just need some oppinion
Thanks!
http://www1.bottomdollar.com/p__Casio_Ex... 7.1 mp is really good. The downside to this camera is zoom. Its only got 3x Optical zoom (digital zoom is bad) which from experience can be a little frustrating. It completely depends on what you want to use it for and whether or not you will use the zoom. Its definately dealable with but don't expect too much in the way of optical zoom. Apart from that its a really good camera. yeah, 7.1 takes a great picture ya thats perfect good luck yup, 7.1 is very good. Yeah Definitly Ya a 7.1 mp camera takes great pictures and it best suits for an amateur. 7.1 is a great start for amatuer photography. 7.1 mp is great, I shoot on a Canon Digital Rebel (its old school) and it's 6.3mp and I own a photography business.
BUT, it is a point and shoot digital thus it lacking the control of an SLR, single lens reflex camera. SLR are professional-grade cameras. Point and shoot are meant to be consumer-grade and user-friendly. And because of this you lack control which can alter exposure and focus and making your photo look unprofessional
If you really want to be a photographer I wouldn't settle for anything less than an SLR. Unless it was like this Kodak http://kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml...
Camera like the one above give you more zoom and more options then a point and shoot. If you don't want to dish out about a $1k for a professional camera I would settle for a camera more like this one. With a much larger zoom, higher ISO range, and a feature for Manual settings.
I must add to this:
That a camera's megapixel does in fact make a difference! When I first started out I wanted to take as many photos ad possible, so I would shoot at the medium setting at 4.6mp instead of the camera's large 6.3mp. HUGE difference, believe it or not!!! The lower the mp the less saturation, or in other words less brightness of colors. The photos looked more grey and dull at the lower setting, even after adjusting contrast and saturation settings in the camera. In addition to that no matter how small or large you print a camera with higher megapixel will give you a shaper image. Plus, a camera with less megapixels is more prone to digital noise and whitebalancing problems. Because of less megapixels a camera, regradless of brand, will tend to make up colors and/or use what I like to call "fillers", where it is filled with noise in the dark colors as well as it washes out highlights. Or you get as I like to call Ummpa Loomps or Smurffs, where the whitebalaning is thrown off even if you white-balance to the correct lighting. If you set it for tugsten lighting but people still look orange it is because the digital sensor cannot pick up the wide range of colors do to the lack of information being saved. Same thing goes for compressing files, the more you compress it or less megapixels you have the less of a quality picuture you have. Megapixels are ultimately a myth unless you are blowing a picture up to poster size. Honestly, above three is probably enough if you're just making regular prints. The photographer's skill (lighting, positioning) is really what makes a good picture. Also, a faster shutter speed and a faster memory card (like the SD ultra II by sandisc, about twice the price of a regular one) can make a big difference in terms of blurriness in action-y photos.
Honestly, I really, really hate that camera. You might think it looks all cool and compact and streamlined in design, but it's not worth the money. I wouldn't buy it a garage sale. The thinner cameras have smaller batteries, meaning they are less powerful and require more constant charging, so bascically it was made for you to have to buy a new (at a cost of about $40 a piece) Lithium-Ion battery every six months or so... and that sucks! Plus casio cameras aren't that great.
I like a canon better. They are usually thicker (better battery life) and they occasionally take AA batteries, which you can find anywhere (If you lose charge on vacation, stop into a gas station or a truck stop. Instant power again!). With that casio, you'd have to get a power converter or a car charger to get more charge on the road! Also, rechargeable AA batteries (when the existing ones wear out after a couple hundred charges with your standard Nickel-Metal Hydride batteries, 4 might run you $15, ($20 with a charging dock) and you can put two in the camera and put two in the charger, ready to use when your in-camera ones die).
Also, Cannons have the old-fashioned viewfinder, allowing you to judge with your own eyes what shot you're taking, and you can shut off the back display, saving about 80% battery life!!
Some other things to consider when buying any camera: shutter speed, night mode, the size of the light sensor, optical zoom (Ignore digital zoom, it only makes things blurry and gross!) Specs look pretty good, but 3x optical zoom may leave you wanting for more. CNET.com has questions about picture quality.
http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/...
And Digitalcamerareview.com says that the LCD screen is blurry.
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/defau...
CNN.com says that it gets turned on by accident because of where the buttons are located.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/04/26... my suggestion
go to yahoo shopping
digital cameras
digital camera GUIDE
be sure to check titles on the left side
the guide should answer your questions yep |
