Yeah, sure it's no Canon or Nikon, but those heavy hitters aren't offering you a 10 megapixel point-and-shoot for under $200, and
DXG's new DXG-110 can even boast a brand name Panasonic CCD in its drab gray housing. With an MSRP of $170, you can almost predict all of this model's specs without reading the press release, so the 3x optical zoom, 2.5-inch LCD, ISO 800, and 32MB of internal storage should come as no surprise. Also supported is VGA video at 30fps, perhaps the highest-end feature you'll find here. Some might suggest that spending a few more bucks for a few less megapixels would be a better move, but we'll simply tell you that the 110 --with its bundled Mr. Photo 3 software and AA batteries -- is available immediately.
posted Nov 1st 2007 2:37PM
Lame. Stuffing so my photosites into a tiny sensor just leads to noise. Very few people are going to print bigger than a 5x7" print with these little point-and-shoot jobbers, so why so many megapixels? For a 5x7", 2mp is adequate and 4mp is overkill.
Big numbers sell, though. It is like contrast ratios on LCD screens; there is no distinguishable difference between a 1000:1 and a 10,000:1 contrast ratio on LCDs if you introduce minimal light into a room, such as LED and LCD displays of A/V equipment reflecting off on non-black walls. However, folks are suckers for big numbers.
I have to agree. Less knowledgeable people tell me I got ripped when I tell them I paid $600 for a 8mp SLR, then they brag about their 12mp that cost $300 and is super small.
Exactly. Megapixels are nothing without a decent lens. That's the first thing they teach you in Digital Camera Basics 101.
I got some off brand 10mpx camera for $100 from Fry's about 3 months ago, and now it is broken. I guess you get what you pay for. (No it wasn't this camera, just an anecdote.) I think it was "Emprex".
10 megapixels and all of them crappy.
YAY! 10 MEGAPICKLES! That'll take good shots! Who cares about the lens, noise, or quality, by god, it'd got lots of pickles!
I thought the MP race was over... :(
Canon SD1000 is $15 extra. I'll stick with that my Canon :P
As an owner of a DXG, I am confident when I say that their cameras suck.
Oddly enough their website has dropped the ball with no mention of the camera, nor does their press release section have this release.
Slackers!
I would buy it at such price. Besides i am just learning to take photos, so this camera would be good for me.
----------------
Flexible houses
Kodak easyshare 1275 is less than $200 and has 12.1 MP 5x Optical and takes 720P video... Hmmmm sounds like a non-story to me.
someone please tell the consumer, and the photo industry, that MORE PIXELS DOESN'T DIRECTLY TRANSLATE INTO BETTER QUALITY. so stop cheering for sub-$200 10MP cameras, stop calling 1.3MP camera phones lame, and go get a camera that has a good shutter speed, wide ISO range, and low pixel noise. it's much more useful than an 8, 10 or even 12 megapixel camera.
my phone is 1.3 megapixels, i have it down-rezzed to 800x600. my SLR is 2.5 megapixels, more than enough. and my point-and-shoot can do up to 7.1 waterproof and drop-proof, but i down-rezzed it to 2560x1920 because 7.1MP stills eat up memory card space.
I just saw this camera got the Editor's choice award from American Photo about better image quality.
(Check out this site: http://www.popphoto.com/photographynewswire/4939/editors-choice-best-digital-cameras-under-300.html).
And I was also told that all compact digitals with more than 8MP are all bad. Is this true?