On 4 Dec 2006 00:58:24 -0800, Leesa_Tay.TakeThisOut@softhome.net wrote:
> A few have inquired here about decent entry level units for less than
> $100. I see my local TARGET has an HP Photosmart E327 which has 5
> megapixels and a 4X OPTICAL zoom for $77. They also offer a Lexar
> 256MB SD card for $9.98.
>
> On the surface, this seems like quite a bit of bang for the buck.
> What... do you guys think?
I don't know about HP's E327, but HP cameras don't have
particularly good reputations. Not that they're especially bad
cameras, but most other brands generally perform better. (And I
have nothing against HP, since the computers and printers I've used
for the last 10 years have been HP). At the price of $77 though, it
may be worth considering, but I'd recommend downloading the manual
or user guide from HP's support website and checking it out that way
first. With other brands you sometimes hear advice to check camera
reviews, but not many HP cameras are reviewed. For instance on
dpreview.com, the only HP reviews are for the R707 (2004), the 850
and 935 (2003) and the 812 (2002).
The Lexar 256MB SD card is a pretty decent buy at $9.98. I bought
a 256MB SD card for the same price about a month ago (different
brand). But Staples currently has PNY's 1GB SD card on sale for
$20, which is a much better price. I don't know how long they'll be
available at that price. I bought one Saturday.
> One last question. If you aren't going to be doing any printing of
> your photos what good does it do to go into Megapixels of 3, 4, 5 or
> higher?
If you mean that you'll not only not make your own prints, but you
won't have any photo labs make prints, then you probably won't need
better resolution than a 3mp camera offers. When displayed full
screen, it's unlikely you'd be able to see any difference. Only
when greatly enlarged so that a small part of the image fills the
screen will slight differences be noticeable. And if you ever
decide to have prints made, most 3mp cameras should be able to
produce good looking prints as large as 8" x 10". 5mp cameras might
produce slightly better looking prints, but you'd probably need to
get real close and have decent vision to see differences. For
snapshot size prints (4" x 6"), you don't need more than 3mp.
There are advantages to having a 5mp camera. One such is that
several years from now if you're examining old pictures and notice
some people in shots that weren't originally the main subjects, so
they're off to the side and too small to recognize, you might be
able to identify them by looking at a great enlargement on the
computer's monitor. Images produced by a 3mp camera may not have
enough detail at the same degree of enlargement to make recognition
possible.
I'm surprised, though that some of the cameras you're looking at
have only 3mp (if they're new). A couple of years ago 3mp cameras
were pretty common. These days, small cameras can have up to 10mp,
and it's getting rare to be able to find any that don't have at
least 4 or 5mp unless they're models introduced a couple of years
ago, and a few are still available. You should probably make sure
that any camera you buy wasn't introduced more than 2 years ago,
since many older cameras have pretty poor battery life. With my old
Canon Powershot S10 and S20 (2mp and 3mp, respectively), it wasn't
unusual to need to recharge the battery several times during a
single day of shooting. My newer cameras, using AA alkalines or AA
NiMH rechargeable batteries can go at least several days using the
same set of batteries. Sales people in stores are very unlikely to
know how long batteries last in the cameras they sell, but that
information is usually stated in the camera manuals.
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
