Digital cameras... when selecting among choices, is going for higher megapixel count or optical zoom the better choice?

[glenn1]

I'm new to the digicam scene, and i'm trying to narrow down the field somewhat. Right now, the Kodak 3x00 series seems to be in a pretty sweet spot, around $200 for either the 3600 or 3700. They're not my only choices, but they're getting a hard look from me. The main difference between the two seems to be that the 3600 has 3x optical zoom and ~2MP, the 3700 is strictly digital zoom, but ~3MP. Which would be the smarter feature to sacrifice when most other factors are being held constant?

Also, what's the minimum feature and spec baseline i should be looking for nowadays. I remember the old rule of thumb was to "look for at least 1 megapixel" but that seems rather outdated advice now. I'm not looking to take professional level photos, just for vacations and family outings, so is there anything i should look for or avoid, or anything in particular to pay particular attention to that would bite me in the ass later before i realized it?

Thanks in advance

 

[Den]

I would personally take a 3x optical zoom 2 megapixel camera over a no optical zoom 3 megapixel. When zoomed all the way out, the 3700 would have 50% better resolution, but when zoomed to 2x will only be using .75 megapixels and when at 3x only using .33 Megapixels! The 3600 on the other hand will us all 2 megapixels at all those zoom settings. The only time the 3700 would be better is when you are using no zoom, just a little bit of zoom will quickly make the 3600 the better camera.

How many megapixels you need depends mostly on how high a quiality of result you want, and how big you intend to print the resulting images. If you never plan to print bigger than 4x6 (snapshot) size, 2 megapixels is probably enough.

For more info, check out these sites
DCResource
Steve's Digicams
Imaging Resource Page
Digital Photography Review

These are some of the best sights for camera reviews and general digital photography questions.

Hope this helps,
Den

 

[hopeless879]

IMHO between the 2 cameras, I would go with the 3600. Optical zoom is more important to me than the extra megapixel. Digital zoom is by far the most worthless feature on cameras today. It is really a preference though, if you don't plan on doing any zooming what-so-ever you should go with the 3700. But if you do want to zoom at all go with the 3600 and still get great quality photos. My vote goes to the 3600.

 

[GT1999]

Read into this if you're looking at some other cameras in that price range other than those two Kodaks. Since you said you weren't completely locked into the Kodaks, here's what I'd recommend. After looking though many reviews I purchased a FujiFilm FinePix 2600z about a month ago and I never regret buying it. It was about $230 or so after taxes locally. It rated better than any other camera in it's price range from what I saw online. There's only one minus in my eyes, and that's that it eats through batteries pretty quick. EVERYTHING else is just awesome.

It takes really nice macro pics. If you're looking for an example, check out this macro pic I took of a friend's crushed/chipped Athlon: right here.

 

[smp]

Nice pic Geekish Thoughts ..



I got nothing to say, I'm just leeching knowledge here.

 

[glenn1]

After looking though many reviews I purchased a FujiFilm FinePix 2600z about a month ago and I never regret buying it. It was about $230 or so after taxes locally. It rated better than any other camera in it's price range from what I saw online. There's only one minus in my eyes, and that's that it eats through batteries pretty quick. EVERYTHING else is just awesome.

I've heard good things about that camera, i'll be sure to take a look at it. I think i remember noticing it in passing once, and it looked small, but not too small... for some reason, the ones that are really tiny like the elph sort of make me feel a bit nervous. I'd just as soon have it be heavier but relatively rugged and built like a tonka toy truck. I may be just being silly, but it seems the pocket sized ones look dainty, delicate, and very fragile

 

[nortexoid]

diggin this thread up...

have u bought the camera yet?...i'm about to buy one this weekend, and i'm almost sure i'm gonna go w/ the canon powershot A40...it was between this and the samsung digimax 220SE...the samsung is about 100 bucks cheaper (CDN) but the powershot seems to be a better camera...another reason i'm probably not going w/ the samsung is because of the lack of ANY review on this thing...i can't find one.

the a40 is probably in your price range - supports optical and digital zoom, auto AND MANUAL controls and records movies as well as having a continuous burst mode that ~2 pics per second...pretty sweet...all glowing reviews too.
it looks good as well...

basically, i can't wait to use this puppy!..hope to god i don't lose it or get it stolen tho...bringing it overseas...making sure NOT to bring it out when drunk or soon-to-be drunk.

 

[DieHardware]

Just a FYI...There are two things that annoy me about my digital camera(Kodak DC290); first the lens zooms too quickly(always over correcting) and second when taking close up shots I have to correct for the difference between what I see through the view finder and the actual picture taken through the lens.
If I were buying a digital camera again, and had to choose between higher megapixels more optical zoom range, I would buy the camera with the higher optical multiplier. Other benefits, you can fit more pictures on the same size memory card and the camera will probably take more pictures in less time.
Just my two cents.

 

[corkyg]

I would definitely go with the optical zoom. Digital is simply on-board cropping. The resolution "sweet spot" is about 2 megapixels. I have had 5 digicams, and the last two were 4 M/P. Those are great for printing 8 x 10 enlargements, but that is rare. Most Internet use is reduced to 2 M/P or less.

As car as makers go, stick with a camera maker. Canon, Nikon, and Olympus are tops for picture quality. Kodak is OK. One of the most important parts of a camera is the lens - that is why it is best to stick with a camera maker that also makes lenses. Samsung is a display house and they buy their optics - usually plastic lenses.

Am now on the waiting list for a Canon D60 body - now called the "Prosumer" type. Would you believe there are over 14,000 of them back ordered at $2K each?

 

[RossMAN]

Increase your budget by $50 and buy the Canon PowerShot A40 for $249 which is one of the best entry level digicams and an excellent price.

Reviews and sample pictures below.

PROFESSIONAL REVIEWS
imaging-resource.com (with sample pictures)
dcresource.com (with sample pictures)
steves-digicams.com (with sample pictures)
dpreview.com (97 owner's ratings almost 5 out of 5 stars in every category)

CONSUMER REVIEWS
ePinions.com (100% recommended by 8 reviewers)
Amazon.com (4.8 out of 5 stars with 39 customer reviews)
CNET.com (8 out of 10 stars with 95% positive reviews)

So have you bought a digital camera yet? If so, which one, where from, how much and why that one?

Kodak digital cameras are a joke when compared to the competition.

 

[aka1nas]

<FONT size=4>All right, here is my patented Best Buy sales rep digital camera shpeel.

Megapixels: The more the merrier:
1MP: Good for computer use, wouldn't really print it.($199 and down)
2MP: Good for about 5x7 prints(or, printing photos as is w/o much if any editing)($299ish)
3MP: Good for about 11x14 prints(Or 8x10s and below with editing)($399-$599)
4MP+: Good for Very large prints(or 8x10s and below with LOTS of editing)($599 and up)

Zoom: Optical is using the actual lens to zoom like a real camera, digital uses software interpolation to blow the images up, reducing image quality. Optical is a must. Most cameras have a 3x optical lens.

Brands: I reccomend Canon, Nikon, Olympus, and Sony. Typically, they use better lenses, etc. I do not reccomend any current(DX-series) Kodaks, HPs, or Fujis, as they have high failure rates(Fuji's die a lot, in my experience) and/or just aren't great cameras(Kodaks and HPs suck IMHO).

Memory: 3 main formats:
<U>CompactFlash</U>: used in Canon, Nikon, HP, Minolta, and Kodak cameras. Can be expanded anywhere from 8MB to 1GB. Higher end cameras feature a type II CF slot which can accommodate an IBM Microdrive. This is the only memory card format where brand really matters as CF cards have the memory controller integrated, and this can vary in speed from card to card and brand to brand.

<U>SmartMedia</U>: Olympus, Fuji, and Toshiba cameras. Expandable to 128MB(though not all models can take larger cards). Oldest standard. Officially has been replaced by the newer XD cards 3 weeks ago. The memory controller is built into the device, not the card, which makes the card easier to produce as well as making brand more or less irrelevant. The downside is many older SM devices cannot use larger SM cards.

<U>Memory Stick</U>: Sony cameras. Expandable to 128MB, though may still scale higher. Typically a little more expensive per megabyte than the previous 2 formats.

1.3MP images are typically ~300KB in size(These sizes can vary quite a bit, as both the compression ratio in the camera and the subject affects file size.)
2.1MP images are typically ~1MB in size
3.3MP images are typically ~2MB in size
</FONT><FONT size=4>Batteries:
AAs: Most cheaper digitals will take either 2 or 4 AA batteries. You have a few options for these:
<U>Alkalines</U>: Normal 'ol alkaline AAs will last for about 20 minutes of continuous use in a camera. Not a great idea unless you can't get anything else.
<U>Lithium</U>: Long life disposables. A set of four lasts for about 4 or 5 hours of continuous use(about a long day of picture taking). A set of 4 runs about $12-$20
<U>Nickel Metal-Hydride(NiMH):</U> Rechargeables that replaced the older NiCADs. Give about 2 to 3 hours of continuous useage on a set of 4. 4 packs go for about $14, charger kits come in both 12 hour and 1 hour varieties and start around $25 for a 12 hour kit and $35 for a 1 hour kit.

Lithium-Ion: Mainly used in higher end cameras. Same technology as current camcorder and laptop batteries. Best charge per size. Durations vary from 1 hour for smaller batteries to 3+ hours for larger ones. Prices also vary accordingly. These batteries are proprietary per camera. </FONT><B>
</B>

 

[aka1nas]

I would go for the very minimum 3x optical zoom with a 2 megapixel resolution. Pics you post on the net don't need even this much(2MP is 1600x1200, which is probably more than what you are running your entire display at.), but this much resolution gives you pretty good print quality up to about 5x7 if you do decide to use it for that every once in a while. I don't like either of those Kodaks(IMHO, the DX series Kodaks are the worst digital cameras with the possible exceptions of Samsung and HP). The failure rate on them is relatively high(we try very hard not to sell them at Best Buy as they invariably end up coming back either because somthing broke or the customer was pissed of about the quality. We sell so few of them that it's astonishing the amount that come back for servicing, about as high as the brands we sell a lot of.)

 

[corkyg]

Originally posted by: nortexoid
i'm about to buy one this weekend, and i'm almost sure i'm gonna go w/ the canon powershot A40...it was between this and the samsung digimax 220SE...the samsung is about 100 bucks cheaper (CDN) but the powershot seems to be a better camera.

Good choice, nortexoid! One of the most important parts of a camera is the lens, and Canon has been making great lenses since they copied the old Leica back in the 40s - even before. Samsung is an electronics house - not noted for optics. They probably buy plastic lenses.