Re[2]: [at-l] Narrowing Down the Digital Camera Search

[Bob C." <ellen@xxxxxxxxxx (Bob C.)]

>"...Unless you're a pro, aren't megapixels the gore-tex boots of the digital
>world?" asks Sly.

Unlike Goretex in boots, megapixels actually do something useful. I shouldn't
comment because my knowledge is pretty limited, but I would choose a camera that
takes ordinary double As and eat the extra cost of batteries, rather than
carrying a charger, bounce-boxing a charger, finding an outlet, waiting for
batteries to charge....

  Be sure to read the fine print. My wife has a $400, 4 megapixel, Kodak. The
  rechargables are identical in voltage and size to AAs, but the directions warn
  against using the non chargeable version -- claiming such use is a major cause
  of repair requests. I haven't explored the reasons. But batteries have become
  a major hassle. They seem to be forever uncharged and prone to losing their
  charge at inconvenient times.

  And think carefully about future use. Most of us have gotten by with 4X6"
  prints in recent years, which most digital cameras can achieve. But with the
  quality and low cost of good digital printers and scanners these days, I find
  myself more and more making enlargements to 8.5 by 11 and sometimes even
  larger, thus requiring at least 4 megapixels. ( I need a 11 by 17 printer for
  the tabloid-sized newsletters I produce, which makes extra large prints
  possible.)

  Hewlett Packard sells a very inexpensive, semi-gloss, double-sided paper it
  calls a brochure paper. But it produces excellent enlarged photos and
  composite photos. I sent out at least 50 over the holidays to friends and to
  major contributors to our town land trust.

  Weary

  Bob