Joined: 22 Feb 2004 Posts: 2650 Location: So. Cal Country:
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:33 am Post subject:
I personally dont think sony is a good camera company... They've only joined the market to make digital camera where as canon has been in the market for a long time. _________________
No Way!!! Nikon makes way better lenses which is the crux of a good "high-end" SLR camera. The D2H and D70 are both awesome and their D2X is going to kick Canon's butt!!
I own an S400 and a D70.
I currently own a Nikon Coolpix 5700, which I don't think they make anymore. The higher-end Coolpix line is really good! Awhile back, a professional photographer friend of mine borrowed my 5700 for her Norway/Iceland trip, and she was totally envious of it.
Canon's lenses are just as good, if not better... I think they were the first to introduce aspherical lenses in the photography market, which is considered to be the best design optically....
Guh. Now I can't talk politics or photography with you, else there'll be an argument...
Blasphemy!!
We can still talk about photography. Apparently just not about equipment!!
Joined: 08 Nov 2003 Posts: 435 Location: USA Country:
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:54 am Post subject:
Once you get into the high end, well, it's a toss up. Some people want the best lenses, other people want the best features. Nikon is the traditional leader in lenses, but things are moving so quickly now that it's hard to tell. Canon is probably the undisputed leader in features (some useless), I mean what other camera has WiFi? It's just crazy! Anyway, the starter of this thread would probably be best served with an entry level dSLR before moving on and shelling out 2500+. _________________
"...but it was my integrity that was important. Is that so selfish? It sells for so little, but it's all we have left in this place. It is the very last inch of us...but within that inch we are free." - V for Vendetta
listen to you guys ravo on is giving me a headache
i got a budget kodak, it would be fine BUT it doesnt let you control the compression which bugs me, i hate looking at the pics at normal size and seeing losta blurry crap i love crisp, clear quality!
listen to you guys ravo on is giving me a headache
i got a budget kodak, it would be fine BUT it doesnt let you control the compression which bugs me, i hate looking at the pics at normal size and seeing losta blurry crap i love crisp, clear quality!
The blurryness could be due to the focusing on your camera or the MPs.
How many MP is your camera, and what do you consider "normal" size?
The blurryness could be due to the focusing on your camera or the MPs.
How many MP is your camera, and what do you consider "normal" size?
my camera is 3.1 and by normal size i mean looking at the picture that the resolution it was taken at. sorta hard to explain. like i use a program called infraveiw or something, and it opens the image in the default size (doesnt minimise it to fit screen) i know it doesnt really matter becuase you will not really send people pics at that reso but yeah. personal prefrence
blurriness indicates that the camera is out of focus. If a jpg is compressed too high, the signs're blockiness around edges. What was the distance of the subject in the photo? If it's close, did you make sure that you had macro on? _________________
my camera is 3.1 and by normal size i mean looking at the picture that the resolution it was taken at. sorta hard to explain. like i use a program called infraveiw or something, and it opens the image in the default size (doesnt minimise it to fit screen) i know it doesnt really matter becuase you will not really send people pics at that reso but yeah. personal prefrence
Yeah you just mean 100% "zoom" in an image program. It may not be the size you e-mail at...but when it comes to printing it's pretty important.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum