If you want to you could always take a photo, pan it either left or right, take a second photo. Print them both out and tape the backside and voila instant 4" x 6" photo for you, since you seem to be so fickle on the issue.
IMHO, this is sort of 'ehhh...maybe' I like the concept, but it will never be the same as it used to be. And the way people want everything smaller, faster and better I don't see much chance of a digital camera implementing a device like this into the camera itself; therefore, making a true snap and print camera combo. /rant
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
SteveJ @ Nov 14th 2007 7:11AM
Why 2x3? I guess just for portability, but really, a 2x3 print seems almost pointless doesn't it?
StrangeBum @ Nov 14th 2007 8:36AM
If you want to you could always take a photo, pan it either left or right, take a second photo. Print them both out and tape the backside and voila instant 4" x 6" photo for you, since you seem to be so fickle on the issue.
IMHO, this is sort of 'ehhh...maybe' I like the concept, but it will never be the same as it used to be. And the way people want everything smaller, faster and better I don't see much chance of a digital camera implementing a device like this into the camera itself; therefore, making a true snap and print camera combo. /rant
Dan @ Nov 14th 2007 3:16PM
Two 3x2 photos wouldn't make a 6x4 print. It'd be a 6x2 or 3x4. You'd need four to make it the same size.