How good is a 0.3 pixels digital camera??

Question

I saw a very small key chain digital camera at the store [$10]and I just wanted to get people's opinion on how clear the pictures will be?
If you are experienced with digitals or if you have a similar camer I will like you to advice if its a good idea to buy the or if I should save up more money to buy a better camera?

What do you think?

Answer 1

Well being that 4 mp seems to be the standard now, 0.3 would not be good at all.

Answer 2

You can get low-to-medium quality wallet sized prints (2"x3"). The pixels aren't the problem here (sorry folks). It's the size & quality of the sensor. Whoever commented that it's similar to a camphone, good answer.

All sensors have a maximum quality, and it has nothing to do with the pixels/resolution. Pixels only tell you what is the maximum size print you can make and still retain the sensor's maximum quality. I will trade, today, a brand new 8 megapixel camera for a used (but operational and normally functioning) 4 megapixel camera, so long as I get to pick the 4 megapixel camera in question. Why? Because I'd rather have a Nikon D2HS than a Kodak P880. Go ahead and do a search, and see what I mean.

Why is that 4.1 MP Nikon so much more expensive? First off, the sensor is much higher quality. It's physically larger (about 8 times larger) than the Kodak. And the overall quality is much, MUCH higher as well.

Now, to turn that back around, the reason the keychain camera is such poor quality isn't because ofthe 0.3 megapixels. It's because the sensor is about 1/10 the size (or smaller) of the standard point & shoot. That's why I said low-to-medium quality up above.

Now, more megapixels would allow you to get a larger than wallet sized print, but the quality wouldn't improve unless the sensor quality improved.

Don't buy a camera based on the megapixels (i.e., volume). You don't buy bottled water based on the volume, you buy it based on the quality. If bottled sewage water was buy 1, get 4 free, would you buy that over the mountain spring water that was the same price, but had no special sale?

I recommend saving up at least $170, and look at a Nikon or Canon entry level point &shoot digicam around 3.2 -4.0 megapixels, which should be around $100 - $120 dollars. Get a small memory card, rechargeable batteries and a case. After tax, you should be around $170. If you buy from a Ritz or Wolf Camera, you'll also recieve a 9 week photography training course. Use that course to learn about photography.

Answer 3

To be honest, I'd personally invest in an 8 mega pixel camera or maybe a 10. The quality is a lot better and you can easily find a reasonably good price. Most new phones have better than a 4 mega pixel camera, so I wouldn't recommend it as the technology is pretty obsolete.

Answer 4

Pitiful! You won't be able to get even a snapshot sized photo that is print worthy with 0.3 mp. This is the same resolution that Fisher Price's toy cameras have, and they really don't make good prints. Definitely, save up for a better one. You might try to find a used or refurbised camera with at least 3mp. Good luck.

Answer 5

You get what you pay for and that is not a very good camera the resolution is bad and everything but for an additional 90.00 you can get a pretty decent digital camera.

Answer 6

This camera is not worth taking pictures with. In my opinion you need at least a 3 MP camera to take a decent picture.

Answer 7

That's pretty unimpressive.

My camera's 4.1 Megapixels and it's like two years old, so yeah, so a new camera that's only 0.3 megapixels (even if it was only $10) really sucks.

Answer 8

10$ are too much for a camera 0.3 pixels ;)

Answer 9

It is a toy. Good for small size photos such as an avatar on the web.

Answer 10

YOU DUDE JUST HERE TO TELL YOU THAT CAMERA'S PICURES ARE GONNA LOOK LIKE SHITT BUT GO AHEAD AND BUY IT PLAY AROUND WITH IT THEN GET A BETTER CAMERA