Pixels, shmixels

[JFR]

I am planning on upgrading my 2mp Kodak point and shoot camera I've been using since 2004. It has been bounced around the boat, and is starting to cause grief.

 

AT the present, I can only find cameras 8 mps and up to 12 mps in the point & shoot category. Most of my photos are for the net, e-mails to families and friends and print 4 X 6 prints

 

What is the difference in the number of pixels, and to what benefit to the higher numbers. Brand names that you have had good results or are comfortable using, would be great to narrow my research.

 

Thanks

 

Just JOHN

[Raf]

John, I own a Panasonic and if I had to do it again, I'd get either another Panasonic or a Canon.

[mepps]

Canon is my favorite, although Olympus offers a great fishermans camera - its can go underwater, handle cold temps and is somewhat shock proof = Olympus 1030sw

 

I've never used one, but in theory they seem great!

 

I've got a Canon G5 (5mp), S2 (5mp) and Rebel XTi (10mp) and a Canon GL1 DV cam.

The G series are really solid cameras with a lot of features for some one who wants more then a point and shoot, but less then an dSLR.

Edited September 30, 2008 by mepps

[wallyboss]

the more pixels the better and clearer the picture is.

[BillM]

the more pixels the better and clearer the picture is.

 

 

Not really... You can have a 100MP camera, but if the lense and sensor are garbage, your picture is going to be garbage.

 

I like Canon's... Any of the PowerShot series make for a great point and shoot.. They have great lenses and awesome digital sensors (Digic III and IV in newer models)

 

They are consistently ranked at the top of the heap when it comes to point and shot. You really can't go wrong with the Powershot SD series...

 

I currently own a Canon A630, it's a fullsize body and not top of the line by any means. 8MP, Digic II processor and a decent optical zoom.. I am pretty sure it's around the $200 range.

Edited September 29, 2008 by BillM

[Spiel]

....I had an Olympus D-535, 3.2 megapixel for a few years and it served me very well till I drowned it in lake water (yes another one!) this past Labour day weekend. To replace it I picked up a Canon PowerShot A580. It has 8.0 megapixels and the picture quality and clarity is a vast improvement over the Olympus 3.2 megapixel camera. I might mention that I also purchased it for less money than the Olympus and with my HBC reward points it cost me a whopping $29.00 plus tax.

 

The pictures I've downsized for the board are clearer than ever.

[maybe]

The more pixels you can get, the better. They're your margin of error cushion.

 

They can compensate for a lack of zoom. Say you've got 4x zoom on both your old 2mp and a new 10mp, and you zoom em all the way trying to get a pic of a fox across the road. On the 2mp, the fox might end up being about an inch wide blob on your monitor at 100% display size. With the 10, putting more pixels into the same square feet of reality, that fox will be closer to half the size of your monitor. Cropping the image (cutting away the excess stuff around the edges) is a fast Red Green way to squeeze more zoom out of your shot, and with the extra pixels, the image quality will still look ok.

 

More pixels can also compensate for blur/fuzz. Grab one of your pics that's slightly blurry, and drop it down to 50% size for viewing. It'll look a bit sharper. At 25%, it'll look a lot better. (Try to stick to multiples of 25% - odd numbers aren't as talented at sharpening.) Dropping a 2mp shot to 25% gives you a postage stamp. Dropping a 10mp to 25% still gives you an ok 4x6 print.

 

I have a 10mp Canon Powershot A640. Love it. Fast startup, great auto focus system, very easy to get a good grip on. Chomps the same AA batteries I always carry for GPS/MP3 speakers/etc. The weird swing-out-flip-over view finder comes in really handy for shooting around corners...it'll work on any angle, and auto-rotates the image. Several prints from this camera have been gallery-exhibited, some into the 2'x3' size range. Not bad for a point and shoot critter!

 

I never go out in poor weather, or by myself, and our boat's not the least bit tippy, so I don't worry much about it not being waterproof. If your camera may get dunked, bear in mind that there are rigid waterproof enclosures available for many nice makes/models. The ones I've seen look kind of like a clear custom-fit Pelican box, and run $200ish on ebay. Definitely check that the box is available BEFORE you buy a camera, just in case. It'd be lousy to buy a camera, then want a box and find out you can't have one.

 

There are soft ziplock-on-steroid thingies too. Think I've seen them at Tiger Direct for about $20, but I could be way off on that.

 

I usually default to checking Canada Computers when I need something electronic. Great prices, knowledgeable staff, always very good service.

[JohnF]

I got a Canon A80 years ago (when they still cost an arm and a leg) and it's been excellent. I discovered in my research that Canon apparently uses better lens components than some other brands. It's been dropped twice that I know of on my driveway. It marked the case but no harm to the functions. It's great on batteries (AA) and a feature I really like is that the viewscreen folds to protect itself. Best of all, after years of being knocked around, it still works as well as it did on day one. I realize they don't still offer that model but if you can get a modern version like it you'll be happy.

 

Several family members have had great results with Fuji cameras. The one I really like is under $200 now but is a tad bulky for carrying whilst fishing

 

I was given a small HP digital and it just doesn't work as nicely as the old Canon. It's already having issues like the shutter cover not opening when it should. I got it because (a) it was free in an HP printer deal ( I wanted a smallish AA battery driven cam for carrying on the river. The HP has let me down several times on the river (sticky lens cover) so I'm back to carrying the slightly larger and slightly heavier (4 AA's vs 2 AA's) Canon.

 

JF

[tbayboy]

First off, I'm a big canon fan. You can Canons S3s for 200 on ebay/kijijii/etc - big fan.

 

Now on to the megapixel thing - more is always better BUT once you pass 6 or so and you're planning 4x6 prints and web stuff you're really going beyond the bang for buck. Instead I'd focus on features like optical zoom (you'll pry my canons 12x zoom from my cold dead hands I don't care how many megapixels you've got). Image stabalization is another thing to look for (especially if it has a big zoom).

 

I'm also looking at the olympus all weather camera for something I can take on the rivers and ice fishing without worrying about ruining the other camera.

[Stoty]

If your pocketbook will allow it, get a digital SLR camera for sure.

They are league's above the point and shoot models.

 

I have a Canon Rebel XT (8 mp) DSLR, and its an amazing camera. Easy to use, customizable with different lenses & flashes.

Unreal quality as well.

 

For the little extra money, its WELL worth the investment.

[BillM]

I don't think I'd be carrying the DSLR in my fishing vest while wading down a river, lol

[Moosebunk]

Any Lumix with a Leica lens. I have two, a 4 and 6mp camera.

 

I like taking pictures, alot. These are great cameras at your usual costs.

[Dabluz]

Hard to say which is the best bang for the buck. I have a small Olympus Stylus 600. It's my third digital camera. I've had it almost 2 years now and I like it quite a bit. Very long battery life (rechargeable battery), works great in all weather (rain, snow, -30 C etc). Takes pretty good pictures and very easy to operate. Has good anti-blur (my granddaugter is always dancing etc). Great for macro. very fast auto focus. Very good large 2 1/2 inch screen. However, uses XD type data card which are a bit more expensive and harder to find. No sound when I am using it for taking movies but that does not bother me. I hate it when you hear somebody breathing and talking 10 times louder than everyone else during a home movie....lol. It's not a movie camera anyway.

 

If you want to recharge your battery when away from home, get a 10 dollar converter that plugs into the cigarette lighter of your car. You can even get one that allows you to play your walkman or mp3 player through the car stereo via an FM frequency.

 

In any event, get good glass lenses and at least 6 to 8 megapixels.

Edited September 30, 2008 by Dabluz

[douG]

I'm with Moosebunk on the Lumix Panasonic line. I have a similar camera to Bunk, and Rafal, too. It seems that we all believe that a larger lens will gather more light for a more detailed picture. This camera is not an SLR, but still has a 2 inch wide lens, and a 12 X zoom, and shake removal stuff. I also believe that beyond 10 MP, you are beyond your needs for resolution. Get a camera that you like to shoot, because that is the only way you will improve as a photographer.

 

Panasonic has Leica lenses, Sony has Zeiss, both are superb.

 

I've had this camera, the DMC FZ8, for almost 3 years, and I am still learning and improving as a photographer. When I stop learning is when I get a better one.

 

The Lumix has a proprietary battery (no AAs), but I got two when I bought the camera, and always have a fully charged spare. Each pack lasts for over 500 shots even using the lcd screen already. Memory is a 2 GB chip thingy, only, but I have a couple. This combination lets me shoot over 500 7 MP shots without a reload, and then another 500 after that.

 

The market for a pocket camera has been taken over by cell phones. Use your cell for a pocket loaded snapshot, but get something with a larger lens for better, more vivid pictures. Or just go deep and get a DSLR.

Edited September 30, 2008 by douG

[Stoty]

I don't think I'd be carrying the DSLR in my fishing vest while wading down a river, lol

 

I do.

Even took it on a week long camping trip to the interior of Algonquin this summer.

[yellowboat]

I have a Pentax Optio 7 mp takes nice pictures and is waterproof to 3 m.

[bigfish1965]

I have a Canon S5 and an S2. Will likely get one of the Canon Elph series for fishing next year..need a small camera for the pocket.

Megapixels only gives you the physical size of the image and unless cropping does not affect picture clarity. The internal processors and lenses are the important factors. Lots of the smaller point and shoot cameras really cheap. Most come with some basic image editor software.

If you are looking to become a neophyte, look for cameras that have RAW shooting abilities. This is the equivalent to a digital negative. Cameras compress and convert the raw data into a .jpg file on the fly and programs like photoshop do it much better.

The new SDHC cards are so cheap. Picked up a 4 GB card for 19 bucks. Crazy.

[danc]

If you are looking to become a neophyte, look for cameras that have RAW shooting abilities.

 

The biggest problem with shooting RAW is that it takes 5 to 15 seconds for the camera to process the image before you can take your next shot. Fine for landscapes and still life, but not much good for action shots.

 

I'm convinced that with the small sensors that point and shoot cameras have, 5 or 6 mp's is plenty. You can only pack so much info on a tiny chip before problems start showing up. I've printed tack sharp 8 x 10's with my 5 mp cameras. Unless you plan on making poster size prints, 5 mp's does the best all around job IMHO.

[JFR]

Thank you to everyone who has responded. You have provided me with much food for thought in my quest. This is greatly appreciated.

 

just JOHN