Polaroid's i1032 10 megapixel compact
By Jeff Wilson 
posted May 27th 2006 6:16PM
posted May 27th 2006 6:16PM
The megapixel race is sort of like the old US / USSR arms race: all parties involved are in a mad rush to see who can out shoot the other. But instead of suffering a thermonuclear holocaust, we're subject to equally painful joyous, super-detailed photos of Uncle Fred's celebretory leap after bowling a perfect game. That said, Polaroid enters the fray with the latest addition to the 10 megapixel club, the i1032. It packs typical digital camera fare: a 3x optical zoom (with 4x digital zoom), a 2.4-inch LCD, 32MB of internal memory, PictBridge support, and a SD slot. The race is on, but you don't have to bankrupt your country to own one: you can pick up this pixel packer at Wal-Mart for under $300.
Now they need to make one with an internal rechargable battery. I hate how AA's have a 30 minute long life span in cameras like these.
the biggest problem with have all these oodles of pixels is that it doesn't improve image quality that much. It just makes for bigger pictures. For the average consumer who will probably not print anything larger than a 4x6, 4 or 5 MP is plenty. It has sufficient detail to allow for fairly detailed cropping. 10MP is just excessive.
It's cool but this camera need an integrated micro printer to be a real Polaroid.
That 32MB of internal memory is going to do a lot of good with 10MP sized photos... *sigh*
they need to use those extra megapixels to give more optical zoom at a lower megapixel setting. 10Mp at 3x is overkill and underwhelming all at the same time.
lets' just remember that pixels aint everything...
I'd rather see greater sensitivity then more megapixels. My DSLR can go up to 1600ASA without much apparent noise. Most of these point'n'shoots can only go up to 400ASA and even then they're noisy as can be and it's not worth using. It's unfortunate because the point'n'shoots are the cameras you really need the sensitivity for.
Hear hear, #6. Too many times noise is far too conspicuous at 400, where most P&S's don't go past 200. And, how about a flash that doesn't blow out highlights and better light detection?
I had three Kodak v570s (before they ALL broke) and while it was a fun camera, even for modern tech, the pictures were mediocre. I understand the difficulty these cameras face, and I infinitely prefer my DSLR, too, which handles 3200ASA better than most P&S's at 400.
But instead of more MP, they need better-quality sensors. Maybe the reason they don't focus on that is because the quality is difficult to translate to market-speak...? MP is "easy" to teach to a general public.
The whole megapixel thing is over-rated, all you get is bigger and bigger pictures, requiring faster and larger SD cards and so on. How many people actually need to take pictures that effectively have a print size 2 to 6 times larger then they'll ever need. Most people just end up resizing their photos once they're on computer anyhow. A higher quality sensitivity would be put to better use.
I am looking to purchase a new digital camera. I want a good, small camera that can take good pictures and fit in my pocket. I am considering the Sony Cybershot DSC-W70. Would anyone recommend that one or a different one? Thanks.