DO eat batteries but I think that has improved quite a bit since I bought mine- And while I'm DL them at my computer I use an AC adapter.

[Budfred]

I use the low res most of the time. If I were taking a picture that I really want some detail, I might use the higher res, but the low res seems to be as good onscreen most of the time.

Budfred

[dilsburger]

Well thanks everybody for your thoughts and tips! I wasn't sure what to base my desicion on in the end but I think I got what I was looking for from y'all. I didn't want to focus on functionality that proabbly won't be important such as high resolutions. Or shortchange myself on MP's...

:)