what 4 megapixel camera to get

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jon, Aug 5, 2003.

  1. Jon

    Jon Guest

    I am looking at getting a 4 mega pixel camera, and have been looking at the
    Nikon 4300 and the Canon G2. I have also considered other brands, but I'm
    not sure, because I have read an heard so many different things.
    My finace is into photography and she will be shooting pictures for a local
    travelers guide. The guy in charge of printing these guides wants it to be
    on a digital camera.
    She would like some advance features, but image quality is probably the
    most important thing.(Price is also important to me) :)
    Please let me know what you think, or if I need to provide more info.
    Thanks,

    Jon
     
    Jon, Aug 5, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jon

    Paul H. Guest

    "Jon" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns93CE6610356AAjjohnson11281hotmail@209.98.13.60...
    > I am looking at getting a 4 mega pixel camera, and have been looking at

    the
    > Nikon 4300 and the Canon G2. I have also considered other brands, but I'm
    > not sure, because I have read an heard so many different things.
    > My finace is into photography and she will be shooting pictures for a

    local
    > travelers guide. The guy in charge of printing these guides wants it to be
    > on a digital camera.
    > She would like some advance features, but image quality is probably the
    > most important thing.(Price is also important to me) :)
    > Please let me know what you think, or if I need to provide more info.
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Jon


    Even though it's not cheap, I'd certainly consider getting an Olympus E10,
    particularly if your beloved is an experienced SLR-using photographer
    working semi-professionally. As always, check www.steves-digicams.com ,
    www.dpreview.com , et al., for sample photos and reviews before making any
    purchase. However...

    If the travelers' guide producer is only getting picture files, how would he
    know if he was receiving images scanned from film or files created by a
    digital camera? Yeah, I know--he could look at the EXIF data, but that's not
    the point.

    No, I'm not one of those film-is-better-than-digital people, just the
    opposite in fact, but there's more than one way to skin a cat. In my area,
    Fry's Electronics recently had a sale in which a refurbished Epson scanner,
    the "Perfection 1650 Photo" sold for a mere $49.00. This scanner can scan
    35mm slides and film at 1600dpi--roughly equivalent to pictures produced by
    a 3.3 mp camera-- and while it's slow, it does a creditable job. Toss in a
    fairly good 35mm camera for a couple of hundred dollars and you're ready to
    start producing digital pictures. Or, if you fiance already has a good 35mm
    camera, she could get the Perfection 2400 scanner for less than $200 which
    would produce 6 mp-equivalent pictures.

    If money is *really* tight, there are less expensive ways to get digital
    photos without purchasing a multi-mp digital camera. I'm just sayin'...


    Disclaimer: I don't work for Epson, but I've used the scanners mentioned
    above and have seen results first-hand. They certainly don't generate
    output nearly as good as that produced by a drum scanner and they are
    S-L-O-W, but they do alright, nevertheless.

    And please don't flame me because I still occasionally use film >>gasp!<<
    It's already tough enough having one foot on the film dock and the other on
    the digital camera boat, as the latter moves out to sea.
     
    Paul H., Aug 5, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jon

    Twisterbret Guest

    I have hundreds of samples from the 4300. I'm really happy with the
    camera.
    I'm your normal picture taking person so don't judge the camera on my
    pictures alone.

    Twisterbret

    www.coasterreview.com/twister
     
    Twisterbret, Aug 5, 2003
    #3
  4. Jon

    Jacob Guest

    "Jon" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns93CE6610356AAjjohnson11281hotmail@209.98.13.60...
    > I am looking at getting a 4 mega pixel camera, and have been looking at

    the
    > Nikon 4300 and the Canon G2. I have also considered other brands, but I'm
    > not sure, because I have read an heard so many different things.
    > My finace is into photography and she will be shooting pictures for a

    local
    > travelers guide. The guy in charge of printing these guides wants it to be
    > on a digital camera.
    > She would like some advance features, but image quality is probably the
    > most important thing.(Price is also important to me) :)
    > Please let me know what you think, or if I need to provide more info.


    Another alternative is the Nikon Coolpix 4500. Image qualiti is the same as
    for the 4300 but you get better macro abilities and you get the swivel lens
    that will enable you to take pictures from angles that would otherwise be
    impossible.
    If you are going to be doing a lot of low light indoor shooting the G2 will
    be a better choice.

    Jacob
    http://www.jacobleedgaard.com
     
    Jacob, Aug 5, 2003
    #4
  5. Jon wrote:

    > I am looking at getting a 4 mega pixel camera, and have been looking at the
    > Nikon 4300 and the Canon G2.


    Might as well consider the G3, as it is greatly improved over the G2, and is
    already being replaced by the G5 so it just dropped $100 in price.
     
    Jon Wordsworth, Aug 5, 2003
    #5
  6. > If you are going to be doing a lot of low light indoor shooting the G2 will
    > be a better choice.


    I have been researching the same cameras, and instead of the G2, I would only
    consider the G3 when doing the comparisons with the other brands in this list.
    I already determined that the G3 fixed a lot of things that the G2 didn't have,
    but don't see any real big changed over the G5 from the G3 other than the color
    of the camera and that it has 5 megapixels.

    I also read several digital photo magazines where 2 megapixel Canons took better
    pictures than two 3 megapixel cameras from other brands, so it seems Canon can
    do more with the megapixels than other companies can, so far in my research.
    I also think the G5 is just an attempt to get a camera with 5 megapixels out for
    those choosing over 5 megapixel cameras, since they did not really do anything
    else to the camera.

    With the G2 to the G3, there are a lot of changes and improvements, and I would
    not even consider the G2 anymore, but not enough improvements for me to want the
    G5 over the G3.

    With the G2, some things require going through menus to change, where on the G3
    there are direct access buttons on the camera to quickly do them. They also
    have some new technology that makes the same 4 megapixel resolution better in
    the G3 over the G2.

    This is just what I have figured out as I was comparing all of the other cameras
    like the Nikon and such too. Several magazines compared specs on all the other
    brands I was interested in, and the G3 always seemed to have more options or
    range that whatever I compare it to, unless I want to jump up to an SLR.

    So far I am gearing towards the G3, but am still willing to hear other arguments
    myself, now, before I go ahead and make the final decision.
     
    Jon Wordsworth, Aug 5, 2003
    #6
  7. Jon wrote:
    > I am looking at getting a 4 mega pixel camera, and have been looking at the
    > Nikon 4300 and the Canon G2. I have also considered other brands, but I'm
    > not sure, because I have read an heard so many different things.
    > My finace is into photography and she will be shooting pictures for a local
    > travelers guide. The guy in charge of printing these guides wants it to be
    > on a digital camera.
    > She would like some advance features, but image quality is probably the
    > most important thing.(Price is also important to me) :)
    > Please let me know what you think, or if I need to provide more info.
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Jon


    I am a new owner of a Olympus C4000Z. So far I love it. No real disappointments yet.

    Phil
     
    Philip Walden, Aug 6, 2003
    #7
  8. Jon

    Jon Guest

    Philip Walden <> wrote in
    news::



    Thanks eveyone for the info.
    Still debateing the $'s. We are getting married in a month, and money might
    be an issue.
    -Jon
     
    Jon, Aug 7, 2003
    #8
  9. Jon

    Guest

    Jon Wordsworth <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > I also read several digital photo magazines where 2 megapixel Canons took better
    > pictures than two 3 megapixel cameras from other brands, so it seems Canon can
    > do more with the megapixels than other companies can


    No. An average 3MP camera will produce better resolution than the best
    2MP camera. If you are talking about other things, e.g., color, then
    of course it is not related to resolution. An 1MP camera may produce
    better color than a 10MP camera, but that does not mean the 1MP camera
    is better in every way than the 10MP camera.

    > This is just what I have figured out as I was comparing all of the other cameras
    > like the Nikon and such too. Several magazines compared specs on all the other
    > brands I was interested in, and the G3 always seemed to have more options or
    > range that whatever I compare it to


    G3 is not bad, but it is not the best in every way.

    G3 does not have the largest aperture.
    http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#aperture

    G3 does not have the highest sensitivity.
    http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#senshi

    G3 does not have the longest telephoto.
    http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#tele

    G3 does not have the widest wide angle.
    http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#wide

    ....
     
    , Aug 7, 2003
    #9
  10. > > I also read several digital photo magazines where 2 megapixel Canons took better
    > > pictures than two 3 megapixel cameras from other brands, so it seems Canon can
    > > do more with the megapixels than other companies can

    >
    > No. An average 3MP camera will produce better resolution than the best
    > 2MP camera.


    The photo comparisons and reviews show otherwise. You can't tell the difference between resolution
    unless you zoom in to see the pixels, but the quality of the picture is what you see.

    > If you are talking about other things, e.g., color, then
    > of course it is not related to resolution.


    I didn't ever mention resolution.

    > > This is just what I have figured out as I was comparing all of the other cameras
    > > like the Nikon and such too. Several magazines compared specs on all the other
    > > brands I was interested in, and the G3 always seemed to have more options or
    > > range that whatever I compare it to

    >
    > G3 is not bad, but it is not the best in every way.


    For under $1000 it is. Sure you can get an SLR that is better.
     
    Jon Wordsworth, Aug 8, 2003
    #10
  11. > Still debateing the $'s. We are getting married in a month, and money might
    > be an issue.


    Then don't get married and use the money on things like a camera that you will
    have for years, rather than throwing away on bad expensive food and a dress
    that will only be worn once.

    People who trust each other enough don't need a contract or document to keep
    them together. Plus with the money you save on the marriage penalty tax, you
    can buy a new camera every year.
     
    Jon Wordsworth, Aug 8, 2003
    #11
  12. Jon

    JK Guest

    Jon Wordsworth wrote:

    > > > I also read several digital photo magazines where 2 megapixel Canons took better
    > > > pictures than two 3 megapixel cameras from other brands, so it seems Canon can
    > > > do more with the megapixels than other companies can

    > >
    > > No. An average 3MP camera will produce better resolution than the best
    > > 2MP camera.

    >
    > The photo comparisons and reviews show otherwise. You can't tell the difference between resolution
    > unless you zoom in to see the pixels, but the quality of the picture is what you see.
    >
    > > If you are talking about other things, e.g., color, then
    > > of course it is not related to resolution.

    >
    > I didn't ever mention resolution.
    >
    > > > This is just what I have figured out as I was comparing all of the other cameras
    > > > like the Nikon and such too. Several magazines compared specs on all the other
    > > > brands I was interested in, and the G3 always seemed to have more options or
    > > > range that whatever I compare it to

    > >
    > > G3 is not bad, but it is not the best in every way.

    >
    > For under $1000 it is. Sure you can get an SLR that is better.


    You are forgetting about the Olympus C5050 and Sony F717. The
    G3 isn't bad though, but the proprietary battery and being only 4
    megapixels are rather annoying. The macro ability of the G3
    seems to be no where near the C5050. I like the flexibility of
    the G3's display, although I do wonder how sturdy it is and how
    well it holds up with rugged use? The f717 has a proprietary battery,
    uses expensive memory sticks, and is rather bulky. The perfect digital
    camera doesn't exist.
     
    JK, Aug 8, 2003
    #12
  13. Jon

    JK Guest

    Jon wrote:

    > I am looking at getting a 4 mega pixel camera, and have been looking at the
    > Nikon 4300


    UGH! The Nikon digital cameras tend to have lenses that let relatively
    little light in at the telephoto end. The lens on the CP4300 is
    f2.8-4.9. You should look for a camera with a lens that is f2.8 or faster
    (smaller f number) throughout its entire range. The G3 comes close,
    as the lens is f3 at max telephoto.

    > and the Canon G2.


    Why not the G3?

    > I have also considered other brands, but I'm
    > not sure, because I have read an heard so many different things.
    > My finace is into photography and she will be shooting pictures for a local
    > travelers guide. The guy in charge of printing


    For printed matter, choose the highest resolution you can afford.
    I suggest you go for the 5 megapixel Olympus C5050. You can
    get if for around $550 or so.

    > these guides wants it to be
    > on a digital camera.
    > She would like some advance features, but image quality is probably the
    > most important thing.(Price is also important to me) :)
    > Please let me know what you think, or if I need to provide more info.
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Jon
     
    JK, Aug 8, 2003
    #13
  14. Jon

    Jon Guest

    I am probably gonna get a G3, have only read good about them.
    Does anyone have a favorite place to get them. Website, store, etc...

    Thanks again,

    Jon




    JK <> wrote in news::

    >
    >
    > Jon wrote:
    >
    >> I am looking at getting a 4 mega pixel camera, and have been looking
    >> at the Nikon 4300

    >
    > UGH! The Nikon digital cameras tend to have lenses that let relatively
    > little light in at the telephoto end. The lens on the CP4300 is
    > f2.8-4.9. You should look for a camera with a lens that is f2.8 or
    > faster (smaller f number) throughout its entire range. The G3 comes
    > close, as the lens is f3 at max telephoto.
    >
    >> and the Canon G2.

    >
    > Why not the G3?
    >
    >> I have also considered other brands, but I'm
    >> not sure, because I have read an heard so many different things.
    >> My finace is into photography and she will be shooting pictures for a
    >> local travelers guide. The guy in charge of printing

    >
    > For printed matter, choose the highest resolution you can afford.
    > I suggest you go for the 5 megapixel Olympus C5050. You can
    > get if for around $550 or so.
    >
    >> these guides wants it to be
    >> on a digital camera.
    >> She would like some advance features, but image quality is probably
    >> the most important thing.(Price is also important to me) :)
    >> Please let me know what you think, or if I need to provide more info.
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >> Jon

    >
     
    Jon, Aug 8, 2003
    #14
  15. "Jon" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns93D162691DB53jjohnson11281hotmail@209.98.13.60...
    > I am probably gonna get a G3, have only read good about them.
    > Does anyone have a favorite place to get them. Website, store, etc...
    >
    > Thanks again,
    >
    > Jon



    www.buydig.com
     
    Digicam zealot, Aug 8, 2003
    #15
  16. > > I am looking at getting a 4 mega pixel camera, and have been looking at the
    > > Nikon 4300

    >
    > UGH! The Nikon digital cameras tend to have lenses that let relatively
    > little light in at the telephoto end. The lens on the CP4300 is
    > f2.8-4.9. You should look for a camera with a lens that is f2.8 or faster
    > (smaller f number) throughout its entire range. The G3 comes close,
    > as the lens is f3 at max telephoto.


    I see it listed as being at f2 - f3 from this spec sheet:
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong3/

    > > and the Canon G2.


    f2 - f2.5 (same link above)

    > Why not the G3?


    Yes, the differences between the G2 and G3 should not have anyone getting the G2
    unless they got it before the G3 came out or can get a really good deal on it.
    The differences between the G3 and G5 are not as drastic as from the G2 to G3.

    > For printed matter, choose the highest resolution you can afford.
    > I suggest you go for the 5 megapixel Olympus C5050. You can
    > get if for around $550 or so.


    Not much difference from 4 to 5 megapixel as it would be from 2 to 3. For even
    8x10 prints, 4 is plenty.
     
    Jon Wordsworth, Aug 8, 2003
    #16
  17. Jon

    JK Guest

    Jon Wordsworth wrote:

    > > > I am looking at getting a 4 mega pixel camera, and have been looking at the
    > > > Nikon 4300

    > >
    > > UGH! The Nikon digital cameras tend to have lenses that let relatively
    > > little light in at the telephoto end. The lens on the CP4300 is
    > > f2.8-4.9. You should look for a camera with a lens that is f2.8 or faster
    > > (smaller f number) throughout its entire range. The G3 comes close,
    > > as the lens is f3 at max telephoto.

    >
    > I see it listed as being at f2 - f3 from this spec sheet:
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong3/


    I said f3 at the telephoto end.

    >
    >
    > > > and the Canon G2.

    >
    > f2 - f2.5 (same link above)
    >
    > > Why not the G3?

    >
    > Yes, the differences between the G2 and G3 should not have anyone getting the G2
    > unless they got it before the G3 came out or can get a really good deal on it.
    > The differences between the G3 and G5 are not as drastic as from the G2 to G3.
    >
    > > For printed matter, choose the highest resolution you can afford.
    > > I suggest you go for the 5 megapixel Olympus C5050. You can
    > > get if for around $550 or so.

    >
    > Not much difference from 4 to 5 megapixel as it would be from 2 to 3. For even
    > 8x10 prints, 4 is plenty.


    Not really. Sometimes images need to be cropped.
     
    JK, Aug 8, 2003
    #17
  18. Jon

    JK Guest

    Jon Wordsworth wrote:

    > > > > G3 is not bad, but it is not the best in every way.
    > > >
    > > > For under $1000 it is. Sure you can get an SLR that is better.

    > >
    > > You are forgetting about the Olympus C5050 and Sony F717.

    >
    > G3 5050 F717
    > ISO 50 - 400 100 - 400 100 - 400
    > Shutter speed 1/2000 - 15sec! 1/1000 - 1sec 1/2000 - 8sec.
    > Video 30 seconds w/audio not listed in my mag, but I beleive they were less
    >
    > No I considered everything available. Compare the specs on those two against the wider ranges you get
    > with the G3 for each adjustment.


    Most people don't use the video option. The G3 is only 4 megapixels though.
    The C5050 has an ISO 64 mode.You forgot the most important detail, which
    is that the C5050 use inexpensivenimh AA batteries. One can buy spare sets
    for under $10. The g3 also doesn't have the macro capabilities of the C5050.

    > Pick up a buyers guide and compare each camera below $1200 with the G3
    > where the spec of all the cameras are listed in a chart. Whenever one is better, it is an SLR.
    >
    > > The
    > > G3 isn't bad though, but the proprietary battery and being only 4
    > > megapixels are rather annoying.

    >
    > But it takes pictures better than many other 5 megapixel cameras, so don't even worry about this.
    > Several people have mentioned that the G5 with 5 megapixels really was not much different in quality and
    > not worth the extra investment. But if that is important to you, get the G5 it is the G3 with 5
    > megapixels.
    >
    > > The macro ability of the G3
    > > seems to be no where near the C5050.

    >
    > I know I checked this out but I already forgot the deal on this. I am not positive between these two
    > which is better on that at the moment.
    >
    > > I like the flexibility of
    > > the G3's display, although I do wonder how sturdy it is and how
    > > well it holds up with rugged use?

    >
    > Easy. Just don't use it ruggedly, take care of it. Since other displays don't come out, you don't have
    > to take this one out all the time either and then that is not a problem. Take it out only on the few
    > times you can't get a shot without doing so, that is what I am going to do. The less you move and twist
    > it around the better, as common sense would dictate. I will only remove it on the rare occasion I need
    > to take a photo of myself using the remote control the other cameras don't have either. You can zoom in
    > and out with the remote while framing yourself in the screen that you can see from the front of the
    > cameras if you so adjust it.
    >
    > > The f717 has a proprietary battery,
    > > uses expensive memory sticks, and is rather bulky.

    >
    > The G3 battery lasts longer than all the other competition.
    >
    > > The perfect digital
    > > camera doesn't exist.

    >
    > That is for sure! I would ask the G3 to have at least 12x optical zoom, and real physical manual focus
    > and zoom rings.
    >
    > We are stuck with the crap the companies provide for us designed for the mall rats and losers that
    > actually have the time to talk to survey takers and telemarketers to tell companies what the rest of us
    > want in products.
    >
    > But of all the crap and low power zoom cameras, I find this to be the best of the bunch in the under $1200
    > price range.
    >
    > When the new cameras come out, this may change. This is only for what I find available and reviewed with
    > specs and picture quality right now.
    >
    > That new Fuji someone mentioned that will be out around October is only around $700 and the specs are much
    > better than the G3, but no one has been able to review or show actual picture quality yet, and how does
    > the camera operate and feel? Like a plastic toy, or solidly built? Even though this MAY be better, I
    > don't even want to consider it until it has been fully reviewed by several different people first, I don't
    > want to go on the great advertised specs alone.
    >
    > How do others feel about Fuji cameras in general? I don't hear anyone mention Fuji digital cameras at
    > all and would like to know how others feel about what they have come out with so far.
     
    JK, Aug 8, 2003
    #18
  19. Jon

    Guest

    Jon Wordsworth <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > > > I also read several digital photo magazines where 2 megapixel Canons took better
    > > > pictures than two 3 megapixel cameras from other brands, so it seems Canon can
    > > > do more with the megapixels than other companies can

    > >
    > > No. An average 3MP camera will produce better resolution than the best
    > > 2MP camera.

    >
    > The photo comparisons and reviews show otherwise.


    Show me a review where a 2MP has better resolution than Fuji S602,
    Minolta 5, Nikon 990, Olympus 3040, ...

    > > > This is just what I have figured out as I was comparing all of the other cameras
    > > > like the Nikon and such too. Several magazines compared specs on all the other
    > > > brands I was interested in, and the G3 always seemed to have more options or
    > > > range that whatever I compare it to

    > >
    > > G3 is not bad, but it is not the best in every way.

    >
    > For under $1000 it is. Sure you can get an SLR that is better.


    The following under $1000 cameras does something better than G3:
    Fuji S7000
    Minolta 7Hi
    Nikon 4500
    Nikon 5000
    Nikon 5700
    Olympus C-5050
    Olympus C-750
    Olympus E-10
    Sony CD500
    Sony F717
    Sony S85
    Sony V1

    For details, see:
    http://digitcamera.tripod.com/
     
    , Aug 8, 2003
    #19
  20. Jon

    Jon Guest

    The more is posted the more it is getting to be like my findings on
    websites. It goes to show that there is not 1 clear choice, but many
    with different advantages.
    What I am looking for is a camera that is $600 or less, and can offer me
    many nice features, good battery life, and most importantly nice
    pictures. It is a tuff choice, and I have a feeling that I probably
    couldn't tell the difference between many of them.
    And yes again thanks for all the valueable info, and it good that there
    are all these differnet companies to provide the cameras for each
    person's certain niche. It just makes it confusing for us average Joe's
    to decide on what we want.
    This morning I was gonna still get the Nikon 4300, then I read some
    posts, and relized that the G3 was for us, then an hour later I thought
    "HEY that Olmpus C-5050 might be the way to go". But now I am back to
    the G3. And I think that is what I am sticking with (until I read
    another post or article,and someone tells me different).
    Thanks,
    -Jon




    wrote in
    news::

    > Jon Wordsworth <> wrote in message
    > news:<>...
    >> > > I also read several digital photo magazines where 2 megapixel
    >> > > Canons took better pictures than two 3 megapixel cameras from
    >> > > other brands, so it seems Canon can do more with the megapixels
    >> > > than other companies can
    >> >
    >> > No. An average 3MP camera will produce better resolution than the
    >> > best 2MP camera.

    >>
    >> The photo comparisons and reviews show otherwise.

    >
    > Show me a review where a 2MP has better resolution than Fuji S602,
    > Minolta 5, Nikon 990, Olympus 3040, ...
    >
    >> > > This is just what I have figured out as I was comparing all of
    >> > > the other cameras like the Nikon and such too. Several
    >> > > magazines compared specs on all the other brands I was interested
    >> > > in, and the G3 always seemed to have more options or range that
    >> > > whatever I compare it to
    >> >
    >> > G3 is not bad, but it is not the best in every way.

    >>
    >> For under $1000 it is. Sure you can get an SLR that is better.

    >
    > The following under $1000 cameras does something better than G3:
    > Fuji S7000
    > Minolta 7Hi
    > Nikon 4500
    > Nikon 5000
    > Nikon 5700
    > Olympus C-5050
    > Olympus C-750
    > Olympus E-10
    > Sony CD500
    > Sony F717
    > Sony S85
    > Sony V1
    >
    > For details, see:
    > http://digitcamera.tripod.com/
     
    Jon, Aug 8, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nicole Carbonara
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    983
    Nicole Carbonara
    Jul 11, 2003
  2. Peter
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    439
    Peter
    Jul 19, 2003
  3. Brian C. Baird

    The Human Eye: 120 Megapixel Monochrome, 6 Megapixel Color

    Brian C. Baird, Jun 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    4,188
    Dave Haynie
    Jun 17, 2004
  4. Mark

    5 Megapixel VS. 4 Megapixel camera

    Mark, Mar 8, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    680
    Paul H.
    Mar 9, 2005
  5. Vik Rubenfeld

    URL for 4 megapixel vs. 7 megapixel Comparison Shots?

    Vik Rubenfeld, Sep 26, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    439
    Vik Rubenfeld
    Sep 26, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page