OT 8mg digi cameras

FWIW I've just bought a 10MP Sony alpha. It cost just under £500 and is simply sodding incredible. It's a Minolta which has bene bought/rebranded by Sony which means there's a combination of a good sensor and excellent lenses. If you can run to that much I recommend it.

You have to shop around to get a decent price. There are several discount combinations available from various websites that get you a decent discount.

Canon 350D SLR. 8.3mp with EF-S 18-55mm lens. New from Jessops at £399.99 inc VAT and delivery. Mike.

If you're looking for a compact and can cope with sensor noise at low light levels go for the Panasonic LX2, I have the LX1 and it's great - point and shoot unless you don't want it to be.

Hasn't it just been superceded by the 400D?

Fraser

Yes, but the 350D is better value IMO. The 400D has a few more features but from a practical POV the 350D is just as capable. Mike.

I've got a Casio Exilim card and it's utterley tiny, literally credit card sized haha. It has hundreds of different features none of which I can be arsed to learn about - the but auto mode works fine. I once changed it to night mode, that works fine too. If you want some kind of SLR fancyness you won't like it. If you want a tiny little compact to keep in your pocket - you will.

I've got a 350D. That means the 400D can't be any good. Besides, the

(c:

The above camera takes decent Photies, cos I said so.

(P.S. I know the square root of diddly squat about Cameras).

I wouldn't say that. It is a better camera. 10mp instead of 8, self cleaning sensor, larger LCD screen, 27 frame bursts instead of the 14 of the 350D. I've also got a 350D, and having u/graded from a EOS 620 film camera, I also have a nice range of lenses etc. The extra 2 mp's of the 400D might enable even bigger poster size prints, but apart from that, I doubt it's any better as far as normal size print quality is concerned.

Besides, the

Exactly. Unless you need the extra features, the 350D just as good, and is the better buy. Mike.

None of them can be any good, they're made by Olympiss.

Cynic.:-) The 350D gets good reviews. Best Buy according to 'Which'. I've had mine for about 6 months. Well pleased with it, especially in difficult lighting conditions. Mike.

Heh, my last camera was also an Olympiss. What digital camera would you buy for £400 uncle Steve?

I was trying to be smarter than my typed communication skills allowed. Again.

Yes, of course the 400D is a better camera.

My next camera is going to have a full-frame sensor I think. At my current rate of wealth accumulation, I'll have the 350D for a long time yet. (c:

I'm not about to rush out and upgrade just yet. I'd like to say I'd buy a 350D over a 400D if I was in that market right now, but I probably wouldn't, I'm too much of a sucker.

Dont be tight! Get yourself a Nikon D200 and an 18 / 200 VRII lens. Or even the plasticky D8 with the same lens. Hand held pixel perfect shots at 15th sec at 200mm (300 corrected)Long after the price is forgotten the quality and feel and extra ability remain! Well I did and certainly dont regret it... Cannons all feel plasticky. Cheap cannon lenses are just that! The good cannon lenses require a remorgage...

And pixels really dont matter much. A ten million pixel camera with an old jam jar for a lens just makes a huge file with a shit photo. Once past about 5 million pixels its all pretty academic unless you routinely print a2 or bigger. Even then its debatable! You need low noise (which means larger sensor size not more pixels so all point and shoots are out!) You need a fast camera! One that can focus and take a shot instantly or almost so and that can focus to the mm. Again point and shoots cant, and you need something that has good software and metering because most consumer level cameras both over sharpen and overexpose most pictures. They do it so the jpegs look good straight out of the camera. But its better to not have the blown highlights and leave the sharpening to photoshop AFTER you have corrected levels etc yourself preferably on the raw files.

Burgerman out...

I disagree with that - your average person doesn't want to have to do that. I certainly wouldn't, I want them to look good straight away - if I wanted them to look Pro and takes Pro photos, I'd buy a all singing all dancing SLR - but I'm pretty sure Rob is asking for point and shoot cam advice :-)

Then 8 million pixles is a waste of time because the tiny sensors (noise in high iso shots) and milkbottle buttom lenses with distortion and lack of sharpness and chromatic aberation levels and vignetting mean blowing them up to the size 8 million pixels actually allows is pretty pointless.

your monitor typically displays about 100 pixels per inch. An 8 million pixel camera at 100 percent (actual size) on your screen or printed out at the same 100 dpi on a sheet of paper would be as big as a door!

Plus every point and shoot shot I look at has blown highlights or completely white blown clouds on sunny days etc. Printed large as 8 million pixels allow would cover huge bits of the page in zero inl. Just detail free clouds! If you think that kind of thing looks good then you need a point and shoot! If I showed you the difference in two 17 inch prints you would be amazed!

Casio Exilim.

None, I'd do what I did and pay £500 for an Alpha.

Or get the Sony Alpha and get the same sensor as the D200 and the 18/70 lens. This gives you picture quality identical to the D200, doesn't cost a bomb and gives you a camera you wont want to upgrade until 30MP cameras hit £500 or less, and possible not even then.

Then start saving for a proper range of Carl Zeiss lenses.