Does anyone own a Nikon 2200? I'm wanting to buy one eventually. I want one to take landscape pictures with. How well do you think it would work for that? Or do you recommend something else?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Nikon 2200
- Thread starter Amanda-Soo
- Start date
Deamiter
I just follow Christ.
Check out http://www.dpreview.com and spend a few days pouring over the different features and cameras out there. They have almost every digital camera worth buying, and they do an extensive review of many. Also look through 20 or so user reviews and look for any common problems that you might have to look out for. There's always one or two that REALLY bash a camera (looking for the perfect product, or bought a cheap camera after using a pro model usually) but if people end up saying the same thing repeatedly, it's likely you'll have the same problems. The site also allows you to compare features. By just checking out some of the other Nikon Coolpix cameras in that range, I think you would be much happier with the Nikon 3100.
For about 50 dollars more, it has three megapixels rather than two. At the higher resolution settings, the three megapixels are all but unnoticable in a 4x6 print, while the 2200's 2 megapixels will show up to the eye unless you use an uncompressed format which REALLY eats up storage space fast! Also, the 3100 uses compact flash storage cards (only type 1 -- not a problem for you) which are really superior in durability and reliability than the 2200's smartmedia cards. Most of the other features seemed rather comparable to me, but those two alone would be worth the extra investment.
However, I only looked at some of the Nikon coolpix cameras around the 2200. I would really recommend spending some time on the website I posted (or others if you can find some other good sites), and look around for name brand cameras with the features you need. For landscapes, the lens and magnification isn't always as important as you'll likely be able to walk or drive another mile to cut out that ugly building standing in your way. However, the difference between 2 and 3 megapixels really will be noticable.
Megapixels aren't all they're cracked up to be. More does not simply make a better camera. However, when you consider that 3 Megapixels is generally (or so I've heard) regarded as the minimum 'perfect' resolution on a 4x6 print (your eye can't distinguish the difference between 35mm and digital at that resolution) I think you would be smart to go with the higher quality for your still shots.
For about 50 dollars more, it has three megapixels rather than two. At the higher resolution settings, the three megapixels are all but unnoticable in a 4x6 print, while the 2200's 2 megapixels will show up to the eye unless you use an uncompressed format which REALLY eats up storage space fast! Also, the 3100 uses compact flash storage cards (only type 1 -- not a problem for you) which are really superior in durability and reliability than the 2200's smartmedia cards. Most of the other features seemed rather comparable to me, but those two alone would be worth the extra investment.
However, I only looked at some of the Nikon coolpix cameras around the 2200. I would really recommend spending some time on the website I posted (or others if you can find some other good sites), and look around for name brand cameras with the features you need. For landscapes, the lens and magnification isn't always as important as you'll likely be able to walk or drive another mile to cut out that ugly building standing in your way. However, the difference between 2 and 3 megapixels really will be noticable.
Megapixels aren't all they're cracked up to be. More does not simply make a better camera. However, when you consider that 3 Megapixels is generally (or so I've heard) regarded as the minimum 'perfect' resolution on a 4x6 print (your eye can't distinguish the difference between 35mm and digital at that resolution) I think you would be smart to go with the higher quality for your still shots.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
