|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Straightforward and helpful (Reply to this comment)
by Dwarf
I found this very helpful. My first digital camera purchase was a flop, and I wanted to do my research this time before starting to look. I found the parts on pixels especially helpful.
|
Dec 31 '01
3:15 pm PST
|
|
good links (Reply to this comment)
by vice
thanks
|
Jun 17 '01
2:47 am PDT
|
|
Thanks (Reply to this comment)
by WNolff
Thanks for the great advice. I've been holding off on buying a digital camera but now after reading your review I feel more confident. Thanks
Wendy
|
May 23 '01
5:21 am PDT
|
|
TRADITION...TRADITION! Insert Fiddler on the Roof Music here. (Reply to this comment)
by mcrodgers2
"it is not like an image taken with a traditional camera....Does this really matter? It does if you're a traditionalist like myself!"
AMEN brother! Praise the Lowward!
I've avoided the trend in owning a Digital Camera so far for two reasons:
1) The cost!
2) The quality compared to traditional silver halide emulsions.
I'm a traditionalist too.
Kodachrome...give me the nice bright colors...make me think all the world's a sunny day, yeah yeah! ;-)
Thing is…I know one fine day, I'll breakdown and but a digital camera...so long as it's cost to utility ratio is maximized. Okay...It's gotta be cheap! LOL
I don't think I'll ever dispense with my trusty Ole Minolta X-370 with it UTTER lack of automatic features, Low tech thru the lens NON-LCD viewer and its INTERCHANGABLE Tamron SP lenses.
"Why don't you get a camera made THIS century Grandpa!" :-)
|
May 09 '01
6:37 am PDT
|
|
great points! (Reply to this comment)
by pipet
When we first started shopping for a digital camera, I was stuck in the "mega-pixel" trap for a while. Then, I started checking out how much the smart media or compact flash cards would cost if I wanted to be able to take a couple of rolls of film... Needless to say that convinced me to go a cheaper route and I opted for a 1 mega-pixel camera when 2 mega-pixels were available. I haven't regretted my decision even once!
pipet
|
May 03 '01
8:09 pm PDT
|
|
Hi There! (Reply to this comment)
by pepsipipe
Your experiences with cameras made for a very interesting and helpful review. I shall read more of your fine work.
~Julie~
|
Apr 26 '01
10:24 pm PDT
|
|
Re: hmm (Reply to this comment)
by rpllingrock
I'm sorry for the confusion. What I meant by degradation is, the resolution that is lost when scanning an image from a photograph, not that the act of scanning degrades the actual photograph. My point was that an image taken with a digital camera (and saved to disk)will most likely be sharper than any scanned photograph.
|
Apr 24 '01
12:38 pm PDT
|
|
hmm (Reply to this comment)
by jankp
Email me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that scanning a picture degrades it and should instead be duplicated from the start onto a disk? I hope that doesn't make you laugh...
Jan
|
Apr 24 '01
11:48 am PDT
|
|
very... (Reply to this comment)
by gwsmith
informative. I have been holding off on a dig camera due to a lack of knowledge about them. this helps. thanks
geoff
|
Apr 23 '01
6:30 pm PDT
|
|
such an informative review (Reply to this comment)
by ifif1938
I printed it up to take with me when the time comes to shop for a digital camera,
Thanks
:)
Barbara
|
Apr 23 '01
7:24 am PDT
|
|
Really Great Review (Reply to this comment)
by lfakh
Thanks! Louisa
|
Apr 21 '01
12:49 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Excellent+Review (Reply to this comment)
by rpllingrock
It is an effective and inexpensive way to store images verses flashcards. The only problem I've seen was the need to continuously replace the disks when taking many successive shots, sometimes missing the "shot of a lifetime" in the process.
Michael
|
Apr 18 '01
5:57 pm PDT
|
|
Excellent Review (Reply to this comment)
by diverpam
I love the ability to pop disks in and out of my Sony. Pam
|
Apr 18 '01
5:50 pm PDT
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.