landrider

Filmboard

Dan,

You're absolutely right; I would give you an honest opinion when asked, even on your hypothetical camera. Something on the order of. . .

"So from what I understand as the primary specifications of your hypothetical camera. . . If you have intentions of mainly producing photos for email and the web, a 640x480 camera with a large acquisition chipset (which I expect you'll find in a camera of that resolution with a $1000 price tag) will actually give you better color quality images than a 4-megapixel with a tiny acquisition chip. On the other hand if your bike club newsletter is printed by a commercial printer, you'll find that the printer will likely require an image of a minimum of 200 dpi (dots per inch) at whatever image size you want to use in the newsletter and will probably even request a 300 dpi image. Now if your 640x480 pixel camera has a large chip, it will probably store these images at about 144 dpi, so you will be able to have 6"x4.5" uncropped images in your newsletter that look fairly nice (proportionally smaller at 300dpi). If it uses a tiny chip and stores images at 72 dpi, your uncropped images will only be able to be a little over 3"x2" in your newsletter without looking pixelated; that's something you'd want to keep in mind, as it may be a reason to look for a camera that has a larger pixel resolution. As to the auto-zoom feature (I bet you thought they don't exist, Dan, but they do). If the feature sounds good to you, and you can afford it, go for it. The two that I've used allow you to have the camera memorize a face or other feature in the veiwfinder, by drawing a box around it, and then the auto-zoom feature keeps the framing fairly accurate as the memorized subject moves closer and farther from the camera. The framing will not always be as aesthetic as framed by a good professional photographer, but some do a decent job. Because of the nature of the beast, an auto-zoom lens will be considerably more expensive than a manual or standard power zoom. Hopefully if enough people who have interest in this feature demonstrate their interest through purchases and information requests, the cost will eventually come down as the quality improves, and more people can benefit from this technology.

I get asked for a lot of advice on cameras and that's about the way my responses really come out. But I doubt that I would respond by saying:

"What you're looking at is an overpriced, low-quality, ill-conceived solution to a problem that doesn't exist; the last time I thought about how to use a manual zoom must have been with my first 35mm camera some 45 years ago. Come on, auto zoom is way exagerated and a false claim. Zooming isn't really a big issue, This is more of a gimick than anything else. Stick with a manual or power zoom camera, they are much more reliable and better quality. I can't believe how much they charge for those automated cameras, based solely on the gimmick that it makes things 'easier' for the gullible! It's because I love photography that I can't let you use this Piece O' S---. Any decent camera shop could sell you a better camera for less money."

Dan, I feel I've made my point. If you don't agree, then I won't labor over this issue. Thanks for your response.