data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6a1bb/6a1bbb9005a3139495fd93bf31da12e4689546a6" alt=""
The trade off is that the Nikon is significantly smaller than the Kodak and is supposed to have a better quality lens. Having only spent half a day with it, I can only say that it does seem to take a picture I am happy with, but I really like the small size. It was important to me to have something truly 'pocketable' as this is a camera I like to take with me. I have no room for SLRs and the like in my jeans.
One final note: I broke my informal rule slightly - this camera was a little more than the $150 I was planning to spend. I'll call it 'inflation' and leave it at that.
2 comments:
Yay, fewer megapixels. I'm glad you struck a blow for "more useful and better pictures" rather than the endless shrinking of pixels on tiny sensor chips.
(My SLR is 6 megapixels, and I'm fine with that.)
Or more to the point, there is only so much I can crop out of a photo in order to fit it on the internet. Blogger resizes down to a max of 1600 wide anyway, so I find I have to resize at least in half to fit that.
Plus, it really is a lot smaller.
Post a Comment