|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments on ‘Pentax Optio Z10 digital camera’Tuesday 30th October 2007 13:08 GMT Is that...Anonymous Coward • Tuesday 30th October 2007 13:21 GMT
A first class carriage on GNER I see your picture? Must be nice... "... its flaws outweigh its good points."Michael • Tuesday 30th October 2007 16:20 GMT
And it still gets 65%? If it's more bad than good, surely it should get less than half marks? Are we stuck in the realms of 70% being 'average' and something that gets 50% being a product that will maim your children for the manufacturer's entertainment? Not it's standard classAnonymous Coward • Tuesday 30th October 2007 16:32 GMT
as the seats and the windows do not line up Good qulaityAdam • Tuesday 30th October 2007 17:46 GMT
"nice touch is 52MB of internal memory, which can hold up to 13 8Mp images at the highest quality setting. OK, it’s not a lot, but reduce the picture quality to 5MB and you can store up to 40 good quality images without so much " Why does everyone think that image quality is based on megapixels? that is just the resulting resolution size - I don't know of any monitor that can display a 8mp image (dunno what the res is) without scaling it down - yes you can 'zoom' in but that isn't image quality - that is gained from the lens - 8mp is the image size - ffs drives me mad What, no cheeseburger pic?Anonymous John • Tuesday 30th October 2007 20:21 GMT
I'm wondering what the food mode looks like. Not happyJohn Nieurzyla • Wednesday 31st October 2007 06:57 GMT
I have an optio bought 6 months ago, it did not last two weeks, the rear view screen cracked, I'm still unable to get it repaired, no spare screens available apparently. I also have a pocket kodak with rear screen, which has been in the same pocket for 2 years its screen never damaged, I wonder if in-built non-warranty damage??? As usual no response or comment from Pentax. So I will not touch another pentax with rear screen just in case. Let buyer beware. @ Adam, Re: Good QualityAnonymous Coward • Wednesday 31st October 2007 10:21 GMT
MP relates to pixels which are important for printed results. The higher the no. pixels per cm/inch in an image (upto a certain limit) the better the printed result. Also, higher resolution means you can enlarge an image (similar principal to on-screen zoom) without degrading the quality. For those of us who print images, MP and image resolution are a big deal. @ @Adam guyAdam • Wednesday 31st October 2007 12:52 GMT
Thanks that makes sense - I guess as I never print really anything bigger than the standard photo size I didn't see it like that - I guess the general user like myself still doesn't see any real life benefit in a 3mp to a 8mp camera... One question though, what is the limit of pixels per cm/inch before it doesn't really make a difference?? @ @ @Adam guyjeremy • Wednesday 31st October 2007 16:17 GMT
I heard about a surveying company that takes digital photos of buildings at hundreds of MPs so that they zoom in super close and see any cracks etc. Resolution and clarity.Martin Huizing • Wednesday 7th November 2007 01:36 GMT
Depending on the CCD used, having a higher resolution CCD only makes sense if the picture (100% zoomed in) provides a clear picture without banding (purple infringement around edges) and no loss of quality. Many high-resolution zoomed in max look crap. My camera Fuji Finepix F10 provides pics at exactly the MP's it said it could produce. Always before buying: Look at sample pics! The period for commenting on this story has finished |
Review of the WeekSony Ericsson Z770iMost Wanted Cameras
Data from Pricegrabber Review FinderCameras
Price FinderTop Stories
Channels
On Other Register sites…
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||