i get a new camera so help meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee |
i get a new camera so help meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
xkcd always ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Member Posts: 457 Joined: May 2007 Member No: 521,059 ![]() |
Specifics:
- Around $250, DEFINITELY under $300 - Around 7.2 mp - REALLY slim I was thinking about the Canon SD1000 cause it's just a good camera in general but I really really like the slimness of the Casio EX-S770: ![]() But I heard the Casio takes bad pictures and is blurry most of the time. So, what's a good camera? If I plan to get a Canon, I'm aiming towards the Canon S and SD series. Anything good that takes nice pics, won't break easily, and is slim will be good. Recommend! |
|
|
![]() |
*MyMichelle* |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Guest ![]() |
GET THE CANON!
I used to have a Casio 5.0 mp, and it was worse than my 3.2 mp Canon (me, completely ignoring what Arjuna just said, haha) but seriously. Canon's cameras are great. Worth the money. Have way more fun color functions than most. :] |
|
|
![]()
Post
#3
|
|
![]() Photoartist ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 12,363 Joined: Apr 2006 Member No: 399,390 ![]() |
GET THE CANON! Ha ha, nah, that was my point. The Casio had more megapixels, but the Canon still performed better.
I used to have a Casio 5.0 mp, and it was worse than my 3.2 mp Canon (me, completely ignoring what Arjuna just said, haha) but seriously. Canon's cameras are great. Worth the money. Have way more fun color functions than most. :] |
|
|
![]() ![]() |