DXG's DXG-110 gives you 10 megapixels for (well) under $200

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.

[getz76 @ Nov 1st 2007 2:47PM]

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.

[rndmnme @ Nov 1st 2007 2:54PM]

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.

[Shadyman @ Nov 1st 2007 3:28PM]

Exactly. Megapixels are nothing without a decent lens. That's the first thing they teach you in Digital Camera Basics 101.

[Allen @ Nov 1st 2007 2:50PM]

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".

[i3c @ Nov 1st 2007 4:03PM]

10 megapixels and all of them crappy.

[Garrett @ Nov 1st 2007 5:01PM]

Canon SD1000 is $15 extra. I'll stick with that my Canon :P

[SteveMB @ Nov 1st 2007 8:01PM]

As an owner of a DXG, I am confident when I say that their cameras suck.

[USA homes @ Nov 2nd 2007 7:46AM]

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

[AJ @ Nov 2nd 2007 10:43AM]

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.

[Khaytsus @ Nov 2nd 2007 5:02PM]

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... :(

[dave @ Nov 2nd 2007 11:18PM]

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.

[Slick @ Nov 5th 2007 8:41AM]

Oddly enough their website has dropped the ball with no mention of the camera, nor does their press release section have this release.

Slackers!

[Musiclover @ Sep 5th 2008 1:30PM]

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?