Reconsidering Pixel Envy

Recommended article on photography:

David Barzilay
Lord of the Rings
607 S Hill St Ste 850
Los Angeles, CA 90014-1718

Thanks for pointing out this article.

I think I may have mentioned before that I work for the Australian
equivalent of Staples, (the Techworks department in Officeworks), I
printed out the first of these articles and left it in the tea room
for my work colleagues. Customers are asking all the time for the
highest mega pixels, and then when you talk to them about their needs
it turns out they are looking for a camera to email pictures that are
never going to be printed. Zoom seems to me to be much more
important, optical zoom for the general public and macro for the
people on this forum.

Another important thing to look out for is the speed between shots.
My understanding is the larger the card, the longer it takes to be
ready for the next shot.

What kind of batteries they use can also be important, an advantage
if you are shooting still shots is a camera you can plug into the
wall, actually that’s probably a luxury but…

In Melbourne where it has been a beautiful Autumn day

My experience has been that optics matter the most. My
higher-megapixel Kodak never matches up to the end quality my
lower-megapixel Nikon ever did.

James in SoFl

James in SoFL

I have a Sony 2.1 but with an added feature, I have a Close-Up lens,
I can with little effort zoo-oo-m into a ring that is only 1" away
from the lens. Then I apply my telephoto program so 2.1 pixels or 5.1
or 7.0+> doesn’t bother me. Its what I do with it, that counts! I
once took a picture of a I-2 diamond and could see the inclusions
very easily…“Gerry, the Cyber-Setter!”