I've never been very good at figuring out financial stuff like 401k, annuities (not actually sure what it means to be honest), IRA's etc. The only thing I do with my money is CD's at my bank and savings accounts. I figure I'm better off sticking with something I understand. lol
Thank you for the compliments on my pix.
Actually most digital cameras have a 'resolution' and 'compression' setting. You should ALWAYS set your camera on the highest resolution (usually expressed in numbers like 1600x1200, 640x480, or Large, Med, Small, Best, Good etc) and the lowest compression setting you have (usually marked as something like extra fine or best). That way you are always shooting at the full capability of your camera. Yes it takes up more room on your memory cards, BUT you never know when you might take that once in a lifetime special pix you want to print as an enlargement. The time it would take to switch your settings and the shot or moment may be gone forever. Plus why spend money on a camera to only shoot it at 1/4 of it's potential? To me that's kinda like buying Ferrari but only driving it at 55mph on the way to work.
As for 'getting in close' I'm assuming you mean either a Macro function (getting close to a subject that is tiny like my grasshopper pix) or Telephoto (getting a far away subject to appear close up, like a deer standing way out in a field).
In the case of Macro that would be either built into the lens of a point and shoot or require a special lens (usually rather expensive) for a DSLR/SLR. The reason being is that any camera or lens has a set minimum distance it can focus at. Your eyes work the same way, try reading a newspaper at about 24 inches away, then try reading the same paper with your nose touching it, you can't. Your eyes have exceeded the minimum focusing distance. To read close you'd need a magnifying glass, same thing for a camera lens.
In the case of Telephoto again it's in the lens whether built into a point and shoot or a special (expensive) separate lens for a DSLR/SLR. Basically it works as binoculars do for our own eyes. Only caution I'll add here is that the DIGITAL zoom setting on ANY point and shoot camera is worthless. Only compare those type of cameras by their OPTICAL zoom. The Digital zoom basically just magnifies and crops the image, same thing you could do in a computer after the fact, but it causes loss of sharpness in your images no matter which way you do it. I always keep my Digital zoom turned off on my point and shoot cameras.
Sharpness in any camera can be drastically improved by having good light, low ISO setting (100, 50, 25 if the camera goes that low) and a tripod. This is assuming you're not shooting an active two year old running around in the rain on a dark, dreary, overcast day, in which case the tripod isn't going to be enough, you'll need flash to freeze that kinda motion.
As far as the relationship between megapixels and resolution... Here are some links to read a bit more detail about them. I copied and pasted some relevant parts for a quick summary.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
In 1999 when digital cameras were only 1.2 or 2 MP, each megapixel mattered if you were making bigger prints.
Image clarity is more dependant on how you shot the photo than on the number of megapixels. A clean shot from a 3MP camera is much better than a slightly out-of focus shot from a $5,000 12 MP camera.
A clear image can be printed any size from any modern digital camera. Sure, if you print mural size and look at it from inches away you won't have the sharpness you'd get from 4 x 5" film, but if you shot it properly, it will be sharp enough to look great when viewed from a distance appropriate to the size of the print.
So long as you have 100 to 150 DPI (dots or pixels per inch), you have plenty for a sharp print viewed at arm's length. This means a 6 MP camera can make prints 30" (75cm) wide and still look great. When was the last time you printed that big?
Today, even the cheapest cameras have at least 5 or 6 MP, which enough for any size print. How? Simple: when you print three-feet (1m) wide, you stand further back. Print a billboard, and you stand 100 feet back. 6MP is plenty.
http://digital-cameras.toptenreviews...ixel-myth-.htm
While the math says that more megapixels are better, the actual results tell a different story. Pictures taken with 3 and 5 megapixel digital cameras are usually indistinguishable from pictures taken with 8 or even 13 megapixel cameras. The New York Times published an article in February 2007 about this very concept. People were unable to distinguish between photos taken at these resolutions, even when the pictures were blown up to 16 by 24 inches. An article in the November 2002 Consumer Reports issue reported that several digital cameras actually took higher quality pictures than cameras with more megapixels.
http://www.opticsplanet.net/memory-c...-capacity.html
Picture Resolution Maximum Photo print size
less than 640 x 480 only wallet-size prints recommended
640 x 480 or 0.3 megapixel Minimum resolution for 4x6 (results will vary)
1024 x 768 or 1.2-megapixel Minimum recommended resolution for 4x6
1600 x 1200 or 2.1-megapixel Minimum recommended resolution for 8x10 or larger
2,048 x 1,536 or 3.3-megapixel Recommended resolution for 13x19 or larger
The bigger difference between DSLR's and point and shoots is the sensor size!
http://www.asiaone.com/Digital/Featu...107-99077.html
What is more important, for good picture quality in a compact camera, is the size of the sensor. The bigger the sensor, the better the photo. Bigger sensors capture more light. More light captured means better colours and contrast.
With bigger sensors, photos taken indoors without flash or when the light is failing, have less picture noise - that is the fuzziness and strange bits of colours that weren't there when you took the photo.
Sadly, compact cameras cannot have huge sensors because they need to stay, well, compact.
The sensor in a compact can be smaller than the nail of your pinky.
That is why compacts are bad in shooting in low light conditions without a flash.
In comparison, the sensor of a professional DSLR is 30 times that of a compact, which explains why DSLRs are so much bigger.
Ironically, the solution to improving photo quality in a compact is to reduce the megapixel- count.
All things being equal, having less megapixels means that each pixel in the sensor can now have more light, which in turn improves picture quality.
So now that we know that we do not need anything more than 8 megapixels for a compact, will camera makers give up the megapixel race?
Not a chance.
A film camera actually takes sharper pictures with a wider range of tones from dark to light than a digital camera can (assuming the lens is somewhat decent), although with newer technology the differences are shrinking. The advantage of a digital obviously being immediate viewing of your pix, and ease of sending them by email or online which film lacks.
As I'm quickly finding out, digital is not necessarily 'cheaper' than film. Yes I just buy a few memory cards and don't have to worry about how many pix I'm shooting, or wait for film developing. But the downside is it requires a large and fast computer if you take as many pix as I do and at a very high resolution setting from a DSLR. Then you get into the processing program which can be anywhere from $100 to photoshop's like $600 program. No digital pix ever looks it's best 'straight out of camera' as they tend to need a bit of sharpening, and sometimes a bit of contrast or saturation added even if everything else is perfect.
Then if you get into shooting like I have you end up buying a laptop for shooting 'tethered' and viewing your pix accuarately rather than the misleading LCD and histogram on the back of the camera, and a monitor calibrator so you can process your pix to industry standards so when you send it out to print the colors look right, but that's a discussion for another time. ROFL
Anyways I hope that helped with some of your questions. I'm about as into photography as I am animals (particularly cats) so I LOVE talking about either. ROFL I'm certainly no expert on either, and I don't often use alot of high tech big words, but most people seem to understand what I mean anyways. lol
RIP Sabrina June 16 2011
Reply With Quote
). 
Bookmarks