Not trying to get into a pissing contest over which camera is better,
but I'd like to clarify that the DC-210 is a completely different camera
than the DC-260... Different body style (like a '96 Dakota vs.
a '97 Dakota), and the DC-210 has a max resolution of 1152 x 864 (and a
2X zoom), vs. DC-260 max resolution of 1536 x 1024 (and a 6X Zoom
- 3X optical and 2X digital zoom.) The closest camera to the
DC-260, is the lower priced DC-220 with 1152 x 864 (4x zoom, 2x optical,
and 2x digtal zoom.) The DC-220 looks like a 260, but has the lower
resolution. The DC220 can do 'audio samples' like the 260.
Both use USB ports (unlike the DC210 that doesn't).
So you see, there's a big difference between the DC-260 and DC-210.
The DC-210 does take GOOD pictures. I've used one. The way that
digital cameras have been going, the DC260 is the better deal of the
currently available cameras (your DC210 will be outdated in 2-3 months,
and worth less than $150 by next year. I've had 2 cameras,
and have gone through the same thing.) The DC-260 has many more
features than other cameras currently available, and is easier to use.
It's megapixel image quality puts it so close to 35mm picture quality,
it probably will be the camera of choice for a year or two.
The reasoning about getting a larger memory card: With a current
35mm camera, you shoot 24-36 pictures. Replace the film, and then
shoot more. What happens when you run out of file (on a trip) ?
Buy more film. Problem is, with a digital camera, you fill up the 8mb
card (24 pictures), you can't just pop in more 'film' from the camera
booth. The next thing that happens, you take pictures on only
'good things', trying to make the most of your available pictures (24).
With a larger picture capacity, shoot away. You will take a lot of
pictures of things that normally you wouldn't waste film on. You will
be surprised at what you find later when you download the pictures. I
usually take 30 pictures a day driving to and from work. Most stuff is
garbage, but occationally I will find a few gems.
If I had the (DC260) camera for the CA. DML meeting in 2 weeks, I'd have
a ton a pictures (200+) vs. the 48 that I'll get out of my current
camera. So even for the amateur, it makes sense to get more storage
capacity.
If I was going to purchase a camera, I'd like to have the best quality
picture available. If you only have $500 to spend, don't get the DC210.
Get the DC120 (it has a higher resolution, in a binocular form factor).
Check out Kodak's website re: digital cameras.
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital/cameras/DCSGateway.jhtml
Find the one you want, then do a search on cnet.com, etc. and
read the review(s).
That way when you purchase a camera you'll be well informed, and can
feel confident in what you've purchased :P
I've researched for the last 6 months to get to this point. I am
speaking from experience.
Sam '95 SLT (off of soapbox)
"Anyone want to buy a Kodak DC40 camera?"
>The only difference between the DC-210 ad the DC-260 is the short audio
>clips, and $350.00
>If a few seconds of audio is worth that kind of money, I say , go for
it.
>If not, then get the DC210 for @ 450.00 Unless you are a professional
>photographer, you won't need any more than the 8meg memory card that
comes
>with it. It holds about @24 hi-res pics. @80 low-res pics. Watch
your
>wallet...
>
>VLADIMIR
>96 Indy "FASRAM"
>http://home.austin.rr.com/fasram/
>http://www.indyram.org/
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:11:51 EDT