Can Kodak s 8 million pixel camera satisfy a small and medium sized photo studio?

Personally, I think the biggest drawback is not the lack of stabilization, but noise. In poor lighting, PP is a little frighteningly noisy. Don't say that at night, as long as it is a dark object, there will be countless noises on it.

In general, it seems that the noise control is relatively unqualified, and I basically dare not show it to people in full frame.

2.The telephoto end is always unsatisfactory. The absence of stabilization is a reason, and it is easy to blur in bad lighting conditions (shutter length). The second is that the pp shot at the telephoto end is always gray, and I don't know if there is a problem with my level.

3.The backlit PP is not satisfactory, gray and gray, which may also be the cause of noise, or it may be a problem with my level.

4.There is no stabilization. This is actually not a disadvantage, and the camera did not have image stabilization before. But for a rookie like me, of course, it's a bit of a pity. I don't bring a tripod with me when I travel in particular, so I feel depressed at night or indoors.

5.Switch contact problems. This has been said by netizens. It is not good to use the switch, and it is often necessary to push the switch to the left to turn it on. Sometimes the focus is half pressed but it suddenly shuts down for you, which is annoying.

6.You can't adjust the parameters under super macro...

7.The wide-angle end deformation is a bit exaggerated, and sometimes it feels a little helpless.

8.If you take a photo of a person, it's good when the light is sufficient, but it's hard if the light is insufficient.

In general, the P880 is very easy to use when traveling, and the light is generally sufficient when traveling, so shortcomings such as noise and anti-shake will not appear. The colors are very real, and I'm very happy with this. However, it doesn't seem to be very suitable for portrait shooting, nor is it suitable for night shooting.

If you have a limited budget, you can consider second-hand DSLR or film SLR first.

It's no problem to have a small digital studio, take some ID photos and simple portraits or something.

The photo studio has to use a DSLR.

M883 is a fashionable card machine, is a product launched in the fall of 2007, at present, the performance parameters are relatively outdated, and the new machine is basically not sold. However,8 million pixels is enough for home use,M883Equipped with8 million pixels,3x optical zoom,And the body is only thick,It feels very small in the hand,Compared to many card machines on the market,It feels very good。 At the same time, M883 also uses an all-metal body and a 3-inch 230,000-pixel LCD screen, which makes the overall performance of M883 good.

M883 is not only cheap, but also basically sufficient in configuration, which can meet the requirements of most consumers.

800 phase elements is the best range of phase element values.

Today's CCD, more than 1,000 phases, the image quality will deteriorate.

Home, enough.

The pixel is very good at this value, or it depends on what model you have, and some models of each brand are average, and some things are good.

First of all, it is enough for home use, because 8 million pixels are enough to make clear large-scale photos of 10 inches and above; Even if you put it on the computer, it can be magnified like an eye, so I say that it is completely enough for home use.

Second, Kodak is favored for its unique imaging (even for low-end products). If you compare the images taken by other brands with the images taken by Kodak, you will find that Kodak's images are more eye-catching.

Moreover, most Kodak cameras have built-in image processing programs, which can be processed more conveniently**.

But Kodak also has a fatal wound — **excessive. The so-called ** is when the camera shoots something too bright. Kodak's cameras, good or bad, almost always have this problem, including the low-end small camera Zx1 and the relatively high-end telephoto camera Z812is that I personally use, and whether it is shooting in natural light during the day or shooting with a flash at night, it will stand out, and some ** even dazzling (my machine is like this anyway); The built-in processing software is the same, it will make your picture a little brighter, for this problem, you must think twice before buying!

But it's not very serious).

All in all, the C813 is a pretty good camera, but if you have enough money, why not buy some higher-end cameras?

Having said all this, it is all a family statement, I hope it will be helpful to you. Finally, I wish you a happy purchase and a happy use!!

Kodak is okay.

The imaging is sharp.

The small DC will not be inferior to the Nikon.

The downside is that the reflection speed is a little slower.

The appearance is not as good as Canon, Nikon, etc.

Not to mention and Sony than Sony.

Conclusion: You can start after all**cheap imaging is good.

In fact, 5 million for home cameras is enough, what 8 million, 10 million for home use, that is a gimmick of the manufacturer. Kodak's cameras basically don't sell well in China, mainly because the style is too dull and the LCD screen is a little slow.

Hello! The pixel calculation method is the industry standard, and there is generally a distinction between "total pixels (hardware pixels that make up the sensor, including non-imaging parts)" and "effective pixels (pixels participating in imaging)". Therefore, there is no question that "the pixel calculation method of Kodak cameras is different from that of other brand cameras".

Remember.

Of course, it is enough to take pictures of ** goods.

Wash ** I only go to the century Kaiyuan online printing.

Reason: One word, good!

C813 is enough for general photography, the function is simple and practical, cheap, and cost-effective.

Absolutely!

With a small hint, if you shoot close-up, use the [Macro] mode to shoot more clearly!

Brand digital cameras do not have high imitation or copycats, because they can't be done, digital cameras require a relatively high technical content, now only those irresponsible people tinker with some of the goods that are toys at a glance, take the pixels to fool people, the brand looks at the first to know what the goods are, the digital industry is updated quickly, and the digital industry is also fast.

As long as ** is not outrageous, it should not be a high imitation or copycat, this kind of product is very few imitation and copycat, but be careful with the refurbished machine.

The camera does not have a copycat, it should not be much profit, and there is no technology to copycat, there are fakes, take the CMOS sensor to lie to you that it is CCD, the appearance is like a brand, this is not a copycat, it is a fake, the effect of shooting, it is conceivable, I advise you to buy a good one honestly, after all, use it yourself.

You can do an experiment according to the method on the 2nd floor, rule out your psychological factors, and the results will definitely disappoint you.

I will tell you responsibly: the reality is cruel, and the home DC is better for low pixels.

The higher the pixel, the higher the resolution, that is, you can enlarge ** a little without blurring, but high pixels do not mean that the image quality is good.

Yes, there is no difference.

If the CCD and lens of the same size are used, the possible shooting effect of 8 million pixels will be better.

At present, home cameras, on the one hand, the CCD area is too small, and the higher the phase element, the more difficult the noise is to control. Second, the quality of the lenses used in household machines is not very high. According to testing, the resolution of the lens of the home machine can only support up to 7.1 million pixels.

In other words, anything higher than this is actually useless.

Therefore, when buyers use cameras, the lower the photoxenography, the better. No matter how low it is, it's eight million.

The pixel determines not the sharpness, but the size. In the small ** size, there is no difference between 8 million and 10 million, not only you and me, but also professionals can't see the difference between them. But once the ** is put very large, the difference between the two comes out, and the high pixel is obviously clearer than the low pixel.

For home use, you don't put ** very big, besides, this kind of small digital is limited to the quality of the lens, ** is too big, and the picture quality is also very poor. No one will use a small number to enlarge the size of an inch**. So, home cameras, don't care about the difference between three or two million pixels.

In fact, megapixels are sufficient.

This is a low-end machine with a good cost performance, nothing special.

That's pretty much the price, **280-290

Is it stocked or second-hand?

Again, this one doesn't look very good, and it's also discontinued, pay attention to renovation

Did you put the information on the other **? The local information port, the charter network is OK, I saw someone on the charter network who wants to buy a digital camera. You might as well go up and find out and get in touch. Good luck.

No,,The clarity of his door is not a level at all.,High pixels are sometimes not good.,For example, some domestic machine pixels n million.,But the clarity is beyond the bottom.,If you don't care about the clarity then,Yes.。

A phone is a phone and a camera is a camera that is not a notch thing.

Ultra-full-frame digital.

Full-frame SLR. Normal SLR.

Universal Digital.

Cell phone. Camera.

Rankings are in descending order.

No! Don't say anything else, just point to the hard flaw of mobile phone photography: the lens is too small, and the lighting is insufficient!

The size of the pixel only affects the size of the **, and has no effect on the clarity of the **.

The image sensor (CCD) of the camera and the image sensor (CMOS) of the mobile phone are not at the same level at all, and the effect is not compared with the first.

There is also the problem of the lens, and the aperture asks that the mobile phone cannot be compared with the camera at all. The clearest camera phone now, the ** shot is the effect of the digital camera 7 or 8 years ago (overall).