Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 43 of 43
  1.    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Sorry, don't want to start a flamewar, but 7MP in a compact camera isnt that kind of pointless? in such a small camera the lenses can hardly be good enough to warrent 7MP... its like a powerfull motorbike with tires of a pushbike..
    Seems like the megapixel thing gets higher and higher more because of the advertizing power than a actual need/usefullness..

    Actually, the size of the lens isn't the hick up. They use quality glass and coatings the lenses can go even smaller. The problem is adding more pixles to a small sensor introduces noise to the image. That's why most of the compact cameras stink. They soften the image, sort of blur it to hide the noise, then the prosessor "sharpens" it. Well, this requires a lot of power to do it right. That's what the Digic II is in the new Elphs. It's amazing what it can do.

    The "size" of the lens has nothing to do with it as long as it's a quality lens.
    My dog is always hungry! He's like an eating machine. The Eating 650 with blue tooth.


    <a href="http://www.activexamerica.com/cgi-bin/t.cgi?a=404102&e=/pet/"><img src="http://www.activexamerica.com/graphics2/bannerpet4.gif"></a>
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by MFizzel
    Is the only solution to drop a grand on a camera?
    Naw, just get something a *little* bigger (where the flash and lens are further separated).

    Dont get me wrong, the mini cams are great (I have an older Canon Elph myself), but I wouldn't suggest it to be your primary/only camera. Just too ugly when using flash.


  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by MFizzel
    Bah, Bestbuy selling a two year old model for the same price as the flagship 16MP Mark II version

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ist&sku=354004

    Man you could buy at least two really decent cars for the price of that camera.


Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions