Ok folks. This is some coincidence! My PCMag came last night in the
mail, feature article "We test 20 Digital Cameras".
If you want their take on it they have it up on the web:
http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/features/digicam99/index.html
I'm very happy with my CHEAP Kodak DC50. Yeah, it's old
but it works really well (and I got a free 10Mb flash card
from a friend).
The ppl. at PCMag are usually right on the money.
YMMV
-travis
http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/WWW/DAKOTA/PICS/graphics.html
(Do a find on "Travis Sawyer" - pix with my DC50
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 12:48:51 PST
From: Sam Parthemer <maverick_nr552@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: :DML: Digital (LONG)(non Dak related)
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).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:11:52 EDT