I bought an HP Photosmart 315. It's features are as follows:
2.1 MP resolution, three photo quality settings(resolutions)
640x480 (for internet of e-mail)
1200x1600 fine ( for photos you want to save in a computer database or print at up to 8x10's)
1200x1600 super fine ( for photos you plan to crop and enlarge using photoediting software or print larger than 8x10's)
*note: all of these formats can be mixed on the same memory card.
Auto focus and exposure
Four flash settings (on,off,auto,and auto with red-eye reduction)
Usb v1.1 computer connection
2.5x digital zoom (after the picture is saved in the camera
you can use the zoom and then save)
The ability to save the file as a JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts
Group: a file compression
scheme)
The ability to use an infrared sensor on the camera to transfer
pictures from your camera to an infrared printer ( JetSend ).
Color LCD for viewing pictures on the memory card.
Self-Timer
Uses CompactFlash memory cards.


With this camera, I think the way computer technology is heading
that with it's Flash memory card you will be able to use it for a very
long time. The up and comming USB v2.0 will be backwards compatable, but just transfer data faster than v1.0.

 

I know that if I shoot a small shot in a HUGE fromat, I can refine it down with software. I typically shoot everything in a 1024 or bigger capture size, and edit the daylights out of it when I have time...

The thing I have been holding off for is a camera "BODY" with a high-rez electronic element, that can accept the same lenses as current film-based camera's.

The alternative is of course to use a regular film using cam, and scan the result into digital. The definition will be fantastic, but the steps involved costly.

And so I wait - I am certain digital imaging will surpass what has gone before sooner or later. It's just a question of time and price...

 

Sorry, I wasn't logged in when I posted my last message.


1987 Ranger STX Supercab 4X4
2.9L V6

 

Question - I was told that spending more for a 3 or 4 megapixal camera was not smart unless you planned making prints larger than 8x10 inches. The reason given was that the human eye can only see up to a certain resolution in 4x6 prints or on the computer. Anything greater than 2 mgp is wasted money according to this person. It does not make sense to me, but I have little to no knowledge on this. I would think that 4x6 or 5x7 prints made with a 3 or 4 mgp camera would have to look better than ones from a 2mgp camera. Is that not necessarily true?

 

The fellow at the store who says that using anything higher than a 2 mgpixel has a point, but what happens if you want to take some pictues for larger prints sometime. I have a Kodak DC3200 that I got at Walmart for $142.00 I use it for taking pictures to put things on the net and for saving memories of motorcycle trips and vacations. It's not a portrait quality camera, but it's done almost everything I've asked. It has 3 settings for different levels of quality, but I don't think it has a digital zoom. One thing I made sure was that it had removeable memory. I also purchased a 48 meg smartmedia card. I think it will hold about 700 pics on "good" quality and about 120 high res pics. It has about a 1 megapixel capacity. To me it's somewhere between a 110 and a 35mm camera. Remember those 126 photo cartriges? But the photos are hardly ever grainy. If I bump it up to 'best' quality, it rivals a 35mm camera. Kodak just recently came out with an upgrade. Something like a DC3800? It also has video capablilities and either 2 or better megapixel. Sells for around $200. Just like to make 2 points. If you use batteries, get those *quest* or *maha energy* rechargeables. I took about 20 pics with the regular batteries that I bought new and they were shot. I've taken as many as 70 with the quest batteries plus did alot of reviewing on the lcd screen. Second, check out and keep an eye on http://www.pricewatch.com
Happy digitizing.
Tony