I am no technical buff, but what digital cameras do you own, which is the best to get, I need to upgrade to one, but can't decide on the best one to get.

I don't need some flashy one that can zoom in 10 fold, store 10MB etc. etc. just a basic digital camera with LCD display, how much can I expect to pay?

I remember seeing one for $310, but I can't remember where that was...

And whats all this megapixel I hear of, people say to get 400MP etc. etc. It has something to do with the dots per sqaure inch doesn't it, the higher it is, the better quality the photo will come out when you transfer it to your computer, is that correct?

Any help would be much appreciated.

the max size of the photo without bieng streched in measured in mp's. most cams these days have around 3 or 4. I got a sony cybershot p8 whats average but has good digital zoom. when buying a camera make sure you get at least 3x optical zoom.

yes, more megapixles = better quality, get somthing around a 3-5 so its average. 10mb, you will want more, they usally come with a 36 or 64mb stick/card, but when we got ours, dad went out and bought a 256mb card, so now we can hold about 200 high quality photos and about 300 low. ummm $300 should be good enough for a decent camrea, just find one model you think you will want, and then shop around for it.

Get a canon. All my photos are still done with my canon A40 with only 2mp. They still come out great not matter how much its tripod falls over :).
It fell over on top of IBM when i was doing a group shot on the timer. Dammit.

Also check out dirt cheap cameras. (http://svc003.bne012i.server-web.com/catalogue/dirtcheap/public/home.ehtml) I've never used them but they are pretty good according to a site I read.

Get a canon. All my photos are still done with my canon A40 with only 2mp. They still come out great not matter how much its tripod falls over :).
It fell over on top of IBM when i was doing a group shot on the timer. Dammit.

Also check out dirt cheap cameras. (http://svc003.bne012i.server-web.com/catalogue/dirtcheap/public/home.ehtml) I've never used them but they are pretty good according to a site I read.

True. Never go near Sony or Kodak. They're evil.

Try Canon A75. Teds is selling it for 399 bucks.

http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproductcategory/1005967%2ehtml

I'm sure ya can bargin with them more. Hey, I bargined with 'Hardly Normal' (Harvey Norman) and got 500 bucks off RRP.

For those who are interested, I have Nikon D70. SLR is completely different to Point and Shoot cameras.

I got a Canon IXUS for my high school graduation (back in 2000). It's served me well on trips to Sydney, New York, Kuala Lumpur (and soon, Singapore). Mine has only 2.1 mp too, but takes pretty good shots anyway.

yes, more megapixles = better quality, get somthing around a 3-5 so its average. 10mb, you will want more, they usally come with a 36 or 64mb stick/card, but when we got ours, dad went out and bought a 256mb card, so now we can hold about 200 high quality photos and about 300 low. ummm $300 should be good enough for a decent camrea, just find one model you think you will want, and then shop around for it.

negitive. Megapixels have absolutely nothing to do with quality. They refer to resolution. Basically, the more megapixels, the larger print you can technically make from them. However, there are a lot of other things to take into account such as quality of lense, noise etc. a 12mp camera with cheap glass will produce crap photo's.

Also, the more megapixels crammed into a small sensor (and all snapshot digicams have tiny sensors) often mean more noise, and thus poorer quality. The latest 8mp Sony is a noise bucket when comparing to the 6mp models. A classic example is the 4mp canon 1D (original and three years old) produce far higher quality photo's than the cheaper Sony 8mp digicam.

However, the more you pay for a camera, the better the technology. The new pro SLR's from Canon have high resolution (and larger) sensors that have very little noise, but they cost between €1500 - €7000 body only.

megapixels don't equal quality, they define resolution. It's sad that the marketing bandwagen has decided that the mp figure is the one they will quote to try and push their products.

by the way, check out www.dpreview.com if you want to read excellent reviews on all digital camera's currently on the market.

I agree with you Justme. The reason why i moved from Canon S50 to Nikon D70 digital SLR were due to speed, low ISO nose, long shutter speed, interchangeable lens and ability to personalise my camera to suit my needs.

Back to the original discussion. Get the A70 or check www.dpreview.com
Great site.

im kickin myself that i didnt get a a75! oh well ill upgrade in a few year time and get a good canon then

Don't be fooled by by higher megapixels equals better camera. If what you need is a camera to print the odd 6 * 4 photo then a 3mp is plenty. Actually a 2mp camera would be very acceptable.

Only if you really need to print larger pics would you go for a higher mp camera. You have to justify the cost for the extra pixels don't you. :)

To print acceptable (not razor sharp) pics you need around 300 pixels/inch.

I've bought Canons for the last 20 years and never regretted any of them. They have a long and illustrious history (sound like a rep ;)) and I recently purchased an a75 which is very good camera. I'll see how well it holds up on my trip to Egypt.

I can't give you any reason not to get an a75. You should be able to get one for quite a bit under $400. If you can afford it get at least a 256mb CF card as the 32 they give just wont be enough. Pretty good value for money.

Ok thanks heaps for that guys, Im probably going to go with a Cannon, not sure what model but I will read the reviews.

By the way, I see that they all come with 16MB internal memory 32MB etc. does this mean that you can also save the images to the internal memory rather than a memory stick? Or do you have to have the memory stick?

And does the camera hook up to the computer (im guessing USB port) and the images get transferred from the internal memory to your hard drive, and with the the memory sticks, you take them out of the camera and just plug it into the USB port don't you?

Ok thanks heaps for that guys, Im probably going to go with a Cannon, not sure what model but I will read the reviews.

By the way, I see that they all come with 16MB internal memory 32MB etc. does this mean that you can also save the images to the internal memory rather than a memory stick? Or do you have to have the memory stick?

And does the camera hook up to the computer (im guessing USB port) and the images get transferred from the internal memory to your hard drive, and with the the memory sticks, you take them out of the camera and just plug it into the USB port don't you?

Check out the new a85 - looks alright. :)

The a75 comes with 32Mb CF card. Not internal memory as such. Either way you'll need to get a larger card.

Any dummy can transfer off the the camera. ;)

Simply connect the camera to the USB port and away you go. No need to take the memory card out of the camera. Too easy. :)

Get a canon. All my photos are still done with my canon A40 with only 2mp. They still come out great not matter how much its tripod falls over :).
It fell over on top of IBM when i was doing a group shot on the timer. Dammit.

Also check out dirt cheap cameras. (http://svc003.bne012i.server-web.com/catalogue/dirtcheap/public/home.ehtml) I've never used them but they are pretty good according to a site I read.

I've got the same camera. The PowerShot A40 is great. :)

I've got the same camera. The PowerShot A40 is great. :)
I got a new one today!
Dad got me a 300d for my 21st. Although its not for a week
still, its awesome!

I got a new one today!
Dad got me a 300d for my 21st. Although its not for a week
still, its awesome!

Yeah the 300D is an awesome digital camera.

http://www.yellowbrick.co.kr/equip/upload/canon_300d%20set_s.jpg

It can fit all these lenses:

http://bobatkins.photo.net/photography/digital/lenses.jpg

Yeah the 300D is an awesome digital camera.
It can fit all these lenses:

ROFL at the giant white one. Imagine walking around with that thing. People wouldn't be sure if you were taking their photo or about to bazooka them.

But yeah, my 300d is going to bare my children.

Here's my little compartment. Only 4 days old!

http://home.exetel.com.au/miliux/forumimage/Bag-2.jpg

I'll be getting more lenses (preferably telephoto) as time progresses.

ROFL at the giant white one. Imagine walking around with that thing. People wouldn't be sure if you were taking their photo or about to bazooka them.

But yeah, my 300d is going to bare my children.

Canon are famous for their professional range of "L" lenses, where the telephoto ones are usually white. You can always spot the Canon camera's at sporting events by these white lenses.

Canon, also of late, has become extreamly dominant in the pro market where they are now between 80% to 90%!

Check out some of these recent shots from the Olympics. Almost all Canon's! (And yes, even most of the camera's with black lenses are still canon, just with a standard telephoto lense which is still black)

http://www.pbase.com/image/33031023.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/33031026.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/33031028.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/33031030.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/33031090.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/33031091.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/33031102.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/33031104.jpg

Check out how small the 1D is compared to that lense! And that camera is twice the size as the 300D
http://www.pbase.com/image/33066623.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/33066625.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/33066673.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/33066908.jpg

Why do they need such big telephoto lens? It's not like they're focusing on an object inside the stadium 10km away.

Why do they need such big telephoto lens? It's not like they're focusing on an object inside the stadium 10km away.

They need to fill the frame, and get good bokoh from the DOF seperation.

It would be hell funny to see a photographer in those pics with all the telephoto's with an Canon IXUS or something :). It looks like one big lense orgy. They must get off comparing such an outlandish display of lenses.

It would be hell funny to see a photographer in those pics with all the telephoto's with an Canon IXUS or something :). It looks like one big lense orgy. They must get off comparing such an outlandish display of lenses.

It's funny enough seeing the odd Nikon guy looking really lonely ;)

But these guys don't need to show off their lenses. It's pretty standard kit for sports photography, and none of them would be lacking anything anyone else has. At the end of the day, it's just tools for them to do the job.

What they will compare later on is the shots they managed to get, I bet they do have quite some photo's to show off to each other in the press pubs at the end of the days shoot, if they have time for such things.

Hahaha thats too cool.

And photos of people taking photos, doesn't that seem a little odd to anyone else?

Justme, does E1 have frame stabliser? Meaning it reduces the camera shake while taking long shutter speed.

Thanks again guys, I'll defentely get one with internal memory, most come with it as well, and get a memory stick.

Justme, does E1 have frame stabliser? Meaning it reduces the camera shake while taking long shutter speed.

From what I know it doesn't. There are only a limited amount of lenses for the Olympus E1 SLR (I think about 5) and no third party ones available yet. One of the big differences is that Canon use the same EF mount on their digital SLR's as their Film SLR's, so the whole range is availble plus serious competition from many third party manufactorers such as Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc. Olympus digital SLR's have a seperate lense mount incompatible with the Olympus film camera's.

Canon produce a good range of image stabilization on their telephoto lenses, and has even started to include these into the consumer quality EF-S range for the new 20D and even the 300D.

One other point with the E1, is that it has an even smaller crop ratio than the 300D/10D/20D camera (which is 1.6), heavily restricting wide angle shooting (especially perspective control) and view finder brightness.

If you were considering the Olympus E1, although a very good camera, I would suggest you look at the brand new Canon 20D. It is being released in a couple of weeks, and despite being slightly less expensive, is a far more capable and higher quality camera (basically also because of brand new technology, and canon's current technical leadership in digital SLR's). You also have an enormous advantage in the range of lenses that no doubt will expand even more.

One thing to keep in mind though. Canon is acting very strange at the moment. There is serious rumours of a new breakthrough digital camera to be announced early next month, possibly a middle ground pro SLR between the 20D and 1DII, or even a new high end 1DsII work of marval and a price drop. All my usual contacts on what's coming out are either keeping their mouth shut or have been excluded from the picture. A big meeting is rumoured to be held in Stockholm come Sunday 5th of which word has it that Canon will announce their biggest breakthrough in the last 10 years...

who knows, but if you were looking at buying a Canon SLR, I'd wait until at least the middle of next month. I highly recommend the 300D for beginners, and the 20D for serious amatures or entry level pro's. But if a new mid range SLR with full frame or 1.3crop does turn up, say around the €3000 mark... holy shit... I'll be there.

Justme what camera do you have now?

Justme what camera do you have now?

I have a film SLR, Canon T90 with various lenses, multipliers, filters etc, and for digital just a canon G2.

I have been planning for a while to go digital on SLR, and are looking at the Canon 1D mark II, 16-40L f4, 24-70L f2.8, and the 70-200L f2.8 IS.

However, I am just waiting for the news of a new camera as mentioned before.