[pct-l] Digital Camera Batt's

[at2002 at earthlink.net (Gary Wright)]

On Friday, May 30, 2003, at 05:42  PM, DAVCATDAV@aol.com wrote:
> Which would lead me to believe that for digital cameras under 6 meg the
> picture quality is necessarily inferior to that of a disposable camera.

It isn't the film that degrades the pictures on a disposable.
It is the poor optics, no ability to adjust the focus, shutter
speed or aperture (manually or automatically).  A decent
point-and-shoot 35mm non-disposable camera will easily
out perform a disposable using the same film.

I'm not sure what the theoretical resolution for 35mm
film is, but for most consumer applications you can't tell
the difference between a 3 megapixel digital image print
and a 35mm print shot with "decent" cameras.

I wasn't trying to make the point that digital was better
than film but that almost anything is better than a disposable
from a picture quality point of view.
Of course, there are other considerations than just picture
quality: weight, durability, cost and so on.