For the holiday season I've been shopping around for a new digital camera. The problem is that I really don't even know what to be looking for. I'm changing cameras because 1.) The resolution sucks; or should I say the pictures come out very grainy and 2.) The zoom isn't that great.

I don't take pictures of people all that often, mainly close up images of nature or surgeries. Landscapes are nice as well, heh. Compact would be nice as well. That's about it, as vague as all that sounds. Thanks for any advice.

I don't have a lot of experience either, but I know if you want 'good' pics you should get 7mp or more... really depends on how much detail you want. Zoom is just something you'll find on some and not on others.

The only brands I have used is Kodak, and i HATE their easyshare software... do not install it if you get a kodak. Good camera, terrible software.

SA Forums are always going on about the Canon SD800/850/1000's. I've got an SD800 myself and it's really, really nice.

Search or ask on the Ars Technica forums. They're very nice and helpful people.

Also, AoEJedi, the number of megapixels doesn't matter that much. More important are the lens and optics and the sensor itself. I mean, 1080p is barely more than 2 megapixels.

When researching the zoom on a camera, always note whether the indicated zoom level is optical or digital. Optical is preferred; it uses actual lense movements to adjust for distance. Digital zoom simply enlarges the image (like using the zoom feature in Photoshop or a picture viewer). Digital zoom makes the image grainy and ugly.

Many digital camera specs will read:
ZOOM: 3x optical/5x digital

This means it can zoom up to 3x using lens action, then an additional 2x (for a total of 5x) using digital action. The better (higher) the optical zoom, the better long range images will turn out. On digital cameras, you'll often notice the zoom bar is divided into two sections. The first section is the optical zoom, the second is the digital.

If you like take pictures for art's sake you really want a DSLR. Megapixel count is nothing, lens and sensor size (the physical dimensions of it) are what count. Anything above 5MP should be fine, as long as the previous two qualities are ok. (Really anything above 3 or 4 should do, it but you won't find any quality camera that have such low MP counts.)

For example, say you buy a crappy camera with s *ZOMG* 12 MP resolution, but a crappy lens and sensor. You end up having a really big, really crappy picture. It would be like having an 8000x6000 jpeg saved at *really* low quality. You still don't have as much detail as a 1600x1200 pic saved at decent quality, you just have twelve million pixels of blurry or artifcaty garbage.

For example I have a Pentax K100D, which is 6MP, but it will blow any compact camera with a 10+ MP resolution out of the water in any situation imaginable.

It's sounds to me like you need a DSLR, which have the distinct disadvantage of not being compact. If you really want a compact, and aren't too picky, you could probably get away with it depending on weather you like to do low light photography, but make sure you read reviews, instead of judging the camera by the resolution it records at.

While the optics/sensor/lens thing is true, megapixels are also important if you plan on printing these images.

1080p may only be 2 megapixels, but it's also 72dpi. Printers, at the MINIMUM, print at 300dpi. Most decent printers print at 1200dpi or higher.

Suddenly your "massive" image becomes much, much smaller.

Multiply them for 15x actually, other wise how do you explain my 10x optical/4.2x digital

Of course, I was just pointing out that people put too much value in "megapixels".

I just ordered an Olympus Stylus 790SW
I got it because its waterproof and small. Exactly what I need.

For really close-up pictures, use a tripod (or something else that can hold the camera steady) and macro mode. Otherwise it's never going to look good.

Also, surgeries? Wouldn't, like, the hospital have some kind of high end medical camera for that kind of thing?

I <3 my Nikon D40. My mother has a Canon SD750 for work..it's pretty spiffy for a compact camera...

Yes, they're important to a point - however, I'd much prefer a decent 6mp DSLR vs a 10mp WalMart special.

i have the canon powershot a510. it's old. 3.1MP 4x optical and 10x digital zoom.

i've printed pics shot in large super fine (the highest res) at 8x10 through the photo place for $4. they're just fine. i don't think i'd be able to go any bigger or it would get grainy.

buy a camera from a camera maker. canon, nikon or pentax. they've been making cameras for decades.

for taking pics of flowers and bugs close up ask around. my powershot, and my sister's powershot a460 suck at taking close ups. they won't focus properly unless you know anything about photography to do it manually.

I've always had good luck with Fuji cameras; everyone in my family has one (all different models though) and we've found them to be good quality, and not too expensive. The only problem is that they use not-as-common memory cards (xD instead of SD)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830122110&Tpk=fuji

this is a great camera, plus it has macro capabilities and 10x optical zoom. on kyle90's note, it takes both SD and xD cards

Yeah, but the time you're talking about a camera good enough to make prints, you're using a DSLR, and all of those have high enough MP counts that it doesn't really matter. Also, you don't have to use a 1-1 pixel dot ratio when you print. I've seen prints from a 6M camera that look *really* good an fairly large prints. Bottom line is, you don't gain anything at all by going to a worse camera with a lower MP count. If the detail isn't there, it never will be. You can blow a 640x480 image as much as you want, but it's not going to make any difference.

Uh, what? Point and shoots are perfectly capable of making print-quality photos.

And I don't understand the entire second half of your paragraph. I said that a higher megapixel count is better.

Oh sorry, I finally fixed it. I posted, and forgot to proof read it, but by the time I remembered I had to go do something.

My point about point and shoots is that they really don't have the lens flexibility or the sensor quality to make photos worth printing in most situations. I guess it depends on why you're printing, and the camera you're using, and what exactly you're going to be doing with the print, but you won't really be missing out on much by upscaling the size of the photo to the size of the paper you print on.

My whole point is, unless you have a DSLR with a *good* lens, the camera probably won't capture enough detail for you to see the quality difference over say, 6mp in any normal size print.

The amount of usefull information captured by the camera does not scale linearly with the resolution the camera records at.

that fuji has optics by carl zeiss. anyone in the photography business will tell you that zeiss lenses are the ****.


and really, there are a lot of fixed lens cameras like the fuji out there that will take output quility photos. the compact point and shoots i agree are garbage for output use, but to dismiss all non-SLRs is ignorant pig-headed.

That Fuji isn't exactly a point and shoot either. I'm not talking about hybrid SLRs, those are great less expensive alternative to full fledged slrs. I'm talking about compact cameras.

You know, some people buy cameras just to take snapshots? Not everyone is trying to sell quality prints or whatever.

Yes, we are talking about that exact situation you just described. We are all insane.

watch when buying inexpensive cameras with lenses with big names on them (like carl zeiss). the saying goes, zeiss is nice at twice the price. it's just the name, it really isn't zeiss quality glass.

Thanks for the info guys.



If we're using the scope, yes, a record and still function are included. If not, no.