Ok - I just bought the 320L because I was talked into the higher resolution, however, looking at the test images of the 220L and the 320L "musicians" I kinda like the color in the 640x480 220L. So, my main question is : if I took a picture with the 320L in 640x480 mode, should it look the same as the same pic taken with the 220L ???? same resolution, pretty much the same hardware, in theory it should be identical, or am I missing something here? difference in #of pixels or something ???

trying to determine if the extra $100 I spent was worth it.

Thanks

-- Michael Cousins (mciii@ix.netcom.com), October 14, 1998

Answers

Color really doesn't have much to do with resolution, since it's a function of the sensor, the filters on the sensor, and the camera's firmware. The sensor, hardware, and firmware are pretty much all different between the 220 and 320. No doubt about it, the D220L has truly excellent color - better in my opinion than that of the 320 (and many other more-expensive cameras)! The 320's resolution will definitely be worth it if you're going to be printing your pictures out to hardcopy, or if you want to crop into the images at all. OTOH, if all you intend is web and email, the D220L would probably make more sense.

-- Dave Etchells (web@imaging-resource.com), October 14, 1998.