ARGUS 5.0 Megapixel Dig Camera $46.99 shipped

TanisHalfElven

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
3,512
0
76
how good is this camera
i am looking a cheap camera to take pictures of stuff i sell and pictures of recipts. and to scan books. 5 mega pixel is great for that but how good is the quality of the camera. don't care much about exact color reproduction but stability (like less blurring even in moving pictures) is what i need.
 

mercanucaribe

Banned
Oct 20, 2004
9,763
1
0
You aren't going to get good pictures out of that camera. You'll get crappy pictures with a lot of megapixels.
Hell, it's even "fixed focal length". That means there's no focusing whatsoever.
 

Bowhunters

Junior Member
Aug 20, 2006
21
0
0
Definitely not a hot deal price wise and its a POS junk camera to boot.

I found 4 places that have it for around the 56-58 dollar mark.

Show me a real brand name camera like Kodak for that price and then we'd be talking hot.



 

KF

Golden Member
Dec 3, 1999
1,371
0
0
Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
how good is this camera
i am looking a cheap camera to take pictures of stuff i sell and pictures of recipts. and to scan books. 5 mega pixel is great for that but how good is the quality of the camera. don't care much about exact color reproduction but stability (like less blurring even in moving pictures) is what i need.

Unfortunately I don't know much about digital era cameras. However, I don't think the properties of lenses has changed.

The way this used to go before the digital era is that low cost cameras had fixed focus, wide-angle lenses. Wide-angle lenses make focusing uncritical, but then things closer than about 4 feet are out of focus, and things are smaller on the photo. More is encompassed by a wider angle lense. More on the photo means everything is smaller, right? This is fine for taking snapshots of your pals, and scenery, but not for taking pictures of receipts or small objects like books (if you want to read the print). Even expensive cameras with interchangeable lenses needed specialty close-focusing lenses for things as close as 1 foot.

Lenses also need to be small to be cheap. Because a smaller aperature takes in less light, they need a longer exposure. The longer the exposure, the more motion blur. Now, if you put enough light on the object, that would not be a problem.

A $50 film camera is perfectly capable of taking nice, sharp snapshots. At some point the price of digital should drop far enough to do the same.

FWIW.

 

TanisHalfElven

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
3,512
0
76
Originally posted by: KF
Originally posted by: tanishalfelven
how good is this camera
i am looking a cheap camera to take pictures of stuff i sell and pictures of recipts. and to scan books. 5 mega pixel is great for that but how good is the quality of the camera. don't care much about exact color reproduction but stability (like less blurring even in moving pictures) is what i need.

Unfortunately I don't know much about digital era cameras. However, I don't think the properties of lenses has changed.

The way this used to go before the digital era is that low cost cameras had fixed focus, wide-angle lenses. Wide-angle lenses make focusing uncritical, but then things closer than about 4 feet are out of focus, and things are smaller on the photo. More is encompassed by a wider angle lense. More on the photo means everything is smaller, right? This is fine for taking snapshots of your pals, and scenery, but not for taking pictures of receipts or small objects like books (if you want to read the print). Even expensive cameras with interchangeable lenses needed specialty close-focusing lenses for things as close as 1 foot.

Lenses also need to be small to be cheap. Because a smaller aperature takes in less light, they need a longer exposure. The longer the exposure, the more motion blur. Now, if you put enough light on the object, that would not be a problem.

A $50 film camera is perfectly capable of taking nice, sharp snapshots. At some point the price of digital should drop far enough to do the same.

FWIW.

thanks a lot.
i had read a few digital camera guides but nowhere did i find that info (about wide angle). that does explain why my dads film camera always produced photos with small things.

thanks. you just saved me 46 bucks.