Best Coolpix for HD and low light too?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Jane Galt on 18 Jun 2010 22:40 John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote : > Jane Galt wrote: >> John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote : >> >>> Neil Harrington wrote: >>>> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >>>>> Exactly. I'd love to have a nice Nikon DSLR, so I could have a >>>>> polarizing lens and all, but it IS for my purse and I already have a >>>>> bunch of stuff in >>>>> there, including the XD-45 ACP, >>>> Ooooh. My kinda woman. (Though I'm mainly a Beretta guy myself.) > >> >> "She was not quite what you would call refined >> She was not quite what you would call unrefined >> She was the kind of person that keeps a parrot." >> -- Mark Twain > > > Nice one! I do like humor..... > As far as this quip: >>> Kinda like Rita, I bet. A lady but not a woman. More like a female but not a lady. LOL -- - Jane Galt
From: John McWilliams on 18 Jun 2010 23:50 Jane Galt wrote: > John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote : > >> Jane Galt wrote: >>> John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote : >>> >>>> Neil Harrington wrote: >>>>> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >>>>>> Exactly. I'd love to have a nice Nikon DSLR, so I could have a >>>>>> polarizing lens and all, but it IS for my purse and I already have a >>>>>> bunch of stuff in >>>>>> there, including the XD-45 ACP, >>>>> Ooooh. My kinda woman. (Though I'm mainly a Beretta guy myself.) > >>> "She was not quite what you would call refined >>> She was not quite what you would call unrefined >>> She was the kind of person that keeps a parrot." >>> -- Mark Twain >> >> Nice one! I do like humor..... >> > > As far as this quip: >>>> Kinda like Rita, I bet. A lady but not a woman. > > More like a female but not a lady. LOL Well, apparently, you know best about....you! But I think my statement re "Rita" stands. Unless, of course, you are Rita, and then you're both or either.... -- john mcwilliams
From: Jane Galt on 19 Jun 2010 01:35 John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote : > Jane Galt wrote: >> John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote : >> >>> Jane Galt wrote: >>>> John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote : >>>> >>>>> Neil Harrington wrote: >>>>>> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >>>>>>> Exactly. I'd love to have a nice Nikon DSLR, so I could have a >>>>>>> polarizing lens and all, but it IS for my purse and I already have a >>>>>>> bunch of stuff in >>>>>>> there, including the XD-45 ACP, >>>>>> Ooooh. My kinda woman. (Though I'm mainly a Beretta guy myself.) >> >>>> "She was not quite what you would call refined >>>> She was not quite what you would call unrefined >>>> She was the kind of person that keeps a parrot." >>>> -- Mark Twain >>> >>> Nice one! I do like humor..... >>> >> >> As far as this quip: >>>>> Kinda like Rita, I bet. A lady but not a woman. >> >> More like a female but not a lady. LOL > > Well, apparently, you know best about....you! But I think my statement > re "Rita" stands. Unless, of course, you are Rita, and then you're both > or either.... > Dont know any Rita. Was she a meter maid? LOL -- - Jane Galt
From: Jane Galt on 19 Jun 2010 02:25 So with this G11, does it have an awesome sharp clear lens? <drool>
From: David J Taylor on 19 Jun 2010 05:04
"Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message news:Xns9D9BBF7C3F59CJaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote : [] >> You do know that "full HD", and your monitor, are only about 2MP, I >> presume? >> >> Cheers, >> David >> >> > > Oh my. > > Well whatever makes it look so sharp and clear, I want it. :) Yes, I sometimes wonder that as well, Jane! One thing is that the pixels are right on the surface of the display, with no intervening optics, and there's no "ink spread" which you might get in some printing processes. Of course, if you want to crop half the linear image you've taken, you then need four times as many pixels, so having that 8-10-12MP camera does make some sense.... Oh, and I've seen figures of around 200 pixels per inch for acceptable photos, and that on a 6 x 4 inch print is 1MP - others say 300 pixels per inch so that's 2MP. Cheers, David |