Im sorry I miss read... a 6x8 but Im sure you all understand what I meant.

JohnnyP

Even though a 3.1 mp will make a 8x10 if I crop will it still make a nice 8x10?

JohnnyP

@DocGratis

True, and most point and shoot don't even have a viewfinder any more (sadly). I was just pointing out that they do have their uses.

The difference between what the camera sees and what you see through the view finder is not really that great unless you are at very close range.

CC

CaptainChickenpants

Yeah, that struck me, too. "Only old-timers peer through the viewfinder." Actually everyone who owns a DSLR--prp and amateur--peers through the viewfinder, except under some very specific situations such as oddly-angled macro photography.

Scott D. Feldstein

@CaptainChickenpants: Re: Screen vs viewfinders...

Most point and shoot models viewfidners don't go through the lens, so you don't get to see what the camera sees.. for DSLR's sure they work great...

DocGratis

"Only old-timers peer through the viewfinder."

umm.. someone forgot to point this guy to most Nikon DSLRs.

AFAIK, even the D300 uses the viewfinder rather than the display. The display is where you get all your frame information and options.

Frank

A couple of things I think they missed/miswrote.

Lenses, they make a big point of pointing out megapixel myth (good for them), but don't say very much about what will get you decent quality. Generally with lenses, the larger the lens is, the more light it can gather, and the better quality photos you can get.

Aspect Ratio: Although many cameras offer the 16:9 and 4:3 mode, the 16:9 mode is generally a clipped version of the 4:3 photo. Stick with the 4:3 mode and clip it yourself afterwards if you want a 16:9 photo. This gives you the option of framing the photo better.

ISO: Don't tell people that being able to determine the correct ISO is something that seperates pros from amatures as this will discourage people from looking into something which will probably help them improve their photography. It isn't rocket science, and can help your photography!

Sensor size:
You can determine the quality by looking at some of the sites which show you sample photos from the camera, the manufacturers site will probably have some, but also worth looking at is www.dpreview.com who do in depth and unbiased review/testing of most new cameras.

Screen: Erm, it is not 'old-timers' who use a viewfinder. Most DSLR's you can only use via the viewfinder (the newer ones are starting to have a live preview mode).Using a viewfinder has several advantages.
1) Stability: A camera pressed up against your face, with your elbows tucked in tightly will be more stable than one held at arms length so that you can view the screen.
2) A viewfinder will work whatever the light conditions, wheras even the best LCD will start to be difficult to see in bright sunlight.
3) Viewfinders do not consume your batters.

Just a few of my thoughts.
(I use a Canon EOS 30D, and a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX55)

CC

CaptainChickenpants

This needs consumerist and gizmodo cross-gawker lovin'. Extremely useful info for digicam buyers. Personally I set limits, $150ish for a point and shoot, $800 for DSLR body, and as many lenses as I can buy for as cheap as I can get them. $150 for a pocket digicam goes a long way. SD1000 can be had for that much which I consider THE pocket digital camera (even though I went with a Nikon S210)

thechansen

The question is, when will 10 MP cameras going to be under $100? HMMMMM?!

TheManator

A 3.1 mp camera will not make a passable 6x8 and an 8x10 will be just plain ugly...

The numbers just aren't there, if you assume 300ppi (standard print resolution), then the most you can get a 3.1mp camera to print without noticing a loss of detail is a 4x6.

Saying otherwise is just misleading.

If you want a 6x8 size print you must have a 4mp camera, and if you want to go to 8x10s the minimum is 5mp.

I will say that between 5 and 7mp is a waste of money for anyone printing up to 8x10s. And honestly, if you're printing larger than that, you're going to be wise to buy a decent DSLR.

Your best bet for a point and shoot camera is to invest in a camera that can take quicker pictures, has better low-light performance, higher color accuracy... basically the attributes of a good camera. To find this kind of information you need to ignore consumer reports and do real research. I recommend dpreview.com - they give honest, unbiased reviews of cameras that are highly informative.

aront

For small point-and-pray cameras, the 7-10 megapixel size is pushing the limit of the lens technology. I really wish the camera manufacturers would put better lower-light sensitivity rather than megapixels in these pocketable cameras since they are often used in crummy lighting situations.

Deprong Mori

@kc2idf: "More megapixels are not enough to turn Joe Sixpack into Ansel Adams."

It would be more like Joe Clubshots.

Daemon_of_Waffle

I'm still using a Kodak 4mp camera I bought 3 or 4 years ago. It does great 4x6's and 5x8's plus I have a few 8x10's that also look great. The camera is extremely easy to use and takes great looking pictures for an older point and shoot.

socialSTD

You would be surprised what you can get away with for megapixels, as long as the picture itself is good.

First, you need a good sensor and good glass. Without those, all else is moot. Putting a 10Mpx sensor behind a plastic lens is like turbocharging a Neon.

I currently use a 2.1Mpx digital camera (non-SLR), and I still take pretty good pictures with it. It has a physically big sensor (and hence, big pixels), making for good, low-noise pictures, and a Karl Zeiss lens. It is about six years old, and, while it is starting to show its age, it is mostly showing its age to me, not to anyone who is viewing its output.

(BTW, I'll put my 6year old 2.1Mpx Mavica up against a 3 or 4 Mpx cell phone camera any day of the week.)

Here is an example photo Note, though, that it has been reduced for the WWW, which brings us to the next point: If you are going to reduce the picture anyway, then all those extra megapixels are for nought. How many pictures do you actually print?

The photographer himself (or herself) is also important. My wife can take the very same camera I use, and positively work magic with it. She doesn't understand or care about the all of the technical details; just enough to get by. Otherwise, she flies totally on instinct. Needless to say, I got her a new camera before even considering one for myself.

In short, the chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Megapixels are a link, but usually a pretty strong one. Lenses, sensors and users are the weakest link. More megapixels are not enough to turn Joe Sixpack into Ansel Adams.

kc2idf

re: viewfinder

I recently helped a friend purchase a new camera, and we decided on a Canon that HAD the viewfinder. Ever try to take a picture on the beach in Florida? The sun is so bright that you can't see the LCD screen at all.

Norcross

In this same sort of vein, I just put together a guide for people who might be interested in using a digital camera as a research tool (specifically in archives). Useful mainly for graduate students/faculty and genealogists.

[uiuc.libguides.com]

paradoxotaur

I have a old DSLR that is a 3.1 megapixel that makes 8X10's that make most other guys cry in envy.

Megapixels mean NOTHING at all. The Lense and camera are everything.

My Old spare Fuji S1 kicks the crud in photos out of my 10.1 megapixel rebel. IT's because the S1 has a $1400.00 lens on it and the Rebel has the $12.95 one that was included with the package.

Anyone that tells you that megapixels are important are flat out lying. They are only important if you are going to print 11X17 or larger photographs. What is important is getting good glass in front of the camera and low noise in low light situations.

timgray

I'm sure this article means well, and it's a start for someone who knows nothing, but it just about useless. I have a hard time believing that any regular lifehacker reader doesn't know everything on that page. A post talking about dpreview.com as the gold standard of digital camera review sites would be more appropriate.

Doosh

It is nice to get more MP than you might think because sometimes the optical zoom in the camera can't get quite at what you want, so you can always crop and still print the picture that you need without sacrificing quality.

AA vs Li batteries you might want to think about how much access you will have to charging if you are frequently moving around from country to country or may not have time. AA are cheap and easy to obtain, although I myself do prefer Li.

I think one of the main selling points in a camera for me is the speed. By this I mean the time it takes for the camera to go from off to taking a picture, and from picture to picture both with and w/o the flash. Some cameras (particularly older models) can take forever.

Oh and I will NEVER buy a camera that flashes multiple times before it takes a picture, those confuse the hell out of everyone and the pic always comes out with half the people already walking away.

vsboxerboy

The article was ignorant; even at my beginning level of experience. "High timed exposures"?? "low resolution video"?? This article is at the level you might see in an in-flight magazine; and at least a year out of date.

Gerald

I prefer cameras that uses lithium batteries, coz they are smaller in size than cameras that uses AA batteries.

LankanDude

The other thing to consider with the megapixel war is the fact of pushing the physical limits on the size of the photoreceptors. When megapixels increase, the size of the photoreceptors decrease. With smaller photoreceptors, the less likely it will be hit with a photon of light. Hense, you will need more light (ie daytime, or longer exposure which causes blur, or flash) to get a good picture without noise. Incidently, most noise is from the photoreceptors not receiving the light so it looks grainy.

So anything over a 7 megapixel is abnoxious since you aren't making 5 foot cutouts of yourself anyway. Then with the fact that most if not all small cameras have an inadiquate flash for indoor situations, make sure the lens is a bigger pop-out lense and not an immobile tiny lense.

If your looking for small, compact, cheap, and decent - go for the SD1000. Classic design, good parts. If you are looking for better go DSLR.

Tylas

Fuji seemed for a while to be opting out of the pointless megapixel/iso race and concentrating on decent CCDs and low light performance... but then they caved and joined in with everyone else.

Generally anything that is marketed on a camera is useless (1600 iso??? 10mp??? pointless).
I'd still recommend fuji superCCDs over normal CCD point and shoots.. but maybe look for an older model.

Personally I got a Ricoh R6 cos I wanted something small, but i was fed up with narrow angles and a 3x zoom. (r6 was wide angle and 6x). Just wish it had better image stabilization.

soul_grind

@kc2idf: I have to disagree with you regarding not using megapixels. Yeah the majority of the time the majority of people are just going to put pictures online. But if they take them at a paltry 640x480 what happens when they decide in 5 years, oh crap I really want to print that picture. Well shoot, I can get a wallet-size photo out of it.

I think it's irresponsible to tell people to take lower-resolution photos because they'll just upload them. These are your memories people!!

aront

The wired post looks like some kid just learned how a digital camera works from howstuffworks.

Shake Reduction??? Its called IS(Image Stabilization) for godssake.

L0neRanger

Quality over Quantity.

10 blurry megapixels will never match 1 sharp megapixel.

The Mars Rover actually used a very high quality monochrome 1MP camera. To produce a color image, it combined 3 images taken with different colored filters.

SuperChuck

I used to subscribe to the more-than-3-megapixels-is-wasted theory until I realized...more megapixels means greater loss-less digital zoom. If you've got a cheap camera with 150mm equivalent zoom (yawn) and 6 megapixels, that's the same as 300mm equivalent zoom at 3 MP. That's a nice zoom that can make a decent 8x10!

codehead

@codehead: I agree... I used a S1 IS for many years... till it conked off and canon recalled and replaced it with a new S5.

The s5 isn't that great (comparatively) with pics...

chirag

megapixels doesn't really matter if light is bad. try taking a 10mp picture under poor lighting conditions. then zoom in and see the colours are refracted along the edges of an item and looks not so sharp...

iBSOD for iPhone

you can have my d50 when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

firesign

I'd still be using my old 3mp digital elph if it wasn't broken. Got great 4x6 shots from it, but low-light performance was terrible.

Current camera is a Powershot 560 (7mp), with better but still not great low-light performance. Nice color and much better clarity, but horrible low-light shots. It was a gift, otherwise I would have kept on shopping.

dancemonkey

I generally bring my XTi with me any time I plan on being outside/somewhere I know I'll want to take pictures. Though for those "OMG! Look it's a pizza on top of a mousetrap in the ocean" moments, I find my 2MP w810 camera phone does a decent job.

Myles

Pretty interesting seeing how polarized people get on certain subjects. I have a house full of nice 5x7's taken with a 6 yr. old 2.1mp camera with a 2x zoom. I still use it sometimes because it is built like a tank & is waterproof. I have a small $20 1.3mp I use for radio controlled aerial photography and the photos it takes are great, not because of the quality but because of the perspective.

As stated before, good glass & adequate light can make up for lots of other things and if you take the time to learn how to use it, most any camera can take good photos. The nice thing about more MP's is that they let you crop out of a crappy composition. But I wonder how many people really do any digital darkroom stuff prior to printing anyway.

I'll reserve judgment for now on the new DMC-FZ18K prosumer ultra zoom that I got last week, too soon to tell.

Also, I have an 18% gray card & know how to use it, but that's just me :-).

BlogsOfSteel

@Munkii: cannon? why would i need a cannon if i want to take pic...oh, you mean CANON.

no thanks, i'm a nikon fanboy. :)

firesign

Buy Cannon

Munkii

kc2idf - Well put. Don't need no stinkin mps to play with composition, lighting etc. With a cellphone cam - play to its strengths. Forget the long/medium shots. Take closeups. Play with the exposure ("indoor office" "cloudy" etc) Be arty, artsy, artistic, whatev.

FonHom

@Norcross: "Ever try to take a picture on the beach in Florida? The sun is so bright that you can't see the LCD screen at all."

And that's without the necessary sunglasses. I used the viewfinder (even though it is digital) on my Kodak Z650 the entire day when I was at the Air & Sea Show there last year, as well as when I was at the Thunder Over Michigan air show on a very bright day.

regarding JPEG distortion; you're going to get that with most non-DSLR ultra zoom cameras above 6MP given how many pixels they try and squeeze onto a tiny sensors. I've been using GIMP with a Selective Gaussian Blur (radius 15, max delta 15) for any distortion of skies, and the GREYCstoration plug-in for areas where I want more control over how the image gets smoothed out.

OwenCatherwood

Get yourself a nice Fuji F30 or F31

mrknowitall

@TheManator:

When they decide to pair those sensors with lenses that only look good at 3MP, that's when.

@OwenCatherwood:

I've had no problem seeing the screen with my Panasonic DMCFX01 in Arizona.

@firesign:

(When it comes to point ant shoot, at least) Nikon is alright with a tripod.

Last time I checked, the only good Optical Image Stabilization in pocket-sized cameras came from Canon and Panasonic, and Canon's is better.

@codehead:

I'm a little shaky on how focal distances translate to image dimensions, but 6 megapixels is twice the AREA of 3 MP, it isn't twice the dimensions. But you're right to some degree.

TechnoDestructo

I wanted an ultra-compact, so I went to consumer search and bought what they recommended :)

da5id_nz

Kodak is the way to go for point and shoots! Best value and feature set. Canons have at least a $100 premium over similar brands for the same features. Sonys all have terrible quality, and they're not worth the cost either.

crestind

@da5id_nz:

Then you're a sheep who doesn't know how to shop. Hope you enjoy what big brother picked out for you.

BenjiClayton

.

da5id_nz

@crestind: I still have a 2MP Kodak and am still impressed with the pictures it gives. Only thing is it sucks battery power like anything.

da5id_nz

@BenjiClayton:
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....

LOL, I did actually checkout some other sites too; don't you worry, like Dave's Picks and the Image Resource site; however, consumer search references those sites, so it basically confirmed my decision.

da5id_nz

@thechansen: @Tylas: I LOVE my SD1000. Bought it to replace a 3-year-old Casio for about $200 when retail price was $250. Now I see it for about $150, but I'm glad I got it when I did. It has done so much for me. Pure awesomeness.

@Norcross: It bright-lit settings like that, I just snap away and hope I'm aiming right. Bright enough natural light and no flash means quicker pictures for me, I don't worry about blurry images, and I'll usually get a few randoms ones that I end up loving. But the dark LCD screen can get annoying at times.

ellastar

@Frank: @DocGratis: @Scott D. Feldstein: Re: the viewfinder VS LCD thing, you should note that a lot of DSLRs coming out are adding live-view sensors to the cameras so you can use the LCDs. A huge advantage is being able to take pictures without..well..holding it up to your face. This is GREAT in crowds, where you can hold the camera above your head, and shoot downwards, using the LCD to frame the shot. This is also useful for low angle shots, so you don't have to lie down on the ground (it's not always an option). Since I like changing point of view to make photos interesting here and there, I'm really looking forward to getting a body sometime that has live view.
@L0neRanger: I seem to remember "Shake Reduction" being the official name of the feature for Pentax's optical image stabilization feature. That said, people should be aware that many cameras now feature "blur reduction" or similar features, but do not use a real image stabilization method; rather, they increase the ISO to 1600 or above, open the aperture, and use a flash - all of which are not true image stabilization, which involve a physical movement of a lens element or of a sensor, or a digital method (though I don't know how that compares to physical stabilization).
@SuperChuck: "10 blurry megapixels will never match 1 sharp megapixel.", but 10 sharp megapixels will definitely outclass 1 sharp megapixel. General rule of thumb is that if you have big glass, your camera can probably handle lots of megapixels; if you have tiny glass, avoid high megapixels unless you can test the camera out for yourself first.
@vsboxerboy: "Oh and I will NEVER buy a camera that flashes multiple times before it takes a picture, those confuse the hell out of everyone and the pic always comes out with half the people already walking away." *ahem* then don't buy a DSLR, or at least a Nikon DSLR - they actually shoot a flash twice under normal circumstances: once to meter, and another time for the photo, unfortunately causing people to start to close their eyes when the actual photo is taken. You can get around this by using a Flash Lock feature, which helps A LOT in getting photos where people's eyes are still open, but can be annoying to manage when shooting a lot.

Chef

Anyone used a Canon A20 .. amazing pictures from ta 2.1MP camera ...

daelight

What I can suggest before you buy a camera: Go to flickr.com. There you can search for pictures which have been shot by specific camera models. This will give you a good impresion of pictures made by real people. Pictures presented on the vendors home pages are probably done by some pro photographers. The question is if people like myself can do the same magic...

Matthyas

I love to take pictures, thats one of my dream to be a photographer can any one pls advice mi if what digital camera im going to buy for the first time?

dreamer81

Megapixels matter because most of the time I find when I get home I need to crop the picture down cause I didn't get close enough. Anyway more megapixels mean I can do this and still get a decent print out of it.

evilegg2000

it's pretty much a crapshoot.

Pick a camera that is from a reputable brand, has the features you want, and is in your price range.

Don't diss low mp cameras. The canon 1D at 4mp still takes pictures that will make you cream your panties.

balls187 upside yo head

@mrknowitall, @soul_grind: I heartily echo the sentiments about Fuji cameras. I've never had a camera as good as my F30. I didn't know very much about photography before getting it, but it made me realise that megapixels really didn't matter as much as having an amazingly sensitive camera sensor. Alas, my F30 took some water damage earlier this year and they're out of production in the UK (at least I couldn't get Fuji to replace it with another F30) so I had to settle for an F40. :/ Though, in all fairness, the F40 is still better than other digital cameras I've owned. Fuji really knows their stuff.

delphine

I have had a line of 5 digital canons - I almost strayed this week but I stuck to the 870IS.

The form factor, controls, image and video quality is always best or near-best in class, plus they always use standard usb and sd. No BS.

After owning an SD800 I knew I would never own another point and shoot without a wideangle lens.

brundlefly76

Really, when any camera you buy lets you print 8x10s, do more mexapixels matter?

I print 16x20s, so yeah, more megapixels matter.

/16x20 still looks small to me.

lordargent

i really do enjoy my 5 year old sony cybershot! 3.2MP and i can take some quality digi-images.

i still prefer film. i have yet to see a digital print that comes out as sleek and wonderful as a film print.*

*well aware printers can make the image look like crap.

Collaboratory

Can anyone suggest a strong camera for me?

I take photos for my website Clubpath.com ([www.clubpath.com]). Since I promote Nightclubs and bars, most of my photos are taken in low light situations. I use a cannon rebel XTI. Any other suggestions. And feel free to take a look at my site and judge for yourself. And please be honest lol.

Aceboogie

What I can tell you is that my 5mp Canon point-and-shoot S50 takes great pictures that I have blown up and printed to 16"x20." No pixellation. Admittedly the images themselves are blurred a bit using a slow shutter speed, low light, and no tripod. One of my degrees is in photography so I am pretty particular. So it is not only the MP's but also the chip and processors in the cameras that help make the image.

g29115