[Stewart]

We are looking at the Nikon coolpix 2100. Anyone tried it out? I was looking at the 3100 as well and was wondering if it is worth it to pay the xtra 100 buck and get 3 mp or stay with the 2 mp 2100? We will be using it mainly to e-mail pics and save them to cd, occasionally printing some out. I like the size of the Nikon and think we might take it with us more if it is smaller than the SLR we have. What do you all think?

:money: :money: :money: :money: :cheers:

 

[tisenberg]

On the print-outs, if you are not intending on blowing the pictures up to 8 X 10 or something like that... stick with the 2meg. Save the money for the extra memory sticks.

 

[Stewart]

What do memory sticks cost? I am guessing $50 for 128 mb?????:argh:

 

[tisenberg]

Depending on the type it takes you can spend $45.00 at get 64 meg or spend the same $45.00 and get 128 meg.

As we say about printers... check the price of the consumables... in this case, the add-on memory prices.

Also, some computers now-a-days, printers and even walkup print terminal at stores allow you to plug the memory stick into "it", see what your potential uses use (probably not an issue).

 

[slipshod]

Memory Sticks

I have a Sony Mavica that uses Memory Stick technology ,and I love it.Mine is only 64mb and it holds all the pictures I have ever tried to put on it at any given time.My new Computer has a slot for the stick,download and reformat and you are off to the races again with full capacity.

 

[PeteNM]

I know there different factors involved so there's likely not any concrete answer. In general about how many pictures can be stored on say a 64 mb stick ?? A 128 mb stick ??

Thanks

 

[slipshod]

64mb

I am not sure how many pictures I can get on it.Never filled it up and I have had a lot of pics on it.I was going to buy a 128mb stick because I thought I would need more space ,but I am not spending the money,seems like a waste.

 

[tisenberg]

As you guessed... it depends. A 4 megapixel camera, can take pictures that are very high resolution (very big), to "ok" resolution "very small".

1 megapixel is 1 million pixels (dots) on the actual picture
2 mega is 2 mill
3 mega is 3 mill
4 is 4
yada, yada, yada

a 4 megapixel picture is 1,704 X 2,272 which in turn is 3.9 million pixels AKA 4 megapixels (close enough to say 4 million)

more pixels, means smoother lines, more clarity, etc. It has NOTHING to do with the printed SIZE. It will either use 1 million pixels to print a picture on a 4 X 6 or 4 million pixels to print on 4 X 6.

A read that a 8 X 10 picture needs 5.2 million pixels to print on every spot on the paper. Would you use a picture that has 1 million pixels or 4 million pixels. In otherwords, if you plan to blow up pictures, you need a higher mega pixel camera. No intent... no need.

Back to your original question. How many on a 64 meg stick. Lets assume you are using a 2 megapixel camera. The highest quality picture that a 2 megapixel could take is 2,160,000 pixels which is pretty much 2 megabytes in size. If you have a 64 meg stick, it can hold about 30 to 32 depending on the amount of overhead required to store pointers and such. Now the same 2 megapixel camera, can also take lower resolution pictures.

Say instead of 1200 X 1800, you took 288 X 432, in that case, you require only .125 megabytes per picture. Low quality, but if all you are going to do is put it on the webpage... it probably is enough. With this, you can store a couple hundred pictures on a 64 meg stick.

Confused enough yet? Did I even answer the question? LOL

Please go ahead and ask more and I will try and clarify the areas. This is confusing stuff.

 

[slipshod]

tisenberg

I point my camera ,take the photo.Use auto focus and set the lighting to what looks best in the view screen.I sure am happy with the pics I get.Megapixels,dill pickles,nose pickers it's all the same to me.

 

[Chris]

Tuba, great post ----

Thanks for taking the time to share some good info to the masses.

Andy

 

[PeteNM]

Originally posted by tisenberg


Confused enough yet? Did I even answer the question? LOL

Good reply and no I'm not confused. I'm not interested in enlarging digital pix. I've got other camreas for that. I'm kind of like Slipshod, I just want to point, click and upload a decent picture without the file size being huge. Looks like anything above a 2 megapixel camera with a 64 mb memory stick should do the trick.

Now I've got some ammo to give to Santa. I just wonder if it will do any good.......

Thanks !!!

 

[parts man]

So would a 3mp camera give you a decent 8x10 pic??

 

[tisenberg]

PeteNM -> cool, any other ammo, let me know. My wife was a skeptic. I got a nice 2 megapixel picture from my sister, I printed it on 4 X 6 and then on a 8.5 X 11. She was sold.

partsman -> Yes, a 3 would be fine, again, it has to do with your opinion. It might be a little grainy. I have noticed that if you put a grainy enlarged picture in a frame behind glass, that the picture looks better. It is probably safer that way too. Ink jets are good, but they don't print a picture designed to last. I had posted previously that I am looking at doing a dye-sublimation printer next.

If you want, I can take a few different resolution pictures so you can print them out with your printer and compare them.

 

[parts man]

T, that would be good, but do remember, I'm on dialup!!

 

[tisenberg]

Damn, can't really do it. The preset resolutions that I have on the camera are 4 megapixles and then some other variations that are not specific stop points such as 3 mega, 2 mega, 1 mega.

I can't upload a pure 4 megapixel picture. The file size is 1.7 meg and there is a attachment limitation of about 1 meg. If you PM me your personal email address. I can email you a 4 megapixel and a 4 megapixel downgraded to *close* to 2 megapixel.

Let me know what you want to do.

Here is the 4 reduced to *close* to 2 megapixel.

Right click the file name and choose "Save Target As". It is about 980K (just short of 1 megabyte)

 

[Argee]

Originally posted by parts man
T, that would be good, but do remember, I'm on dialup!!

Do you have NetZero available to you there. We are on dial up also and switched to NetZero. I don't know how they do it but it's a lot faster for downloading pictures.

 

[Argee]

Originally posted by Stewart
We are looking at the Nikon coolpix 2100. Anyone tried it out? I was looking at the 3100 as well and was wondering if it is worth it to pay the xtra 100 buck and get 3 mp or stay with the 2 mp 2100? We will be using it mainly to e-mail pics and save them to cd, occasionally printing some out. I like the size of the Nikon and think we might take it with us more if it is smaller than the SLR we have. What do you all think?

:money: :money: :money: :money: :cheers:

Have you looked at the Sony DCS75 or 85? I absolutely love mine.

 

[johndeere]

I have a DSC-S85 Sony 4megpixel and I have printed 4x6 and even 8x10 they look great.My nephew has 2megpixel and I printed a few pictures taken with it.It is also a Sony.There not even close to that of the 4mp.Do your self a favor spend the extra and get a 4megpixel camera.Mine will hold around 60 pictures in the highest setting on a 128mb stick.

Something else to consider is battery life.The ones that take AA batteries do not have a very long battery life.However they except the rechargable batteries.But the higher end Sonys take a battery pack similur to a camcorder battery but smaller.That has a longer life between charges.

However if you will not be printing pictures then the 2megpixel will be fine.

 

[Merlin]

Right click the file name and choose "Save Target As". It is about 980K (just short of 1 megabyte



Tisenberg, when you say right click on file name and choose "save as target", what would be the difference in just clicking on the picture to open it, then right clicking and clicking on "save as"? I chose "save as target" and it took quite a while to download. I did it "save as" in a few seconds. I don't see any difference in the pictures. Are there any difference if I were to print it for a framing?

 

[tisenberg]

Not much, but it *could* cause you to download it twice depending on the website. I have seen some site invalidate cache copies of things. If your right-click save does not re-download... no issue.