Jon N. Benignus wrote:
>>I've got this camera:
>>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/
>>And it takes WONDERFULL pictures =)
>
> 2 megapixel isn't bad, it's now on the low end of the spectrum, but, it's
> not as expensive as a 5 megapixel camera.
> I noticed it has a 10x digital zoom. Digital zoom really isn't a zoom. It
> only enlarges the picture, then uses the center of the image. Then to try to
> gain back the clarity it lost, it interpolates the information in order to
> reassemble the digtal image the way it was before the enlarging. You lose
> clarity in the process. This is the problem with most digital cameras on the
> consumer end.
Actually, according to the specs on DP Review the 707 has a 5X optical
zoom with an "up to" 2X digital zoom. With enough pixels, a digital
zoom is almost usable. 5X optical is better than most consumer digital
cameras.
> Remember, digital has a long way to go to match film. That camera is a 2
> megapixel capability, film is around 35 megapixel.
Yes and no. No one has truly measured the "megapixels" for a 35mm frame
of film. Most journalism work is already converted over to digital
cameras. News of an 11MP Canon leaked a couple weeks ago, and news of a
13.8MP Kodak came out late last night. Film will be matched soon if
13.8MP isn't "close enough" for you (which would also seat you firmly in
the film snob section).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:05:24 EDT