Skip Navigation


For someone who thought he was scaling back on the work this week, I’ve somehow managed to find myself doing shifts Monday through Sunday (Wednesday being the notable olive–picking exception). This doesn’t bug me, since I could quite honestly do with the money (no more CentreLink means no more suckling from the government’s teat) and I’m still technically saving my ass off; so I should be grateful. What I shouldn’t be grateful for is the lack of decent soda in the house — Lemon Diet Coke tastes like a moist towelette… if you know what I mean.

I’ve really hit a wall with my digital–camera–buying plans; and it’s all because a trade–off between size and quality that I’m not ready to make. On the one had, I want a very compact camera. On the second hand, I demand a minimum resolution of 2 megapixels. On the third hand, I have a limited budget… let’s say I max out at $650. Let’s look at those first two hands in detail.

When it comes to size, a camera that I plan to carry in my pocket must (obviously) be very small. If it isn’t small enough to carry with me everywhere I go, I clearly won’t be carrying it with me everywhere I go. If I’m not carrying it with me everywhere I go, I’ll never use it. If I never use it, it’s a wasted investment… much like my other cameras. This is the rock, next comes the hard place.

Unfortunately for the many credit–card–sized cameras available, most have very limited resolutions (640 by 480, though they claim an “effective” resolution of 1.3 megapixels). Unfortunately for me, most of the higher–resolution ultra–hyper–compact cameras are well out of my price range. Picture quality is, though not paramount, of fair importance to me; it’s nice to be able to view your photos full–screen with no loss of quality, and even nicer to be able to print a decent–sized photo should the need arise. But for now, I’d best be getting my ass to work.