What camera is right for me?

[noodles]

Hi all,

This is my first post so be gentle please

I am going to buy a digital camera soon. I have some experience using digitals so I'm not completely new to them and I have a decent knowledge of what the specs mean (somewhat). But I'm still not sure what I want.

I am leaning towards a Canon because three peopel here at work have S30's and are quite hapy with them. I would consider other brands, but have been fairly impressed with Canon so would like to get one. As well, i would like to stay CompactFlash as it's cheaper.

My current needs are mostly just for a point and shoot camera. My wife takes tons of pics of our girls and so it needs to be simple to use whatever I get. She doesn't like to read manuals (sigh) so it can't be difficult to use. Also, while most of my needs now are for very basic operation, I would like to be able to start experimenting more and using the features of the cameras more.

Most pics would only be done as 5x7 but the odd one as 8x10. A 3 MP would likely suffice but I am somewhat of an image quality junky (the more MP the better) and am likey to shoot everything in RAW mode to keep as much quality as possible. For that reason I was mostly eyeing the S50 as my purchase. However, Canon had to go and introduce the S1 IS which looks very appealing (extra zoom, nicer body) except it's "only" 3.2 MP.

So my questions:
Am I being unnecesarily picky when it comes to quality of image?
Is there a noticable difference using a 3.2 in RAW vs a 5MP (also in RAW)?
Would the extra MP help when I get into post processing in Photo Shop or Paint Shop Pro?
Does the S1 IS offer THAT many more features that it's worth the extra $?
Does High quality JPEG look much worse than RAW?

NOTE: I'm spending my Tax Refund so while I can't be completely unreasonable, money isn't a big issue.

Please help.

Noodles...

[noodles]

Does nobody have any response to my post?????

I could do with some help please.

[Michael Fanelli]

A 3 MP would likely suffice but I am somewhat of an image quality junky (the more MP the better)

Bad assumption, MP does not determine image quality.

Am I being unnecesarily picky when it comes to quality of image?
Is there a noticable difference using a 3.2 in RAW vs a 5MP (also in RAW)?

No, you aren't being picky. But you have the wrong idea as to where image quality comes from.

Would the extra MP help when I get into post processing in Photo Shop or Paint Shop Pro?

It depends upon how much cropping you do.

Does the S1 IS offer THAT many more features that it's worth the extra $?

Only you can answer this one.

Does High quality JPEG look much worse than RAW?

Short answer, yes. Long answer, maybe. Raw gives you the ability to do lots of things after the fact. JPEG locks you into what you took with narrow options for improvement. This assumes you spend the time on the computer taking advantage of RAW.

[swampy]

Well as the other guy says.. MP says nothing, I have seen some MP5 models shoot horrible pictures that a 3MP model costing the same did perfect.

What is more important is the lens, it must have a good lens. The light sensitivity and how fast you can shoot. I am sure your wife likes a camera that like the plastic cheap ass models shoots extreemly fast.

Well, ya could read my profile and see the camera I have. Maybe a bit to... nah it's perfect for shooting simple pictures, but also shoots nice pictures of, more odd things...like sun going down in the sea..and the clouds around it...the only bad thing is the limited zoom of 2,8x but that is good enough for most simple shots!

Then again a Canon A60/A70 is also highly usefull,

About raw versus jpg. I shoot my pictures in jpg.... but 100% quality jpg so I don't loose quality. Indeed a raw format has more possibilities..but unless you do something with those more possibities.. it's not really usefull.

A picture I take is about 1,4Mb .. 3MP pictures at that, wich gives nice quality and at that point is still worthy to be printed on real photo paper ....

[danag42]

About raw versus jpg. I shoot my pictures in jpg.... but 100% quality jpg so I don't loose quality. Indeed a raw format has more possibilities..but unless you do something with those more possibities.. it's not really usefull.

A picture I take is about 1,4Mb .. 3MP pictures at that, wich gives nice quality and at that point is still worthy to be printed on real photo paper ....

I always shoot RAW unless it's a situation where I need rapid turnaround time. Keep the RAW version of any image you want, burn to CD, and archive,

Then muck around with the image all you want, you can always go back and start again!

If you need very fast turnaround time and are pretty experienced at exposure and so on, you can get away with the highest quality Jpeg. Just don't re-save as a jpeg or you'll lose detail!

[Canon Man]

I have a Canon PowerShot A60 and I must say, I am VERY pleased with it. It's only 2MP, and I was a little worried about the photo quality when I got it, but once I took a couple pictures I was amazed. It takes better pictures than most 3MP cameras I have seen. It saves the images in JPEG, but they look fine to me, I can't tell that they have been tinkered with at all. It produces images up to 1600x1200 and I beleive that it could very easliy print out very nice looking 8x10's.

It has tons of options and features. You can go into full manual control and change shutter speed, aperture, iso, exposure, white balance, etc. I'm very happy I got it, and with the 128MB CF card I got with it, I can hold 122 pictures at the best quality.

Here is a sample picture that I took the other day:


http://www.wrestlingvg.com/uploader/...s/IMG_0823.JPG

[yaronsh]

Let's talk about printing...

If you print at 150dpi, no one would be able to tell your digital pics of your daughters are digital, unless they inspect it closely. And if someone holds a pic of your daughters up to his/her nose to check whether it's digital, his/her nose ought to be punched. (I'm guilty of doing that... Lucky I haven't been punched yet.)

If you print at 300dpi, it would probably be impossible to tell with the naked eye that it's digital. And if someone does that to your pics of your daughters, s/he ought to be kicked where it counts.

If you print a 4x6 at 150dpi, the total # of "dots" is (4x150)x(6x150) = about 1/2 million. So, theoretically, 0.5MP should be enough... You go up to 300dpi, and it's about 2.2MP.
If you print a 8x10 at 150dpi, it's about 1.8MP. 8x10 at 300dpi: 7.2MP... But 8x10 is intended to viewed from at least arm's length...

Of course, MP does not translate *exactly* to dpi, and I've neglected to account for aspect ratios, cropping, etc., but y'all get the idea.

- Yaron

[EOSThree]

I wouldn't worry so much about a MP, not having that MP will be negated by being able to Zoom in with that 10x IS zoom. By being able to zoom in, you will have to crop less. More MPs doesn't necessarily mean better image quality, the new 8MP cameras have more pixels, but they are crammed onto a small image sensor, causing potential noise. The 1D has excellent image quality with only a 4mp sensor. The S30s your collegues have has some of the best image quality I have seen, with only 3MP. Don't get caught up in the MP race!