Is 2.3 m pixels Digital Camera enough ?

[Abdi R Malik]

Hi,

I have been planning to purchase a Hi Res digital camera, but recently I just bought used 700k pixels DC from a friend for $40.- and the results were not satisfactory.

Some say to have a sharp, crisp image, 3.3m pixels or above DC must be chosen. I have checked those Cameras which perform that level and cost more than $600.- in my country.

Since economic crisis strikes, the currency devalued 500% to US Dollars. Buying $600.- camera equals $3000.- was spent before crisis.

Kodak DC3400 which has 2.3m pixels would be my choice since it cost $300.- in my county.

Any suggetions? Thank you

Abdi

[David Dowbyhuz]

I'm perfectly satisfied with my Kodak DC215 Zoom . It's "only" 1 megapixel and does the job for me.

Don't forget, you don't have to able to count the hairs on your subject's knuckles to have a good reference print!

[Abdi R Malik]

David,

Sounds good to me, did you take all the images on your site with DC215? They looked fine. It costs $190. in my country.

Ever think to sale it for $70.- I'll be the first buyer. Just kidding.....

I need a camera either for my porfolio and reference.

Thank you,
Abdi

[David Dowbyhuz]

Hi Abdi,

Yes, all were taken with my DC215, but I'm not at all pleased with most of them. The camera can do better than these.

I took a rushed route, and didn't use my tripod. Also didn't spend near enough time trying to achieve a good natural light on the darker works. (They're all taken in full daylight outdoors; should have been in shade.)

However, once I realized (thanks in large part to Virgil's brutal honesty, and Cynthia's gentle approach ) that celeb portraits such as these are largely dismissed, I lost most/all interest in the site!