My new digital camera

[Imran Siddiqui]

Never had a digital camera before. But in the next few months I'll be going to places with some nice scenery and I decided what the Hell (especially since my B-day is coming up, and I figure I could just get my gift now rather than wait after the money came in).

Here it is:



I'll have it in the few days .

Maybe then I'll be able to put up a new pic of me (I believe the only pics of me, I've put up are like 4 years old).

[DRoseDARs]

I my Canon PowerShot A75

[Dinner]

Should have gotten the S500. I owned an S400 until about a week ago when it was stolen out of my car (the car was also stolen but later recovered sans camera).

[Imran Siddiqui]

The SD450 was $30 cheaper. I don't need a 7.1 MP camera. 5 is decent enough for me. Oh, and the 450 has a 2.5' LCD screen compared to the SD500's 2'

[FrostyBoy]

good choice, I have always found a large LCD screen to be highly useful.

You are also right about the megapixel, after 4.0mp, it doesn't really matter that much, 4.0 is good enough.

I'm annoyed video cameras are still hovering around 3.0mp and mostly 2.0.

[KrazyHorse]

Given that full screen on your computer monitor is significantly less than 2.0 MP (and your TV is even worse) I don't see why.

[MRT144]

its the same reason we record music at 96k and above. subtleties lost by technology arent always lost by humans.

[KrazyHorse]

What the **** are you talking about?

Your screen can't display greater than that resolution. THE SCREEN IS THE BOTTLENECK

The 96K figure is not a bottleneck for speakers, as far as I know

[Imran Siddiqui]

Heh .

My job would be complete if this thread turned into a flamewar over something entirely unrelated .

[KrazyHorse]

Given that MRT just doesn't know what he's talking about, I don't see why...

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
What the **** are you talking about?

Your screen can't display greater than that resolution. THE SCREEN IS THE BOTTLENECK

The 96K figure is not a bottleneck for speakers, as far as I know

actually Digital to analog converters are a bottleneck as most of them only convert to 44.1khz. CDs are that way.

so why do we record at near double what can be burned to CD? like i said before. human perception. im pretty sure that even if we cant see something despite the digital device being a bottleneck, the subtleness of what was captured at such a high pixel rate is noticeable.

thats your problem KH, youre all numbers and not humanity

[MRT144]

you look at the numbers and say "this is why it can't be" i look at the experience and say "this is why it is"

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh this is going to be good.

[DRoseDARs]

It's like they're TRYING to conjure Agasherthon...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
It's like they're TRYING to conjure Agasherthon...

It's so damned true!

Though I believe Asher is banned still.

Btw, the back of my camera (to keep on topic ):