THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM PRACTICAL PHOTOGRAPHY FORUM


Moderators: Pete E, Saeed
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Digital cameras for thickies ??
 Login/Join
 
one of us
posted
Im looking to get a digital camera ! And know "nowt" about them ! [Confused] Price wise im looking up to a Canon A300 or Sony dscp52 both 3.2 mp

I have borrowed a 1.3 mp camera before and a 3.2 mp the 1.3 e-mail quickly while the 3.2mp took ages !

Also when i opened a 1.3 it nicly filled my screen while the 3.2 was over sized, can i edit them to better fill the screen ??

I will be e-mailing photos to family abroad im i better going for 1.3 ? 2m.1 ? 3.2 ?

As you can probably tell this is pretty new stuff to me [Eek!]

Any and all advice most welcome ! [Smile]

Englander
 
Posts: 193 | Location: Scotland | Registered: 04 August 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of Deerdogs
posted Hide Post
I have the Sony. It is excellent.
 
Posts: 1978 | Location: UK and UAE | Registered: 19 March 2001Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of RSEK
posted Hide Post
I think you may need to get some local advice, or a basic digital photo book/owners manual on how to reduce the size of photo for emailing purposes and also as a screen saver. You likely will get some sort of photo editing software with any new camera and it will be capable of doing the jobs that you mention.

I think you will regret not getting the higher megapixel camera.
 
Posts: 308 | Location: In transit | Registered: 10 April 2002Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
I recently bought a new computor , a Sony,so to minimize problems I bought a Sony P72 (3.2).My first digital.But then I found I needed to crop etc and the Adobe Photoshop already in the computor worked well. I like that program because good instruction are in the in the program, you don't have to read a book. You can make the camera/photo program as simple or as complex as you want . Have fun.
 
Posts: 7636 | Registered: 10 October 2002Reply With Quote
Administrator
posted Hide Post
Englander,

By the sound of it, you are using a dial up internet connection.

If you can upgrade your connection to broadband, like an ADSL, you will find that your internet surfing will be MUCH faster.

Now to the digital cameras.

It really all boils down to how much you wish to spend.

I will give you a few links here on sites that review digital cameras. I suggest you read some of the reviews, which might help you decide which one is more suitable for you.

All cameras come with software that can be used to edit the photoes, including reducing thier size for email. I suggest you do not email photos that are larger than 640x480. This is a good size for viewing on the computer.

Digital camera resources

DP review

Steve's digicams

I hope this helps.
 
Posts: 69268 | Location: Dubai, UAE | Registered: 08 January 1998Reply With Quote
<mike elmer>
posted
Hello Englander,

Your issue with Camera Pixels compared to photo size is easily remedied.

I take my picture on the highest resolution, and down load it onto my 'puter. I then get into the "enhancement" part of the program, I make it show the picture in actual size (which usually fills the screen beyond belief), I find the "resize button" and shrink the pic till it fits my screen or slightly smaller. I then do any other enhancements I want, and click on "save as...". This allows me to ad a letter or number to the original file number, and doesn't replace the Original. This way I have numerous versions of the same pic for sharing, while keeping the original till I am satisfied that I don't need it anymore.

The functions may very from soft ware to soft ware, but you should be able to basically do what i have described with any software you use.

I hope this helps.
 
Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
I have a Canon S45 -- 4 megapixels and easy to use.

However, the number of megapixels only affects your potential image size. For pictures on forums or e-mailing you don't get much out of images bigger than the size of the screen, and dial-up recipients don't like getting big attachments either.

I shoot mostly on the "medium 2" (768 x 1024) and normal quality, and still reduce image size by about half to get them around 100K.

Given where you're from -- here's a sample:

 -
 
Posts: 1246 | Location: Northern Virginia, USA | Registered: 02 June 2001Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata  
 


Copyright December 1997-2023 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia