Craigy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 1118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted
Sun Sep 2 2001 22:20:41 UTC (14 years 16 hours ago) and read 2933 times:
Some of these are pretty good for a
very cheap and very poor digital. What is the camera and what is the quality like at 1024x768?
Could be good enough for shots on the ground.
Aer Lingus From Ireland, joined May 2000, 1585 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted
Sun Sep 2 2001 22:27:53 UTC (14 years 16 hours ago) and read 2931 times:
They're much sharper than any other photos you've shown us and of much better quality. The last one is the best, upload it but the ramp junk is very annoying.
As far as I've seen that Canon EOS3000 hasn't done you much favours, I'd stick with the digital for the moment where possible
Yevgeny From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 199 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted
Mon Sep 3 2001 00:32:35 UTC (14 years 14 hours ago) and read 2912 times:
Very nice pics
What kind of camera you got !
Brownphoto From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 151 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted
Mon Sep 3 2001 03:09:07 UTC (14 years 11 hours ago) and read 2897 times:
Yes indeed, I would like to echo the other writers comments, and wonder:
1. What kind of camera?
2. Can it be set for 1024x768 resolution?
Those shots are very nice!
LGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted
Mon Sep 3 2001 08:17:10 UTC (14 years 6 hours ago) and read 2891 times:
Hi, the Canon EOS 3000 is a camera I am very happy with, problem is I have a flatbed scanner or I have photos on CD' thats why the quality is poor Im happy with the camera.
These pics where taken at 1024x768 but I resized them, the camera has 3 quality setting (3 different sized images)
The camera is Olympus C-900 as I said very poor and very cheap - cost me £199