Camera

Hello,

I am ready to buy a digital camera but I would like some recommendations for the best one out there. I am looking for no less than 4 mp.

Thanks

Well... either the Canon EOS 10D (11 megapixels), or the Nikon D1X (6 megapixels), or the new Kodak based on the Nikon system, don't remember the model #, but it's about 14 megapixels. Now of course, these are VERY expensive cameras.

What's your practical price range / limitation?

:p

My price range is between $500-$650

Thanks for the post

I have a kodak Ls443,
4mp
very handy and high quality.... and within your price range I believe.
good macro photo .
good outdoor imaging.
excellent when you set it out of auto presets.
easy to charge/download images
a good buy.

Thanks for the info, I will definately consider this one. There are so many cameras there that it makes it real difficult to choose.

I'd go to all the photo type magazine sites and look in their review section.

Consumer Reports Mag's whole May issue was about digital photography. They break em down by how long of a delay between shots, shots per batter life etc..

I have Kodax DX4900 w/4mp. It works great and easy to use.
One thing to remember about digital cameras, they eat batteries.
Best to invest in rechargable batteries. Have fun looking for new camera.

www.dpreview.com/ (Digital Photography Review) is a great place too. You can compare camera features and read reviews on many different models.

I recommend www.dpreview.com also. In your expected price range, the Canon G2 gets great reviews... but let me offer another direction.

Almost ANY camera in this resolution / price range will take good pictures (of course, some better than others... typically Nikon and Canon models), but there are some additional things to consider.

When I bought my digicam, I already had a large investment in 35mm stuff, including multiple cameras, flashes, and motor drives which I used rechargeable AA batteries in. So... one of my prime considerations was to NOT purchase a digicam which would require either a special battery or storage card.

If these are concerns of yours also, pay careful attention to the storage media type (compact flash vs. smartmedia vs. memory stick, etc.), and the battery type (just can't go wrong with NMh rechargeable AA size).

Meanwhile, if you narrow your choices down to a top 3 or 4, I might have more ammunition for you. I hate to press my personal tastes into a discussion like this, but for me, nothing got considered other than Nikon, Canon, and Leica.

Good Hunting!!! :p

I second Shiva's suggestion re AA batteries. In fact, I consider battery choice almost as important as resolution and zoom ratio. Batteries are the only recurring expense with digital photography (assuming you view your pictures on the computer instead of printing) and the cost can be significant.

My preference would be a camera that includes cheap AA's and no charger. I can buy a recharger and rechargable batteries cheaper than any camera manufacturer will charge (MicroCenter stores had a charger and 2 AA's for $5.99 last month). Note that some cameras include a battery that looks like 2 AA's welded together. If you read the manual, you will probably find that you can also use 2 AA's.

I want a recharger that is separate from the camera so I can be shooting while a second set of batteries is charging. That rules out docking stations.

I would add Olympus (and Minolta if they get their recent quality problems resolved) to Shiva's list.

If you need a long zoom ratio, check out the HP 850: 4MP, 8x zoom, $500 list, Pentax lens. A couple of magazines rate it as best value currently.

Thanks for all the awesome posts. I will consider all of these in my decision. I went to a camera store and they stated that anything over 3.2 mp is a waste of money. What ever they meant I don't know. I thought the more mp the better quality as the picture get larger.

Thanks again

More pixels let you make bigger prints, not better prints. 3 MP is enough for 8.5x11, even with some cropping.

I've been looking at the Fujifilm S602zoom ,its only a 3.1MP ,but from reading the dpreview forums some have done up prints considerably larger than 8.5X11. It really depends on the content of the picture in question.Also are you looking for a "point and shoot " camera or something with a little more "Control"?I've use Manual SLRs for many years and a simple PAS ,just wouldn't suffice.

Fujifilm S602z

There is NO such thing as TOO much resolution. If you want to truly fool the eye into thinking that a 8.5" x 11" print came from film, not digital, IMHO 4 megapixels is the absolute MINIMUM resolution to start with.

My photographic work is more oriented toward fine art (landscapes in particular, with some still-life and misc.), and even using an Epson Photo 2200, with Genuine Fractals as my imaging format standard, if I want to produce a print larger than standard letter size, I REQUIRE more than 3 megapixels to begin with, and in most photographer's opinions (vs. computer user's opinions), 5 or 6 megapixels is the minimum for this quality / size ratio.

ok, ok, so I've now contributed almost 4¢ worth...!!!

I have a 1.3mp camera. It takes a pretty good picture.
I can fit it easily on floppy and take it to Walgreens, use their machine and it makes a nice 8x11. I was surprised at how good it came out.

That is not why I am posting though...

I just wanted to say...Good thread! :)