Digital Camera question

**Pavlik** · 01-10-2008 02:02 AM

Does Higher Megapixel rating immediately means better quality photo? What brand and model would you recommend? I want a 10-12 MP camera under 300 bucks.

**RP33** · 01-10-2008 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by Pavlik

Does Higher Megapixel rating immediately means better quality photo? What brand and model would you recommend? I want a 10-12 MP camera under 300 bucks.

10 megapixels is a lot.. what were you looking to do with the camera? that would depend on how many megapixels is necessary..

anyway i'd say Canon, Nikon, Olympus are great cameras.. my dad has a Nikon and it's one of the best camera's i've ever used.

and yeah the more megapixels generally the better quality, again depending on what you want to do.. you could have like a 3-4 megapixel camera if you just want to e-mail photos to people or put them on your myspace or something like that.. The higher the resolution, the more pixels in an image and therefore the greater the image quality

**Pavlik** · 01-10-2008 03:43 AM

Thanks RP. Canon, Nikon and Olympus are also the brands that my wife wants. We currently
have a 3.2 MP HP camera which eats up batteries in about 8 shots

Aside from online pics we might want to have them printed so I guess 10 and up would be good, thanks again.

**CutMeMick** · 01-10-2008 09:04 AM

I bought a Casio Exilim EX-S500 Slim back in 2005 when it came out let's just say I got a discount on it because I was such a great customer that instead of paying 500 dlls. I only paid 250 for it.

I'm sure you'll find the same camera for under 300 now.

Heres the info on it.

The EX-S500 measures 3.54" (W) x 2.32" (H) x .63" (D) ( thinnest point .54"). This measurements are comparable to the Sony DSC-T7.
Orange, white and silver are the colors the Casio Exilim EX-S500 will be available also outside of Japan. Other features include 2.2 inch screen, SD-Card slot, 8.3MB internal storage, 3x optical and 4x digital zoom and world time.

Front:

Back:

I've also got 2 chips 1gb each I've only ever used 1 cause 1gb chip can hold up to 1,300 pictures and or 1 hr and 45 minutes of video.
The battery is great I've never had a problem with it.

Good luck.

**Dizaster** · 01-10-2008 11:39 AM

If you can fork out a little bit more money, try to pick up a brand name "SLR" camera.... Even without the 101 features that the cheaper cameras have, they take amazing photos... They make pictures you take look like professional ones you find on websites etc..

More pixel doesn't necessarily mean better quality.. It can mean a giant picture thats 3 times the size of your screen (which is pointless anyone), but it's the quality of picture ie. colours, contrasts etc that make a good quality photo...

Digital SLR is definetly the way to go.. You can't go wrong with any of the brands mentioned.. I've had 3 Canon camera's and all have worked well... The first camera I got about 8 years ago, then I bought one 2 2 years ago with similar advertised features but the pictures look a LOT better.... But my dad just bought a digital SLR camera and the pictures are stunning.. You seriously can't take an unprofessional shot with it. Well, you could if you tried, but they are well worth the extra $$$.

**Wadeb_21** · 01-10-2008 02:54 PM

My girlfriend just got a Fuji camera and it takes excellent pictures. Attached is the link its the Fugi finepix F50fd silver. It has 12 mega pixels and its only 239.99. Like I said its the one my girl has and I couldnt believe the quality of the pics. Take a look

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...cription=Fugi+

**RP33** · 01-10-2008 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by Dizaster

If you can fork out a little bit more money, try to pick up a brand name "SLR" camera.... Even without the 101 features that the cheaper cameras have, they take amazing photos... They make pictures you take look like professional ones you find on websites etc..

More pixel doesn't necessarily mean better quality.. It can mean a giant picture thats 3 times the size of your screen (which is pointless anyone), but it's the quality of picture ie. colours, contrasts etc that make a good quality photo...

Digital SLR is definetly the way to go.. You can't go wrong with any of the brands mentioned.. I've had 3 Canon camera's and all have worked well... The first camera I got about 8 years ago, then I bought one 2 2 years ago with similar advertised features but the pictures look a LOT better.... But my dad just bought a digital SLR camera and the pictures are stunning.. You seriously can't take an unprofessional shot with it. Well, you could if you tried, but they are well worth the extra $$$.

Right, i just didn't want to get too specific when i posted.. as i said in my post the higher the resolution the better the quality.. so i mean if you get up into the 10-12 range it's not gonna look terrible on like an 8x10 photo where maybe a 4 MP would.

My dad's Nikon is SLR and while he's been on some cruises he takes ridiculous photo's that really do look professional so you're spot on with that Diz..

**Von Milash** · 01-11-2008 01:46 AM

megapixels doesn't always relate to quality. There is the body of the unit, the lenses, etc. It just means it has more info per unit of area. If you plan on blowing pictures up, then get more megapixels. But just because a camera had 10megapixels doesn't always mean it'll be a nicer 5x7 pic than what a 3megapixel camera can give you.

Dizaster is right though. I bought my wife a 6mpixel Nikon SLR for Christmas, and it'll destroy a "regular" 10-12 megapixel digital campera easily. 6 is plenty for hobbyists, even pros, dependng on their intent. The lens is a factor of course. You can get a nice 6 megapixel camera like ours and then get a nice 55-200mm lens and zoom in 10-12 times. Try ding that with a 10megapixel digital... it;ll never happen. And then you can get ridiculously awesome lenses...

Getting back to what I was saying, you can have exceptional clarity yet lose trueness and warmth. For example, vacuum tubes have been around forever but every guitar player in the world will tell you no solid state amp beats old fashioned tube amps. This also relates to cameras. An old film slr will produce grainy photos upon magnification, but their is still a trueness and warmth in the shot that a digital won't give you. It's hard to describe. You have to see it...

But anyway, SLR is the way to go, if you can shell out a few extra hundred bucks. You won't regret it. You'll be set for life due to the versatility. But if it's just for pictures of hot chick in bars, you can pick up a good 8-10 megapixel camera for a couple hundred bucks these days.

**Dizaster** · 01-11-2008 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by RP33

Originally Posted by Dizaster

If you can fork out a little bit more money, try to pick up a brand name "SLR" camera.... Even without the 101 features that the cheaper cameras have, they take amazing photos... They make pictures you take look like professional ones you find on websites etc..

More pixel doesn't necessarily mean better quality.. It can mean a giant picture thats 3 times the size of your screen (which is pointless anyone), but it's the quality of picture ie. colours, contrasts etc that make a good quality photo...

Digital SLR is definetly the way to go.. You can't go wrong with any of the brands mentioned.. I've had 3 Canon camera's and all have worked well... The first camera I got about 8 years ago, then I bought one 2 2 years ago with similar advertised features but the pictures look a LOT better.... But my dad just bought a digital SLR camera and the pictures are stunning.. You seriously can't take an unprofessional shot with it. Well, you could if you tried, but they are well worth the extra $$$.

Right, i just didn't want to get too specific when i posted.. as i said in my post the higher the resolution the better the quality.. so i mean if you get up into the 10-12 range it's not gonna look terrible on like an 8x10 photo where maybe a 4 MP would.

My dad's Nikon is SLR and while he's been on some cruises he takes ridiculous photo's that really do look professional so you're spot on with that Diz..

No probs, good work !

Between all of us I think we've got it right.... I get a bit behind with the megapixel thing, but I don't think you can go to wrong these days unless you were buying something second hand or trying to find something new and decent under $100..

We only got a low end SLR and it still kicks the ass over any normal camera.. Exactly as Milash said, it's hard to put it into words, but you can see the difference..
A really high end SLR though could would take pictures like that of really high quality porn sites with ease.. Did I say porn sites?? I don't look a porn sites.... I meant,,,,sites that have pictures of ummmm, errrrrr, okay, yes, all I look at is porn so that will have to be my example..