for websites 2.0 is more than adequate, its far superior to Push-here
dummy style snapshot cameras, although not as good as a quality SLR.
But, if i was buying a NEW camera 3-4 MP is the minimum I would go, its
so cheap to start there you get a lot more for your money.
heres a 4 MP (canon i think?)
http://fourthgenhatch.com/photos/tegmp/tegmp-parts.jpg
heres a 2 MP (sony)
http://downshiftonpedestrians.com/albums/album28/DSC00043.sized.jpg
not that much difference for an amateur photographer, but after a while
you start to pick out the subtle differences.
for me it would be between sony any canon for brands, but i am really
tempted by that new kyocera.
--- DLancer7676@cs.com wrote:
> In a message dated 5/28/04 1:18:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> pixelsmith@gerardsgarage.com writes:
>
>
> > , I thought I'd see if anyone on the
> > list has something in a digital camera they want to sell or perhaps
>
> > donate/trade.
>
> Gerard:
>
> If you don't find a good used one that meets your specs, recently
> bought one
> from photoalley.com that I absolutely love to use. This from an old
> 35mm guy
> who didn't think the new digitals could win him over. I got a
> Minolta
> Dimage S414 with 4.0 Pixels. Cost was $299. You can get them
> cheaper and with
> fewer pixels if the only thing you are doing with it is shooting for
> the
> website. But for general picture taking I would recommond no less
> than a camera
> with 3.0 pixel capability.
>
> --David C.
=====
The Flashfire Webhosting Project.
www.TheFlashfire.net
quality webhosting since 1999.
262 880 4570
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
|
