Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Get a camera made by a camera company for sure.
Megapixles aren't everything.
Getting something by Canon, Fuji, etc. will be a good bet.
But, but, but, the tech article in a newspaper once said "All that matters is the megapixel rating. Higher megapixels means better image quality."
They of course never mentioned saturation, white balance, compression quality, or anything else - just how great it was to have lots of pixels. That is why newspapers are not a good source of computer information - unfortunately, they're also what most people are going to read.
I've used Kodak cameras - DC3200, and a DC3400 - 1 and 2 megapixels, respectively. The DC3400 is the one I use currently. My complaints:
- Take three pictures in rapid succession, then wait maybe 10-15 seconds to take another picture, as it takes awhile to write to the CF card. Maybe a faster card would help this.
- The compression method it uses introduces a little bit of waviness into the image, but I still find the quality of the pictures to be excellent. It'd be awesome to have a camera that supports something lossless, like PNG. Of course, you wouldn't be able to fit nearly as many images into the same amount of space, compared to JPG.
And for the price, I can't complain - I think I paid $100 for it, plus two 32MB CF cards, in the FS/T forum here. 2x optical zoom, a good macro mode - pretty nice.