^^^Netdog, sometimes.....just sometimes.....I really want to smack the guys at DPReview.
Some of their tests are so idiotic and irrelevent, I'm surprised I still go to them first. I go to them first because they seem to review so much, and they're such a big site. But I always make sure I look elsewhere for reviews as well, since I trust them more.
Anyway, pick up some of the Olympus, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Panasonic, Canon, etc etc, and see how good they feel, like Fatties suggested. In terms of photo quality, they're all very similar. The ease of use of the controls, feel in your hand, and durability are the main issues for these small cameras, not photo quality. Some cameras are even "shockproof" and waterproof up to 9 feet now.
Oh, and buy one with a viewfinder (ie: the glass window that you look through on non-digital cameras to see your subject) so that it's easier to take photos at night. It's easier to keep a camera steady if you press it against your face rather than use the LCD viewfinder, and sometimes the LCD isn't sensitive enough and makes everything look black at night, even though your eyes can see dark details.
fatties said:
my mom is currently using a panasonic/ leica. i know they are more expensive and less established but WOW the quality of pictures are so amazing- compared with her camera (at 5mp each) her pictures are out of this world. there is actual depth of field! and also the other thing is like many of the semi- profession cameras out there, there are provisions for apeture- automatic/ shutter- automatic/ 100% manual. only camera i've ever used where the focusing tool is nearly satisfying enough. my uncle is a professional photographer and according to him and his chums its the best compact automatic digital around in terms of photo quality (they don't really care about the aftermath).
Thanks for the review of the Panasonic/Leica. Is it one of the "Big zoom" Panasonics with the 10x zoom or whatever? Some of these big zoom cameras are supposed to be quite good.
PS: We have a Digital Photography forum here at MacRumours.
furthermore, you have to consider the size of the monitor you are displaying the pictures on (if you use them as a background). i tend to limit mine to 3mp because i use a laptop and it has a 13/14 inch screen. my mom has a 20 inch imac and she finds 5mp the base level because otherwise 'you see the individual dots'. and the more mp you go the more expensive it is...
Yes, but if you ever crop digital photos, you'll realize how valuable those extra MPs are. If you don't ever plan on cropping, then a 4 MP camera is more than what you'd need on the best LCD at the moment (I think). And the number of MP you need doesn't only depend on monitor size. It depends on the resolution of the monitor. If your screen is only 1024 x 768 pixels (or around 2 MP), and you don't ever plan on cropping photos, then I guess a 2 MP camera is all you need if you stick with your monitor. If your monitor can display 1900 x ???? pixels, and your camera is only taking photos at 1600 x ????, then you're gonna see big "squares" in your photo if you ever use it as your wallpaper.
And I think 5 MP is all you'll need in the foreseeable future. Anything more in a small camera is just for marketing and salespeople.
