Do you use a DSLR?

[garfield]

On Pixels;

The hype for more pixels is a non-issue. How many people are going to print their pictures on poster format, or are going to blow up an item in a foto to let's say a foot wide???

Right, no-one. In fact for nice pics with a good resolution , a picture will be between 500K and 1.2 Mb (some variance on the amout of contrast in the picture), depending on required picture size.

For pictures on the web, well, no website hoster is too keen on uncompressed pics of 10Mb , apart from the fact that you would need a 48" screen to show the pic without hor/ver scroll bars. Pics on the web should be below 60K preferably, so much for resolution in that respect.

I got my camera configured to make pics of about 1Mb (and thats already stretching it). So I can do 3500 pics on a 4Gb San-disk, and I photoshop anything I send to the web.

On camera's :

If you KNOW how to use a SLR (which btw I don't), the first batch of DSLRs, which don't cost a whole lot anymore, will do more than average on making perfect pictures, you set the camera to manual and "do your thing". I prefer the auto button, works like a charm for me

I would invest my money in a solid Flash unit, in stead of going for the fun an games of an expensive modern DSLRs, with all the whisles and bells and maybe get an extra lens for specific situations. (I like the fish eye myself

[rubberratt]

MANY P&S cameras have either a "shutter" locked mode or an "aperture" locked mode. If you want to control your dof... make sure your camera allows you to manipulate both at the same time.

[Mike]

I also bought the Sony A100 and think it's fantastic. What I like is that you can just point and click when needed, but also have a good play around by manually changing a lot of the settings - ISO, aperture, etc. I'm happy to post some pictures I've taken with it if you'd like - if someone can remind me how to do it!! I can endorse what Meathead said earlier, the battery lasts for ages and if you buy a good memory card, you can take hundreds of photos. Having said that, I imagine any of the cameras mentioned previously in this thread would have impressed me as well, but I'm very happy with the Sony.

[Meathead]

My wife is a techno-idiot (I hope she doesn't read this). Also a film ASA/ISO, shutter speed, aperture, f-stop, lens filter, lens mm, "what's this button do?" idiot. Every time she picks up anything other than a point-and-shoot, I'm tasked with trying to explain each function (usually ending in her frustration within minutes).

Nevertheless, the pictures she has taken with the Sony are incredible. Some are worthy-of-Life-magazine photos. And she has not even discovered 10% of this camera's functions. I think it all boils down to what you need (or want) in features, what you are willing to pay, simplicity (I want my kid to be able to take a picture of us on occasion), ergonomics (the Sony certainly is easy to handle, with relevant buttons, etc similar to a conventional SLR), and reputation of the manufacturer. Truth is, I don't think you can go wrong with any of the major manufacturers of cameras.

[jwegger]

I have a Pentax *istD, 6.1MP it likes either good rechargable batteries or expensive photo batteries I can usually shoot about 600 shots on one set of recharagables. Works with all my autofocus lenes, and I can send the digital files to a photo lab and they print out just like film. I also have a couple of P&S digitals that take good pictures as well, just not as much control. But with a little photoshop anything is possible...

[Tulsa]

I'm all over the place on this one. I went to BB to get a few of these in my hands and it an eye opener, so to speak.

The Olympus I was leaning towards because of features vs costs, turns out to favor it's live view mode (using the monitor on the back) instead of the view finder which is very small. The focus is slow and it feels cheap in my hands.

The Sony which they just released the A-300, I couldn't get this one in my hands but it uses the same body as the A-200, again the view finder is small, a bit better detail than the Olympus but still small and feels cheap.

While I wanted to be cheap and not spend a bunch of cash on this, I harken back to what my father always told me, "It only costs a little more to go first class". In the digital SLR world that may not necessarily be the case as "first class" is HOLY CRAP EXPENSIVE! Keeping that in mind, they do have more mid-range cameras that are very nice indeed and the best I put in my hands was the Canon 40D. Larger, heavier and weatherproofed. The control locations just seem to fit my hand better and it has the largest view finder in these style cameras.

It offers live view but to be honest, I really don't care for holding a camera away from my face to shoot a pic. I've always hated them on the P&S cams and my close vision is not that good anymore and I find myself holding the camera away from me to see if it's focused. When you have to spend time adjusting the camera for your own eyes, you're going to miss a good shot somewhere along the way.

I just effectively doubled my cost by going into that damn store. In the end I will be happier with the camera by spending more but sometimes, ignorance is bliss and cheap too.

Oh well...

[musky]

Well, when I was looking for a camera to replace my very expensive Sony that went to crap after 2 years, I decided to not go with Sony and narrow my choice to someone who's only business IS cameras and not Walkmans. I had narrowed it down to 3 in the end, A Fuji which wasn't a true slr and had a fixed lens but had the most bang for the buck, a Canon, and a Nikon. I also looked at a Minolta because my 35mm is a Minolta and I have lenses but they would not have worked on the digital. The Nikon felt best in my hand, and the rest is history. Stop worrying about cost Tulsa, get the one you want and will be happy with. They all do about as well as the other and have the same features. This thread is proof of that, not a bad choice in the bunch. (except maybe the Sony's ) Just Kidding

[kmhamel]

You can't go wrong with either Nikon or Cannon. I live buy the rule...buy what you want not what you can afford, even if it mean holding off for a while until you have the money. Short term, the cheap item works, long term, you soon regret the purchase and buy again. Now you just paid twice as much for the cheap item.

[Tulsa]

Well, when I was looking for a camera to replace my very expensive Sony that went to crap after 2 years, I decided to not go with Sony and narrow my choice to someone who's only business IS cameras and not Walkmans. I had narrowed it down to 3 in the end, A Fuji which wasn't a true slr and had a fixed lens but had the most bang for the buck, a Canon, and a Nikon. I also looked at a Minolta because my 35mm is a Minolta and I have lenses but they would not have worked on the digital. The Nikon felt best in my hand, and the rest is history. Stop worrying about cost Tulsa, get the one you want and will be happy with. They all do about as well as the other and have the same features. This thread is proof of that, not a bad choice in the bunch. (except maybe the Sony's ) Just Kidding

Just so you know, Minolta/Konica are Sony! Not in your 35MM days but there is no longer a Minolta or Konica brand.