Tom's Hardware > Forum > Old Man/Woman's Club > Other > 5 Megapixel cameras

5 Megapixel cameras

Forum Old Man/Woman's Club : Other - 5 Megapixel cameras

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!

Related content

See all topics related to "megapixel cameras"

Ask the community Add a reply

Page: Previous 1 2 Next Bottom Search this thread

Pretty sure I posted some time ago about digital cameras, but we still haven't gotten one. We borrowed some 2 megapixel camera from my mom's workplace, it looks ok, but at other times isn't as good (like the stuff I see with my super cheap internet camera). We looked around, but the 5 megapixel cameras r more expsnive than expected (the ones we saw were 450-600). Before we spend this, can a good camera be gotten for that price, and is 5 megapixel really worth it? I haven't actually used one, just read a little from THG's review...

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"

Add a reply

excellent quality with a 5 mp my friend has one and its great.

-={Apostalic Alcoholic.}=-

Reply to mrface

I dunno why I am replying to this TO YOU, and you can post this in the DIGICAM forum which has people answering usually but since I like helping when I can:

-No, 5MP is useless to a home user. Do you want to do huge posters and hang them everywhere?
-If not, 5MP is far from something you need.
The most you'll ever do with is 3.2, and 4MP for some extra editing space.
3.2 gives you 2056*1548 pixels or something around it. That's beyond what even 21" monitors display. It's the resizing that determines the end quality usually, and most of your pics will find themselves resized to 1024*768 at best.

You need 3.2 or 4MP. And there is absolutely no disagreement when I state that for the 3.2MP category, ain't no better camera (and Alltaken will testify like I can too as I own one) than the A70 from Canon. Big time winner, all positive reviews, very fast camera, 3X typical optical zoom, 3.4X digital although next to pointless in most cases, has a 5-point AiAF processor, (Canon D!GIC CPU) can last usually 210 minutes with 1750mAh NiMH batteries at LCD always ON, has a lot of manual features such as Aperture Priority, Shutter P, Full Manual control on A/P and Flash strength, has 6 or 7 White Balance modes, has 7 Preset modes or 12 in total including the Manuals. With an AF Assist Illuminator, you get better night focus and it helps tell others to look at the orange lamp to reduce red-eye. Movie mode is among the best possible on digicams so far, 640*480 with sound, offers 30 seconds per clip, or more than 3 minutes under 160*120, and a bit less in 320*240.

IMO this is a camera of powerful choices. It requires however a lot of personal use and expertise to get proper pictures. I can provide you with pictures of landscapes and such that I took, for you to judge, and some portrait ones to see if person pictures are good. Maybe a personal digicam will entice you to show your picture, now that you have 3.2 million pixels to represent you LOL.

For the 4MP, THG has the A80 previewed and so far it seems good. My qualms with it are that it removes some nice A70 features like the 640*480 movie mode (WHY CANON WHY!) and some other things, however adds a histogram, and 2 personal configured modes to quickly switch to your personal settings and let the premade ones stay with their own settings than tampered.

I dunno if I would recommend the A80 over the A70, but if you REALLY need 800 more thousand pixels, then go for it. Honestly though the image quality is essentially the same aside from the fact you can resize and sharpen more that way with the A80. My best advice is to go visit a high-tech store and test them. You'll find the Ax0 Canons to be extremely ergonomic and easy to use.

The A70 retails at: 299$
The A80 according to THG will be like 499$ or more. Whether 200$ is justifying 4MP is up to the consumer, though it does offer the best features with it in the 4MP range most likely, and offers a pivotal LCD, albeit as always, SMALL (1.5" ).

Either way, you'll love what these very small digicams can do, and once again I can testify and provide shots anytime to prove that. Or you can check the samples online. Now go, buy a digicam, and take the most sexy picture you can get you dreadful pimply bastard.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>Edited by Eden on 09/17/03 10:17 PM.

Reply to eden

More MP doesn't necessarely mean higher image quality. It just means bigger images. If you want to take poster sized images then get a 5MP camera. I'm pretty happy with my 3MP camera though. Basically go to the DigCam section and read up a bit. Find a camera with good image quality and the features that you want. Then decide how big of an image you want.

_________________________________________
<A HREF="http://skulls.sytes.net/tom/" target="_new">12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</A>

Reply to dhlucke

Ah, the digicam section was one of those I never noticed! Thanks, will do some reading then.

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"

Reply to Flamethrower205

Do you work for Canon?

I'm still using an old 2 megapixel. Toshiba PDR-M5 I bought from my brother for 50 bucks. Works ok, except it only has a 16 MB memory card so it will only hold like 14 1600x1200 images. <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/ksoth/patio.html" target="_new">These</A> are some images it took, scaled down, not even on the highest quality setting.

5 megapixel really seems like overkill. The only thing I can see it for is cropping specifics out of your really large images, which may be a bonus depending on what you will be using it for. Now, when scaling down really large images, do you get a good anti-aliasing effect like how video cards use supersampling then scale the image back down? If so, you might get some scaled down images with less jaggies, which may improve picture quality.

-------------------------------------------
 "Trying is the first step towards failure."

Reply to ksoth

I notice when you overresize, you create this sharpen problem effect, where some parts stand out too jagged due to many pixels being lost in the reduction, and mixed. It becomes more sharp than usual. Try to resize from 1600*1200 to 320*240 for a big example.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

I have something I'd like to offer here. When I bought a Digital Camera my main concern was the media that the camera would use. Flash cards & other such media are expensive in my opinion. Now say you go on vacation & have a 64, or 128 bit card. Once it's full , you have to find a place to write it to a disk for you, or buy another stick. Plus you need a reader to do it yourself at home.

I found doing my research that using a 3 1/2" CD was the perfect solution. You can buy a 10 pack of 3 1/2" CDRW's for $10 almost anywhere. You can put at the highest res. 1600x1200 Fine 132 photos on the disk. At the lowest res. 640x480 Fine 663 photos per disk. A ten pack will fit in you pocket. You can download the photos on any computer anywhere, or show them to the friends your visiting & give them a copy with out having to carry a reader with you & the software to install it on his machine. (I didn't know it until I bought my Sony that the inner circle in a ROM was for the 3 1/2 CD. LOL) Just pop it in & pull it up.

I've had My Sony for 2 1/2 years. My model isn't made any more, but it's a 3.3 MP. I can't say enough about how much I use it & love it. 3.3 has been a great size for me. This camera & PhotoShop 7, I can do about anything I want in digital photography. I don't have a way to post some of my photos, but I've got some awesome ones.

You mentioned price. I went & looked for you & was surprised to find <A HREF="http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start;sid=EBfFC40nYqvFYrJOqpHPAMI2Nx2PPz69i3M=?CategoryName=dcc_DIDigitalCameras_CDMavicaDigitalCameras&ProductSKU=MVCCD350KITIS&Dept=dcc" target="_new"> this one.</A> It's a great buy & that's there retail price. If you search the web, you'll find it cheaper that that. I paid over twice when I got mine, so I consider this a bargain. I would recommend it to anyone.

Any who, That's my input on it.

Well, I didn't think that was gonna happen!!!

Reply to RCPilot

Imagine Ressource has a review on the CD-350 <A HREF="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CD350/CD35PICS.HTM" target="_new">http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CD350/CD35PICS.HTM</A>

It seems to feature a lot of things.
The only issue is the price being 100$ more expensive than the A70, if not 200 if Imagine Resource is right (499$ vs Sony website's 399$).

It's true Flash cards are expensive, but the minute you resize your shot options, you can fit tons more. My 128MB CF card holds 77 maximum at 3.2MP, however scaled down to 1600*1200, I can fit 123 pics. Moving further down I can fit over 200 pictures for 1024*768 which is still bigger than a normal 4*6 picture.
I don't think you would need more than 200 pictures during a trip though, in the end it's excessive and you're likely just taking pics of people each second!

One thing that did bug me, was the lack of an optical viewfinder. We still need those, especially when LCDs don't work well in sunshine, and if your batteries are running out, you'd be hard-pressed not to try working with a few more minutes under no LCD.
Its 2.5" LCD of the 350 is exceptionally big, but again, I'd rather have an LCD viewfinder come with that.
It's a mixed bag to me. Still though, all websites have put their faith into the 3.2MP A70 above any other 3.2MP PnS camera as a tried-and-true camera, so it's guaranteed to work very well.

But if Flamey takes tons of pics, he'd either have to fork hundreds more for more expensive FCs, or buy the CD-RW packs for a Mavica.
Tough choice.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>Edited by Eden on 09/18/03 01:09 PM.

Reply to eden

Oh yes. I was just going / went another way. For me the combination is exactly what I like. It did take me some getting used to the LED. I used to have my own color darkroom (another hobby) & have & do shoot tons of photos.

Another thing I really like is the MPEG's I can shoot. They seem to be longer that Flash Cards. You can put out 1 min. @ 320x240 or 4 min.'s @ 160x112. I do quite a bit of that myself.

Just another choice in the end.

I should get around & use it to send in photo into the album or 2. I've got one in my mind, but need someone to shoot it for me.

Well, I didn't think that was gonna happen!!!

Reply to RCPilot

Maybe <A HREF="http://orderofdraco.20megsfree.com/index.html" target="_new"> this </A> web site would give you an idea. It's our annual Tribes Clan Outing we go on every year. Under the players, Steve (AKA Skinny), is me. Matt, (AKA Mad Weasel), is my oldest son. All of the photos that begin with DSC were shot with my camera. The others were shot with another guys camera. I don't know what res. he was shooting at. I was using 1660 X 1200 Fine. Most of the movies were done on my camera. We go third weekend of every July.

WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!! WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
KIDDIES, DON'T LOOK AT MOVIE 2 OR YOU'LL BE MARRED FOR LIFE.

Edit. Make sure you have a pop up blocker going for that link.

Well, I didn't think that was gonna happen!!!Edited by rcpilot on 09/18/03 03:04 PM.

Reply to RCPilot

If you think you need a 5 megapixel camera to take good photos, you don't know jack.

I had a 1 megapixel high end camera, back when 2 megapixel was extreme, and it took great 8x5's. 2 megapixel cameras have such high resolution, most use 1 megapixel as default quality. The 2 megapixel size is good enough for nice 8.5x11 pictures.

The quality issues you've seen have nothing to do with megapixels, but rather camera settings, lack of them, or poor photographic technique.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

Reply to Crashman

I strongly disagree. When you do 1MP pics, you CAN see the low quality. MPixels do make a difference in how many pixels form the image and its details, but after 4MP, it's moot. The issue is resizing them afterwards to get sharpness. If you have at least seen albums comparing different Mpixel images, you'll easily see that 1 and 2MP is often cheap, with 1MP being utterly horrid. You can spot interpolation and lack of sharpness and detail. As I said, 3.2MP or 4MP at most is what any home user would need. Any more and it's a lame attempt at bragging about your MP amount. Hopefully Flame won't start saying "MY 5MP digicam", eh Auburn? *wink*

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>Edited by Eden on 09/19/03 02:58 PM.

Reply to eden

Quote :

The quality issues you've seen have nothing to do with megapixels, but rather camera settings, lack of them, or poor photographic technique.

If you think you can definitively tell someone the cause of poor images that you haven't even seen simply from a description like "it looks ok, but at other times isn't as good", you don't know jack. Don't forget to add bad glass to your list of possibles, though.

Reply to Auburn9698

Hopefully he'll get a D100, and send it to me for "testing."

That's what I hope.

Reply to Auburn9698

My HIGH END 1MP camera took great 8x5's if I didn't resize them. Of course blowing them up more would make the pics noticably pixelated.

My 2MP takes superb 8x5's and allows for some expansion from there, I could trim about 1/3 off the picture and blow it up to 8x5, it would still look good.

And here's something else shocking! I used standard paper (smooth document paper) for printing out my family photos, and once they were under glass noone knew!

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

Reply to Crashman

Sometimes good/sometimes not good would NOT indicate a problem with the lense to me. More like "in focus" or "out of focus" or improper light settings. You're starting to sound like the 1 Hour Photo guy talking about a small difference in the blue setting that nobody but him could see.

I'm not even going to go into the lingo, because this isn't a forum on professional photography and I judge my own photos by what "looks good".

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

Reply to Crashman

That can easily be affected by lens quality, depending. I mean, are the good ones smaller prints/resolutions than the bad ones where problems would show up more easily? We don't know. Flamethrower didn't say.

Not sure where the "1 Hour Photo Guy" talk comes from. I think I'm somewhat past that level.

My point was, flamethrower didn't give nearly enough info to be able to tell what is or is not the problem. He just said some were good and some weren't so good. Well, is he talking about prints or files on screen? How big? Is he even comparing them at the same size, with the same media, etc? We don't know. We know almost nothing about the photos he's talking about.

You sound like you think you're going to lose me with photography lingo, which is pretty funny. So it's not popphoto or phototalk or something...it's a camera thread, isn't it? This isn't a political forum or a sex forum or a sports forum, but we dive into that stuff just fine, don't we? You, included.

Sure, of course you judge your own photos by what "looks good". I'm just saying we don't have nearly enough info about the ones flame's talking about to judge those.

Edited by Auburn9698 on 09/19/03 04:27 PM.

Reply to Auburn9698

OK, I was just trying to steer clear of any overly technical discussions which would only serve to confuse people. I studied the issue of digital photography a lot before making my purchase, and I found that most of the stuff "experts" talk about is meaningless when it comes to cameras I could afford. So I went about looking at photo quality specifics and limitted myself to needed functions. One of the big things I wanted was a camera that could take rapid "grab shots", as my old camera couldn't. I ended up getting a Fuji 2600Z, which has more features than I actually have time to use, takes good grab shots at distances of ~6 feet or more (if it's closer I probably have time to focus), takes good close ups, etc. It came down to "looking for the least camera that could do what I wanted in the shortest period of time". I'm very happy with the 2600Z. I don't shoot posters, and don't expect people to grab a magnifying glass to look for pixelation on my 8x5s.

Anyway, I've only seen one "bad shot" from this camera, it was caused by someone (one of my kids) zooming in to close on a closeup and not focussing.

Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!
Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!

Reply to Crashman

Then again, you have to remember, Flamey supposedly has super-eyes that can see through Plasma TVs and into subpixels and detect things that make Plasma bad to him. One can't help but wonder if the great stuff is only "good" to him.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

See, that's not even that technical. Yeah, there's plenty of digitals out there with too much lag. I'm using a few-year-old gift Olympus, myself (don't even recall the model at the moment. Don't use it much), and using others' when I shoot digital, put almost always sticking with my 35mm Nikons for real shooting and a film scanner for my slides. But dang, I've used my dad's Olympus C550 and Nikon D100 and both are nice. I'm not buying a digital til I can afford a decent Nikon SLR digital (like the D100) so I can still use all my lenses. And at about $1500, that ain't happening right now, buying a house and all.

Was hoping the flamemeister would tell us more about what he wanted out of it, or what was wrong with the other pics (post em and give links, maybe?) Ya out there, flame?

Reply to Auburn9698

By all means go with the technical!

Auburn is a very knowledgeable photo guy. I mean, you've seen his Phototalk galleries, right?

We've spoken before over PM on picture grabbing techniques, and he definitely knows his thing. I could trust his advice over many.

So, with that said, bring it on if you want to!

My issue right now is I want to know what Flamey's got on his mind, and if he isn't being overly judging of image quality and thinking he will find a perfect camera. I used to think that way, but with Auburn's explanations, it got me to realize we're far from it. So that being said, Flamey needs to take pics, show them to us, lest he be over judging pics that are actually great on 2MP.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

Quote :

post em and give links, maybe?)

On second thought, he'll likely tell you he fears the places he shoots might give away where he lives and too much private information gets leaked.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

Quote :

Your right! I forgot about that! ROTFLMAO :lol:

Well, I didn't think that was gonna happen!!!

Reply to RCPilot

You were in that thread?

Hehe, I did find it pretty hilarious. I know Plasmas are still far from being perfected, with flaws like the screen imprinting when you turn off the TV. But damn, seeing through pixels?! :eek:
Flame IS one of a kind! Next thing you know he'll judge digicam pics by how far through he can see into his monitor!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

Ntohing less than a 5.5 MP for him. I just can't see it.

Well, I didn't think that was gonna happen!!!

Reply to RCPilot

If you could pick between a 3MP camera and a 5MP camera and money wasn't an option...which would you pick?

_________________________________________
<A HREF="http://skulls.sytes.net/tom/" target="_new">12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</A>

Reply to dhlucke

It would all rest on features in that case, my good friend DH.

For example, if there is no camera containing as many features and technology as the A70, better not go for 5MP, you'd be missing on so much, just because you wanted to show off with the amount. Besides, you'll have to shell out so much for 512MBs which will be essential at 5MPix sizes, if you take max size pics and then resize them for sharpness.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

512MBs costs a hundred dollars. Not exactly a big issue for someone buying a 5MP camera.

But assuming they have the same features I think we can both agree that getting a 5MP camera would kick ass.

_________________________________________
<A HREF="http://skulls.sytes.net/tom/" target="_new">12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</A>

Reply to dhlucke

I realized that may be an obstacle. Can't blame a man for tryin' though, can ya?

Reply to Auburn9698

I know, but nonetheless, 5MP takes space, and if the feature is not equal if not better, it's not worth it. You might as well just start going for SLR, which I wonder why Flame's wealth won't buy him such.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

Quote :

You might as well just start going for SLR

ChA-Ching! Only way ta go for me, my brotha.

Reply to Auburn9698

Yeah, that's true.

_________________________________________
<A HREF="http://skulls.sytes.net/tom/" target="_new">12 bit... The way games are meant to be played!</A>

Reply to dhlucke

Don't be too hard on the flamemiester, though. He's gotta get that bigass-trunk Mercedes ragtop, after all.

Reply to Auburn9698

Actually, beginning to lean towards the S2000, kinda on the impression that fvck it, get the car that looks more pleasing. Gah!! Lol.

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"

Reply to Flamethrower205

True, true. I hope his camera will fit in the trunk, he may need to go one step higher into class cars.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

Quote :

ChA-Ching! Only way ta go for me, my brotha.

While I know what SLR stands for and how great the image quality is, could you explain briefly just what seperates it from standard lens cameras? Just what does Single Lens Reflex do?

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

BTW, I wasn't seeing thru the pixels, I said the subpixels were noticeable.

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"

Reply to Flamethrower205

And leave behind your hiking equipment, NEVAH!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

Mmmm, my bag and 3 nalgenes are a must, you have a good point. Well, no girlfriend then,she stays behind :cool:

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"

Reply to Flamethrower205

With the fact you create a stink zone with your arse problems, there probably will never be one in your car.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

With an SLR, what you see is precisely what you get, regardless of what lens you are using, etc. What you see through the viewfinder is what your camera sees, which is frequently a little bit different for a point-and-shoot. They provide for the use of a wide variety of interchangeable lenses and other equipment. You can get the utmost in image quality with them, through everything from a cheap mirror lens to a $10,000 high-speed telephoto lens. And beyond. They give you a lot more flexibility and control over your images than your average point-and-shoot film or low/midgrade digital.

Reply to Auburn9698

O, explain me this:
Today I had one of those headaches u get from not enough sleep (u know the ones where ur head feels like it gonna explode). Anyway, I went into the shower and farted 3 times- the 2nd one was one of those freaky ass rippers. My headache went down substantially. Hmmmmm.

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"

Reply to Flamethrower205

Quote :

With the fact you create a stink zone with your arse problems, there probably will never be one in your car.

HAHAHA! Poor buttboy. Err, I mean, flamethrower.

Reply to Auburn9698

You laugh at the least funny crap from me, that means you were drunk right now!

:smile:

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

Flame, with all due respect, I SERIOUSLY do not need to know such details.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

Oops, I think I just made Eden hard cause now he's thinking of me in the shower.

(awaits comeback)

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"

Reply to Flamethrower205

No, not me. Never.

Reply to Auburn9698

Damn, with the hairy stuff in the image, that is just BAAAAD karma.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new">Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</A>

Reply to eden

No doubt about, SLR's are sweet, but I got rid of all mine & went digital. I had a Canon A1 body with 3 lenses & all the goodies to go with it. I also had my own color darkroom that I printed up to 11 x 14's in. I used to shoot a lot of weddings & do the prints for quite awhile. Good money in that, but I got tired of the same poses & dinners. Lets face it, seen one wedding, you've pretty much seen them all.

This Sony I have was the top of the line when I got it & has the Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar lens. I also have a wide angle lens & a zoom for it. It has all the capabilities that my A1 had. I feel with PhotoShop 7.0 & my Sony, I have the same capabilities that had with my other setup & it's so much easier to do.

However, don't get me wrong, I'm don't have a thing against SLR's or your plan to go digital. I'm just telling you my decisions.

As far a lag with digitalis, I've got photos of sleds jumping & they are totally stopped. Can't even see the track moving. All of those are of my son & friend. They can't seen to get it right to catch me like that, or I'm just to fast for them. :lol: It will stop action just like a SLR. It's the photographic technique that you use. How I do it is the same as with a SLR. Meter on the spot where the action will take place & lock the exposure. Now just click it when the action occurs or pan along with it. I used to spot meter a lot with my SLR, so I just continued doing it on a digital.

Any who, I do like my digital & wouldn't be bothered again with the hassles of a SLR anymore. I hated waiting for the film to come back from the lab. I like the instant gratification of a digital. I shoot so many more photos with the digital than I ever did with film.

Well, I didn't think that was gonna happen!!!

Reply to RCPilot

1 2

Ask the community Add a reply

Tom's Hardware > Forum > Old Man/Woman's Club > Other > 5 Megapixel cameras

Go to:

Help |
Forum rules

There are 731 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Related content

See all content related to "megapixel cameras"

Page generated in 0.400 seconds

Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel

Become a fan

5 Megapixel cameras

Forum Old Man/Woman's Club : Other - 5 Megapixel cameras

Please mind