Need to get a fairly cheap digital camera - opinions?

[BigRedDad]

Whilst I get what you're saying, I think that's a bit unfair. It's kind of like saying obviously moments to me aren't as important as they are to someone who spends hundreds to thousands on SLR's.

NM. Just saw you ordered the Samsung. Enjoy the camera.

 

[Monty]

I have an old 3.1MP Kodak EasyShare that I was perfectly satisfied with. The built-in rechargeable batteries deteriorated to the point where it wouldn't hold a charge for a full day even if I didn't take any pics. But I got years of use out of it and it took great pics for a PHD camera. [Push Here Dummy]

I wouldn't try to print them to 8x10 paper, but for 4x6 or 5x7 and web use they were just fine.

I now have a 10MP Olympus SP-570UT that takes amazing pics and they look great at anything short of poster-size prints.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Whilst I get what you're saying, I think that's a bit unfair. It's kind of like saying obviously moments to me aren't as important as they are to someone who spends hundreds to thousands on SLR's.

You're missing the point. Our general thoughts/point is that you can get just as good a photo from a point and shoot as a dSLR at the mouse; its how you use it.

The thought of Megapixels are is that they do not determine anything to do with the quality of the photo, rather you do - You're the one holding the camera. Most marketing departments have seized on MP numbers as a way to try and promote their products.

 

[matt_taylor1985]

Good times peeps - should be arriving today.

 

[wdwmagic]

The difference in performance between 8 MP and 12 MP on an entry level digital camera is ziltch. There is not going to be a noticeable benefit from the standpoint of cropping because, by the time the difference became meaningful, you'd run into noise issues.

If it were me, I'd actually go for a 6 MP entry level P&S over a 12 MP just because the files will take up so much less space, and you don't get much of a benefit from 12 MP over 6.

My point--megapixels are largely a marketing gimmick...that has really worked for some reason!

I don't entirely agree with that. I've got a couple of point and shoots around, and when resized down for online use, the 12MP looks better than the 8MP and the 6MP. It does also have a practical use in crop - not always, but sometimes it can really help save a photo. If you are pixel peeping, there is more noise in the 12MP, but on a resize to what most people use, it does help.

Obviously, I dont think that MP are the most improtant factor, but in some cases they can't totally be dismissed.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I don't entirely agree with that. I've got a couple of point and shoots around, and when resized down for online use, the 12MP looks better than the 8MP and the 6MP. It does also have a practical use in crop - not always, but sometimes it can really help save a photo. If you are pixel peeping, there is more noise in the 12MP, but on a resize to what most people use, it does help.

You're right. I've had some photos backfocus slightly that look perfect once they get downsized.

My photos generally are only needed to be 2200 pixels wide for transmitting.