UPDATE December 2007

Shown: L to R 

2001 Sony DSC-S85 4MP  manual and automatic

2007 Canon SD1000 7 MP automatic with semi-manual

2003 Minolta G400 4MP automatic with semi-manual

Sponsored by  The Amazing Brain Adventure

This site is primarily for non-professional consumers with current  information about basic digital photography and camera options- with some information professionals may find relevant as well.

Digital cameras have changed somewhat over the past couple of years, but as a professional photographer, as I compare cameras at the end of 2007 against models seen a couple of years ago- The most significant practical changes for the consumer grade cameras  in the past 2 years have been primarily in the drop in prices for cameras and recording media (memory cards). And that's about it. Everything else is mostly irrelevant and small improvements constructed to justify the selling new cameras. Not to say the new cameras aren't good-- they are in fact WONDERFUL. But not significantly THAT much better than cameras made a couple years ago.

Indeed, there have been other changes in models and in features found in cameras, but for the most part, these improvements have not resulted in significant improvement in basic camera performance for anyone except the pure professional.

PIXEL MADNESS

For example, it is now very easy to buy a 7 or 8 megapixel camera around $200-$250, and this was unheard of in 2005 and 2006. But for the average casual consumer, this means just about nothing because, a standard 5 X 7 or 4 X 6 inch photograph in no way requires this kind of resolution- you could not even tell the difference between a snapshot of this size made from a 3MP camera versus an 8MP camera- it's totally irrelevant. In fact, I've made some beautiful and detailed 8X10 photos from an even older 3 MP Sony S75 from 2000, and I could still use this camera from my principal photo work if I still had it (but I chose to upgrade for 1 additional MP in the S85 for additional cropping options and slightly better neutral color rendition.)

My primary camera is a Sony S85 4MP, from 2001. It takes beautiful photographs, and does so with a f 2.0 lens-- a lens that can not be had for love or money on a digital camera these days. A 2.0 lens is capable of half the shutter speed (faster shutter speeds resulting in sharper images in the same light due to less camera movement or capturing faster subject movement) than a f 2.8 lens as found on most consumer cameras almost without exception these days. Why slower lenses on cameras? That's easy-- they're cheaper to make.

I have steered friends wanting a digital camera towards the same model found on eBay, for $150. A camera that will take 1000 shots on one battery charge, and that offers completely manual photographic adjustment- like a regular film camera, something that can generally no longer be found on consumer cameras under $700.

Batteries have shrunk in size along with cameras, and so have the number of photos you can take on a charged battery.

Granted, when you start looking at photos blown up to full resolution (these would be photos the size of your front door) yes, you can tell the difference between my six year old S85, and a brand new Sony Alpha. Otherwise, virtually impossible.

Certainly no difference detectable in  photos 700 pixels across that you post on the internet between my "old" camera and a new one or in regular snapshot sized printed photos, or even large 5X7 photos.

Bear in mind, yes, photographic experience does count. If you don't know what you are doing, it's as easy to take a crappy photograph with a new camera as with an old one.

Please go through my photo gallery, and my web site in general-- most of the photos are taken with the S85 or my older cameras.

And in fact, these days, most people don't print their photos at all, and if they do, they are usually 5X7 or smaller, with the exception being 8X10.

More megapixels allow you to crop more-- i.e. if you take a picture of the Grand Canyon, but you really only want a picture of your uncle riding a donkey on the trail 500 yards away- if you take a 7MP picture of it, you can enlarge and crop the image to just show the relevant ass and not lose so much image resolution and quality so that you still have a good picture. But how often will this come up, especially if you hardly even know what you are doing with photo software? Maybe NEVER.

More pixels is like more horsepower-- who REALLY needs a 400HP car? So... do you really need a 7, 8, or even 12 megapixel camera? I doubt it very much. For 99% of the people out there taking pictures, 3 and 4 MP is PLENTY, and like I said- the camera I use most of the time- and I make my ENTIRE LIVING off my web site with thousands of photos-- is my 4MP 2001 Sony S85.

Why Buy A New Camera?

At the coffee shop today, we were trying to figure out what camera companies were going to do in the future when everyone has a 3MP or bigger camera, and media. Who would buy a new camera, why?

1) You actually may not even have a digital camera yet. Where have you been?? :-)   I predicted all consumer cameras would be digital about four years ago. Well, we are here.

2) People abuse cameras. They throw them around and they will naturally break. People drop their camera on the sidewalk and in the water, and toss them into the trunk. And then the cameras break- time to get a new camera.

3) Camera's break because they are not made well. But my S85 is running strong. I even even dropped it out of my car onto the street-- it still works. Sony's and Canon's generally have the best record for working a long time without breaking. Conversely, my Fuji Finepix (shown on this site) didn't last but a couple of years before it stopped working.

4) In the end, newer is not necessarily better under all conditions. For example compare these photos of the same subject, I think you would be hard pressed to say the newest camera takes better pictures than a camera four years older, and in fact, the opposite may be true:

Open in multiple windows to compare side by side

2001 Sony S85 my cost on ebay $150

2003 Minolta G400  my cost on ebay $55

2007 Canon SD1000 my cost at Ultimate Electronics $250

2007 Canon A570 cost at Circuit City Dec. 2007 $179

Although the G400 is no longer made, and cost me $55 on eBay, it's daylight photo holds its own against any of these cameras, and in fact looks sharper than the SD1000 in this particular example. In some other examples the SD1000 looks better, and can shoot under extreme low light with a ASA 1600 option. On the other hand, although the oldest camera, the S85, is the least impressive here, but under low light, it easily outperforms all these cameras due to the f2.0 lens with a very acceptable low noise 400 ASA and shutter speed twice as fast of the other cameras with f 2.8 lenses.

In summary, the only thing you can say is that all these cameras take wonderful photos despite the great difference in age and price.

Conversely other cameras of the same age, and price, can be found to be greatly INFERIOR--  you may, or may not, be lucky. Most cameras are DECENT these days, but some are the top of the heap.

The moral of this camera tale?

Know your cameras (do your homework and compare sample pictures), or listen to somebody who does-- just don't buy because of advertising, brand name recognition, cost, or on the recommendation of a Warehouse Electronics Salesman working for $6 an hour.

RECOMMENDED CAMERAS

As a general rule, I've found Canon and Sony cameras to provide the best imaging and best user interface-- and this year, Canon pulls ahead with a much more sensible and clean interface. I frankly cannot stand the "helpful" focusing grid marks on this year's Sony W55, W80, and other $200-$300 sub-compact cameras- and you can't turn off these obnoxious green LCD marks that come on every time you hit the shutter button. UGH!!

Consequently, when I decided to upgrade my former sub-compact, I stuck with the Canon Elph model SD1000, and still found it to be the best sub-compact camera for the money these days. I love the sleek minimalist styling, the size, efficient and sensible menu and user interface, and above all the imaging is superb and unequaled in a sub-compact camera.

A slightly larger camera, the Canon A560 and A570IS take photos as good as the SD1000, and actually are slightly better on the edges of the photos in high magnification due to the larger piece of glass (lens) of these cameras, but the A560/570 are about twice the size of my little SD1000, so there's a price to be paid for this bit of edge improvement. Since I often crop my photos anyway, its not an issue, and I appreciate the much smaller size of the SD1000, as well as the aesthetic appeal of the SD1000 which it iself I find very pleasing.

Nikons and Olympus film cameras have always enjoyed a fantastic reputation, but alas, except in the $1000 neighborhood, I believe Canon and Sony has held the honors for best cameras for a number of years, in terms of features and sheer image quality. Casio cameras and Fuji cameras are also good, but after detailed analysis, I don't feel as they compete with Canon and Sony.

>>>>>>>>If you don't already know these sites- these are my favorite independent sites that give EXTREMELY detailed analysis of just about every camera made, and going back many years. STEVES CAMERAS  and Imaging Resources  If you don't want to take my word for anything, you can use the resources on these sites to directly compare cameras and see detailed sample images taken under all conditions.<<<<<<<<<

Image Stabilization

Another new gimmicky feature is Image Stabilization, which has become common in 2007. Again, this is really a very minor new feature that only comes into play when you are taking photos without flash in very low light. This means if you are taking photos in a situation that requires a slooooow shutter speed under 1/50 or 1/40 of a second, image stabilization will counteract hand held camera shake-- a little bit. Just a little, and it may result in a photo with a slightly sharper image than in a camera without stabilization.

If you are taking photos with a flash or in reasonably bright light (like outside) image stabilization means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING because any shutter speed over 1/60 of a second will automatically negate any camera shake you induce with shaky hands. And this is the situation most of the time.

Further image stabilization does NOTHING to stop subject movement (like a car or a cat moving).

I've tested Canons, a brand that seems to have the best stabilization of any brand, and the difference with this feature is really not very significant at all, despite all the hype of manufacturers playing it up in order to sell new cameras. Also, image stabilization does add a little bulk to the cameras-- and if you compare the size of the Canon SD1000 without stabilization against the SD800IS and others with stabilization , you'll see its a slightly bulkier camera- akin to my Minolta seen above. Not much, but I frankly like the lighter and smaller dimensions of the 1000- and if I am carrying a camera in my pants pocket-- I will not miss stabilization, but will certainly note the slightly bigger bulk.

The SD1000 is actually smaller than a deck of cards, the others are slightly bigger. For some people, this small difference in size really won't matter, and some people will actually prefer a larger camera-- so check them out in person and decide for yourself. For me, I like pretending I am James Bond, so teeny teeny tiny is cool (provided it works as well as a bigger model).

SIZE OF CAMERAS

One new feature that is improved is camera miniaturization. Yes, many small cameras perform as well as bigger cameras in the past- and that is nice, IF you have small hands.

For some people, a camera the size of a pack of cigarettes or a playing card is not particularly friendly.

The SD1000 is actually smaller than a deck of cards, the others are slightly bigger. For some people, this small difference in size really won't matter, and some people will actually prefer a larger camera-- so check them out in person and decide for yourself. For me, I like pretending I am James Bond, so teeny teeny tiny is cool (provided it works as well as a bigger model).

A couple of years ago I had an SD400 which, believe it or not, was even smaller than the SD1000- very neat, but the imaging made a pretty good leap from the SD400 and SD500 cameras to the SD1000, with only a very small increase in size, so I went for the new model last year. I will admit, I found the visual design of the older SD Elphs a little more pleasing, but this was overshadowed by performance of the new model. Other changes from the SD400 to the SD100 were broader exposure latitude (like faster film speed), which allowed faster shutter speeds in low light, as well as slightly improved color, and general improvement in sharpness due to an increase in resolution (megapixels).  Again, these were small changes, but collectively made a good difference in camera performance. For probably most people, the change would be insignificant and not noticeable- but then, I AM a geek, and I appreciated these small changes.

BATTERIES

Another thing to consider is that some cameras will work with plain AA batteries, like the A560/570 and this is a big plus if you are traveling. Rechargable Nickel-Hydride batteries give the best performance and better than alkaline, not to mention the use of these kinds of batteries (a big improvement over Nickel-Cadmium), but in a pinch, AAs can be found everywhere on the planet.  seven days a week. If having a sub-miniature camera is not an issue- plain battery use is a very positive thing.

The best rechargeable batteries (and chargers) in terms of power/cost I have found are POWEREX batteries, and I use the 2700 AA type in all kinds of electronics. The new generation of Ni-Hy are SIGNIFICANTLY better than batteries from just a couple years back.

ZOOM

Zoom is a topic that frequently comes up, but again, it almost always is a matter if manufacturer HYPE. Wide angle photography is of much greater relevance to most people- when capturing family photos, vacation photos, and scenery-- a wide angle broad view is certainly of the greatest use.

The only time high zoom (over 4X is of importance would be in situations when you are trying to capture a subject VERY far away, such as in wildlife photography, and that is really the exception for just about most people and most photographic situations. A 3X magnification will suit just about every situation. Note, the 4X of the A560/570 actually increases the ratio between the widest shot and the most telephoto, and is a well balanced and welcome feature. Higher than 4X really is totally overkill unless you are going to Africa to shoot flamingos on a lake a mile away.

WHERE TO SHOP

Last time I bought a camera it was from my local CAMERA SHOP- yes, a place that is a full time specialty shop in  cameras.  Hint hint.

These days, most physical camera stores will match the prices found in the warehouse places as well as the online stores. Remember, online, you have to wait for delivery, you will usually pay for shipping-- AND if there is something wrong with the camera or you want to exchange-- oh man, you don't want to be there.

As in all things BRAIN--  there is NO SUBSTITUTE with personal interaction with HUMANS who actually VALUE you as a customer. If you think saving $10 or $20 or even more is worth it to sacrifice interaction with a HUMAN-- you are not using your brain.

I frequently buy things online, yes indeed. I buy used stuff on eBay. But when it comes to a new camera--  I will go to a place like Mikes Camera, or Wolf Camera-- a store that will give me personal good customer service, a place that will actually let me try out a camera in person, who will exchange a camera with a problem without any hassle at all. (And believe me, digital cameras in a new box can have bad pixels- make sure and check the VIDEO imaging as well as the still imaging when you get your new camera.)

If you find a bad pixel or two in the middle of your video shots (happened to me, yes indeed on a brand new camera), or if you decide on a different model-- you will regret the day you ordered your camera from a place ten states away, and have to pay shipping, and get an RMA, etc etc etc ETC.

In regards to PRINTING please see http://www.INKJETHELPER.com  my site entirely devoted to inkjet printers, alternative ink sources, troubleshooting and maintenance.

******************************************************************************************************************

ORIGINAL BRAIN PHOTO FUN INFORMATION:

(Professional Brain Video do-it-yourself projects list at the bottom of this page)

Digital photography has come a long way in just the past couple of years. As of July 2004, one can buy a digital camera for $100 and print at home on a $75 inkjet printer, and rival the prints you would get with a point and shoot camera, regular film, and commercial photo lab. No film cost and excellent photo paper at 20 cents for an 8 1/2 X 11 inch sheet (Epson Glossy Paper at discount).

And in fact- You can look at all your photos on the computer and you don't even have to use a printer. No film again, ever. No processing again, ever. Just bring 'em up on your PC or Mac. 

For a little more money- say, $399 for a camera and $175 for a printer, you can produce photos that are indistinguishable from a professional SLR Nikon and a pro color-lab. 

And everywhere in-between. And even better for full fledged pros.

The advantage is that digital photography is less expensive in the long run (and short term too), better for the environment (email and web photos, and less chemicals down the drain), and offers quicker and more extensive editing of photos-- and you can easily do this yourself on your home computer.

No more driving, drop off, paying, and pickup at MotoPhoto. And, even if  you're too lazy to print out at home, the same people at MotoPhoto can STILL print out your digital photos for you.

Above: Photo with super subminiature 1.3 megapixel JVC GC50, no flash, nighttime room light-

For people who are serious, digital photo software allows you unbelievable control over your images in ways that are not even possible in the chemical lab.

My photo's have regularly appeared in Denver Newspapers, and I began processing my own darkroom photos at the age of 14. Although regular film photography has it's charms, there is no way I will be returning to the darkroom-- and I greatly prefer both the ease, and flexibility and better results of digital photography.

Photography is a lot of fun and GOOD for your brain. Taking, developing, manipulating and editing pictures simulates many parts of your brain motor- right brain, occipitals, and creative circuits. As you play with enjoying and sharing your pictures your brain will grow in its powers of observation as well as artistic creativity. It is non-competitive expression and can elevate our human experience.

Digital Cameras from a couple of years ago:

SAMPLE PHOTOS

See Sony sample web photos by your's truly at:

Fall Brain Blast

and throughout www.NeilSlade.com The Amazing Brain Adventure

FOR DETAILS about PRINTERS, INK, PAPERS, and Laser Toner See the NEW PAGE at the 2004 Brain Review of Inkjet Printers, Ink, and Papers.

The quality of digital photographs absolutely rivals the best film photography nowadays, and many professionals have made the switch. Photos seen on the web (such as on this page) are normally compressed to aid speedy download and are not necessarily representative of the high quality available from some exceptional cameras, and seen in printed photos, or viewed from saved images on a hard drive or photo CD.

Camera models have evolved somewhat and changed over the past couple of years, so there's some new news..........

MEGAPIXEL DILEMMA 

Cool close-up Erfie photo above taken with a $50 one half megapixel plastic camera...!

Is more really better? 

Absolutely NOT.

For most consumers and people needing a point and shoot snapshot camera, every major brand digital camera of 2 megapixels (amount of picture resolution detail) and above will take good pictures. It's that simple. You just decide on the size, and the bells and whistles you think you want or need. Olympus now sells a compact 3 megapixel camera for $149 (and prices keep coming down) that would work great for the majority of snapshot takers out there.

There are even less expensive 1.3 - 2 megapixel digital cameras that will work fine for many people.

I have a 4 megapixel camera capable of incredible detail- and I use the 1.9 MP setting 99% of the time. And for EVERY web and email photo. There you go. But my camera (Sony DSC-S85) has a big lens- it's a quality 2 megapixels.

More pixels means you can crop and blow up sections of a photo and keep image quality up, but frankly, this almost never occurs to the extent that would require these high resolutions. As you increase pixels, you increase the amount of memory you use on your camera's memory card- (this is what the camera stores images on instead of film). You can by more or bigger memory cards, and lose them, or you can just use what you really need for your photos.

Web/email photos don't need to have fine fine resolution- because all computer monitors are not that fine to begin with- you can have the finest resolution in the world for your photo, and it won't make any difference if you post it on the web or email. Any resolution above 2.5 megapixels is really only for extreme cropping of photos, or large full 8X10 photos of extreme detail. Otherwise, don't waste your card memory and use the lower resolutions 2-3 megapixels.  

These cameras with 5 to 8 megapixels-- for most home use, this is absolutely overkill, and a way to fool people into buying new cameras. It's a different story for news journalists, and actual money making pros who can use finer resolution. It's like this: Do you need a 450 horsepower engine to drive to 7-11?  I didn't think so....

ANOTHER factor, however, is that cameras with teeny lenses- on very compact cameras- lose quality and detail-- there's just not enough GLASS in front of the image sensor. You know, pictures are all about LIGHT-- and the bigger WINDOW (your lens) you have, the better your picture.

So the way camera makers get around the loss of detail with small lenses, is they add a bigger sensor CCD chip--  more megapixels. You get some detail back. 

This works KIND OF. The problem is, there is almost NO SUBSTITUTE for a good big lens, although I've seen a couple of exceptions- in the Minolta G400 and the Sony T1. More below on these...ALSO, more megapixels mean you can fit fewer pictures on your memory card. You'll need to buy bigger cards, carry more cards (lose? more cards). You can't have your cake an eat it too. You want the very best picture? You need a decent lens on the front of your camera. Of course, this is more important to people who are hobbyists rather than snapshot takers, for which this is less of an issue.

FINALLY- often, MORE megapixels may force other parts of a camera's electronics to compromise other aspects of quality. A good example is the Canon G5-- which has more megapixels than the G3, and in some respects produces images of WORSE QUALITY. 

My 4 MP Minolta takes BETTER, more detailed, and sharper images than many 6 MP cameras manufactured out there- and better than EVERY 5 MP camera under $500 made this year.

Do not buy or upgrade your camera, just to get more megapixels. Careful.

The Amazing Brain Adventure

"To take GREAT Photos you must KNOW HOW TO TURN ON YOUR CREATIVE BRAIN"

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CAMERAS

Here's an email reply I recently send to someone wanting to understand pixels and recommended cameras: