Digital Camera image quality

[LuDaCriS66]

I want to purchase a digital camera for my sister but since I'm a student, I'm extremely strapped for cash. So I've seen the Kodak DC3200 for much cheaper than other cameras but it's only rated at 1 megapixel. Exactly how bad is this compared to a regular camera that uses film?? I don't think she needs extremely high quality shots but they have to be at least decent you know..
So will 1 megapixel be just fine for the casual user? How much of a difference is 1 megapixel and 2-3 megapixels? She mainly just wants to use it for the occasional outing or something. A digital camera is just more convienent for her so she can just hook it up to her computer instead of having to process the photos and such.

If this camera really isn't good enough, what are some alternatives? I guess either a digital camera or a regular one should be ok but a digital camera would be more convienent I guess.
Thanks



Edit: Oh yeah.. I'm really not too familar with cameras as much as I am with computers.. are there any other advantages or disadvantages in choosing a digital camera over a regular film camera?

The Kodak DC3200 also uses a serial cable to transfer the files... is there any way to use USB instead without having to buy a compact flash reader?

 

[spwango]

Don't go buy a cheap camera--you won't be happy with it. Don't pay attention the the megapixel rating, too much..it's all about the quality of the lens...if you want a decent good camera, plan on spending at least $300...mabye $250 if you get a good deal...be sure to go to a review site (Steves digicams mabye) with photo examples...that's the only way to really tell.

 

[punkrawket]

i got a DC3200 and for $60 i think it's damn good

check out the pics i took of my car

 

[LuDaCriS66]

<< i got a DC3200 and for $60 i think it's damn good

check out the pics i took of my car >>



Those pictures look pretty good. Not great but good cuz you can kinda see some fuzziness in the back. It's definately decent though.

I like your license plate hehe

 

[im2smrt4u]

I agree with the good lens part, see if you can find an older Nikon camera. I love my Nikon 995!

 

[punkrawket]

heh.. thx

ya i mean it's definitely not top notch... but damn for $60 i was like hell ya

 

[LuDaCriS66]

<< Don't go buy a cheap camera--you won't be happy with it. Don't pay attention the the megapixel rating, too much..it's all about the quality of the lens...if you want a decent good camera, plan on spending at least $300...mabye $250 if you get a good deal...be sure to go to a review site (Steves digicams mabye) with photo examples...that's the only way to really tell. >>



I definately agree that I should spend more if I am to expect more.. I don't know if I can spend $300 for a camera though... but it's for a present.. so I'll have to see what I can do. Thanks for the tips

 

[Wallydraigle]

I think that if you are shooting for the sub-$300 range a film camera would really be the better buy. You can get some really nice shots from a less than top of the line film camera. The same can't be said of a cheap digital camera. By the time you buy photo paper and ink and possibly even a new printer to print your digital photos, you really aren't saving *that* much per shot over film anyway. The main advantage is deciding which ones you want to print. So if it was me I would probably get a film camera and just make every shot count I hope you are happy with whatever you pick.

 

[LuDaCriS66]

<< I think that if you are shooting for the sub-$300 range a film camera would really be the better buy. You can get some really nice shots from a less than top of the line film camera. The same can't be said of a cheap digital camera. By the time you buy photo paper and ink and possibly even a new printer to print your digital photos, you really aren't saving *that* much per shot over film anyway. The main advantage is deciding which ones you want to print. So if it was me I would probably get a film camera and just make every shot count I hope you are happy with whatever you pick. >>



Hmm, how's the canon sure shot 85mm? I'd rather get her a digital cam... but then since I live in Canada.. the prices are higher. :frown:

 

[GooberPHX420]

<< I want to purchase a digital camera for my sister but since I'm a student, I'm extremely strapped for cash. So I've seen the Kodak DC3200 for much cheaper than other cameras but it's only rated at 1 megapixel. Exactly how bad is this compared to a regular camera that uses film?? >>



Do not even think about buying a 1 megapixel camera if you want it to have near - 35mm quality. True the lense quality is important, megapixels are too. I would go with a 2.1mp minimum nowadays. And don buy a camera with that stupid digital zoom crap. it is just that - crap. Optical zoom is the thing to look for. if you dont need much zoom, look at the canon elphs. They are badass little cams, anywhere from $190 for an older model up to $400 for the s110's. Very nice pic quality but only like 3x optical zoom.

 

[b0mbrman]

<< heh.. thx
ya i mean it's definitely not top notch... but damn for $60 i was like hell ya >>


Those don't look bad at all

 

[vegetation]

1 megapixels is just fine for an entry level camera. I would avoid the newer models with this capability though, as they seem to have "budget" written all over them, resulting in poor image quality. Look for a used model several years old.