Re: Nikon D200 (for alt)

On February2006, at 11:47 AM, Judy Seigel wrote:

> Being a digital camera retard (albeit not going back to film EVER),
> I hesitate to even mention this -- but perhaps some enlightening
> comments will ensue..
>
> In this past Thursday's column in the Times, David Pogue, who had
> just been to the digital camera expo, commented to the effect that
> the race to pixel heights is over, because the cameras at circa 8
> mp are everywhere and/or great, or something like that.
I saw David @ MacWorld Expo in San Francisco & he was referring to
point & shoots. The Pro cameras like the newer Nikon and Canons
absolutely top them in quality. For the average person in our group
I'm sure an 8 mpxl is sufficient. I regularly enlarge
mine to 22x28 inches w/pretty doggoned good resolution.
>
> I myself am intrigued by word of a Kodak with 2 lenses (my largest
> beef with the Canon-from-hell being that the framing is too un-
> widefocus, that is, after the buttons all over the thing that go
> off everytime I pick it up).
The new Kodak Z760 w/6 mpxl is a good. It is sold for about $190 is
you web walk.
>
> It would be nice to have a camera that doesn't try to do every
> funny trick, or chirp like a bird or woof like a dog when you hit
> the wrong button, but Of course I realize that the nikon cited,
> among others, is another order of being... Or is it still?
>
> PS: Also in the NY Times Business Section, either Friday or
> Saturday, an interesting article about 3rd party inkjet refills --
> at Walgreen and Home Depot (I think it was) among other places.
If one is serious in their art-making, unless these inks have been
really tested for fading, water stain after drying, ease of working
with ICC profiles, it is not worth the saving of money. If you just
interested in the digital world and enjoy playing while learning to
use these and try others for a couple of years is eductional
>
> Judy
>
Received on Mon Feb 6 10:45:54 2006