File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hi /p/, I'm looking to buy my first digital camera. I'm kind of new to them and I don't really know what to look for, but I've found two cameras that I think are the best for my price range (< $170) and ideal number of megapixels (> 8.0). Anyways, I like the Kodak better than the Samsung, but if someone thinks they can find a better camera than either of these, I'd appreciate it if they post it here.

Picture highly related.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830170103
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830144100
>> Anonymous
>>67551
Megapixels have very little to do with image quality. Once you hit somewhere in the range 5-7, the only real advantage is if you do heavy cropping. The sensor and the lens are the two main factors affecting image quality. If I understand correctly, Kodak point and shoots are known for having great sensors but shitty lenses, which does no good except to highlight how shitty the lens is. It's like having 20/20 vision and trying to see clearly through the bottom of a cup. (I might be wrong, though, don't depend just on me re: Kodak's quality. That's what I've read one or two places.)

Look around dpreview.com, especially the buying guide feature. That should point you in whateve the right direction for you is.
>> Anonymous
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830122113

Why? It's a pretty decent point-and-shoot (albiet relatively old) and features a best-in-class SuperCCD HR sensor. Why does that even matter? Check the article attached to these sample shots for your reason: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/compactcamerahighiso/page3.asp !
>> Anonymous
>>67565
Well, it looks great, but it's a bit more than I'm willing to spend.
>> Anonymous
>>67673
I also have an SD card...don't feel like buying an xD card, and xD cards don't work with my Wii anyways.