jruz

Quality printers are not too expensive either...we spent about $220 for a printer/scanner/fax/copier (HP PSC 2200).

For normal casual viewing, you cannot distinguish it from a true photo. (our photo is 3.4mp...but as Mark says, it all depends on the printout size).

Jim

smr4runner

Hey David,
I have the Sony DCR-TRV27 Digital Handycam. I bought it 2 years ago when it first came out. It was on sale for 799.99. Best Buy was throwing in Pinnacle Studio (Movie Editor) for free.
Because I was buying the Sony DSC-S85 4.1 mega pix digital still camera as well a little bartering with the sale person got me paying about $550 for it.

smr4runner

Hey Scott,
I used this site to help me decide on which type of camera I wanted to get.

imaging-resource.com

IndieFIRE

thanks all for the input, I have been thinking about getting a lower MP count and the getting a digital video cam in the higher end as funds become avalible. i mostly just use disposables now because I tend to destroy cameras rather frequently

has anybody played with taking stills off a digital video cam?

I got some pics to post but apparently they for got to put them on the CD when I got them Developed:pat: I got the CD there is just ni pictures on it

smr4runner

My digi vid camera has a memory stick slot so I could take stills.
Most digi vid cameras come with software so that you can extract stills from video as well.

Mike

Mad Chemist

Ditto what Mark said. I was leary about "only" getting a 3.2 Mp camera, but since I rarely print any out, and just do slide shows on my telivision, its absolutely more than enough. I usually reduce image size to 400X600 pixels using Adobe, then the "Save for Web" function, which gets the file size under 50k pretty easily. I'm starting to itch for a digital camera. I don't think most of the photos we take do much justice to the wheeling we do.

midiwall

I agree.... It's really hard to get depth of field on a digital. But, don't think that going up in pixel count will help this.

With film, there's actually a depth to the substrate such that "deeper" portions of the film will react differently to the light. This shows up pretty well when developed, and is what gives even black and white prints so much, well, depth. (think Ansel Adams).

But, when you're looking at the presently available technology in digital cameras, there is only one depth of the CCD device which reacts to light. Someone, and I forget who (one of the big digital folks), is looking to bring out a multi-layer CCD based camera at the beginning of the year. It's said to be able give film it's best run for the money yet. Figure it to be MIGHTY expensive for a while though.