2007/10/04 15:10
Pixel Perfect
That's what I get for buying a first-run untested camera, I guess.
I played with the settings on my Kodak M883 for three solid weeks, trying to find the configuration that would take crisp pictures without graininess. But I guess this model accidentally went to production without a "Don't Suck" button. So I went back to Best Buy and complained. Thirty minutes of extensive testing later (all while the girl helping me stood by impatiently), I walked out with a completely different animal.
Our new Canon Powershot is a slight step down in terms of megapixels (back at 7.2) and size (thing's bigger than the three-year-old dead one). On top of that, if I want to maintain the file system I've been using thus far for images downloaded to my computer, I have to do it manually (at least partly because the pack-in camera manager software does not, in fact, work).
All of these are minor complaints against having good-looking pictures again.
I don't need dedicating photo download software, not when Windows will let me open the camera and move image files from Explorer. The bulkiness is a hassle, but we're always carrying a diaper bag these days anyway. And as for the image size, we were pretty happy with four megapixels as long as the image was clean. What good are eight when the photo itself comes out like this?
We have important events to record here. I can't be spending half my day staring at Photoshop just so we can see them.
I played with the settings on my Kodak M883 for three solid weeks, trying to find the configuration that would take crisp pictures without graininess. But I guess this model accidentally went to production without a "Don't Suck" button. So I went back to Best Buy and complained. Thirty minutes of extensive testing later (all while the girl helping me stood by impatiently), I walked out with a completely different animal.
Our new Canon Powershot is a slight step down in terms of megapixels (back at 7.2) and size (thing's bigger than the three-year-old dead one). On top of that, if I want to maintain the file system I've been using thus far for images downloaded to my computer, I have to do it manually (at least partly because the pack-in camera manager software does not, in fact, work).
All of these are minor complaints against having good-looking pictures again.
I don't need dedicating photo download software, not when Windows will let me open the camera and move image files from Explorer. The bulkiness is a hassle, but we're always carrying a diaper bag these days anyway. And as for the image size, we were pretty happy with four megapixels as long as the image was clean. What good are eight when the photo itself comes out like this?
We have important events to record here. I can't be spending half my day staring at Photoshop just so we can see them.
This is my camera only a newer version. I have the 520. I'm pretty happy with it, although what I crave about yours is the image steadiness option, like you wave the camera around and it still takes a clear picture?! Holy god!! I need that for concert photos!
Avery is so damn cute!!!! And that's the same camera I just bought! *grin* I haven't actually used it yet, though. I hope mine works as well as yours...but then, having the same camera, I'll just go to you for picture tips. :)
Wow that was an agressively ugly picture taken with the old camera. Much better. Our camera that's about 2 years old gets the job done and it's 5.1 megapixels. The one before it sucked, though.
Post a Comment
<< Home
