I consider buying a panasonic NV-Gs 120 or 150. One of the differences are the pixels. The 120 has 1.7, the 150 has 2.3. Is this enough for standard small photo's or do I need a photocamera beside to get real nice pictures?

wrote in message
.. .
I consider buying a panasonic NV-Gs 120 or 150. One of the differences are
the pixels. The 120 has 1.7, the 150 has 2.3. Is this enough for standard
small photo's or do I need a photocamera beside to get real nice pictures?


Doubt if you'll notice any practical difference between 1.7 & 2.3 MP on A5
prints.
I used a small and light 2MP Coolpix 775 3 years ago (along with my EOS3
film body) for recording a 2 week touring holiday in the French Alps.
Needless to say, it was the 775 which captured the majority of shots, and I
had no difficulty making acceptable A5 prints. A4 prints of an acceptable
quality were hardly possible, and only with certain types of subject matter.
Seem to remember that I took ~500 shots on the 775 and just 2 films (72
exposures) on the EOS3. It was often far too hot & humid to carry the
rucsac with water bottle, maps, heavy camera body plus normal & macro lenses
etc.
For "real nice pictures" I'd suggest at least 6MP on a DSLR (such as my
EOS10D). The results are different - A3+ prints being posible. But then
you're going to be carrying heavier body, lenses etc.......
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm