Is a 2.3mb pixel digital camera enough?
 

Hi,

I have been planning to purchase a Hi Res digital camera, but recently I just bought used 700k pixels DC from a friend for $40.- and the results were not satisfactory.

Some say to have a sharp, crisp image, 3.3m pixels or above DC must be chosen. I have checked those Cameras which perform that level and cost more than $600.- in my country.

Since economic crisis strikes, the currency devalued 500% to US Dollars. Buying $600.- camera equals $3000.- was spent before crisis.

Kodak DC3400 which has 2.3m pixels would be my choice since it cost $300.- in my county.

Any suggetions? Thank you

Abdi

I'm perfectly satisfied with my Kodak DC215 Zoom . It's "only" 1 megapixel and does the job for me.

Don't forget, you don't have to able to count the hairs on your subject's knuckles to have a good reference print!

David,

Sounds good to me, did you take all the images on your site with DC215? They looked fine. It costs $190. in my country.

Ever think to sale it for $70.- I'll be the first buyer. Just kidding.....

I need a camera either for my porfolio and reference.

Thank you,
Abdi

Hi Abdi,

Yes, all were taken with my DC215, but I'm not at all pleased with most of them. The camera can do better than these.

I took a rushed route, and didn't use my tripod. Also didn't spend near enough time trying to achieve a good natural light on the darker works. (They're all taken in full daylight outdoors; should have been in shade.)

However, once I realized (thanks in large part to Virgil's brutal honesty, and Cynthia's gentle approach ;) ) that celeb portraits such as these are largely dismissed, I lost most/all interest in the site!