"Starter" digital camera?

[Weird Harold]

a) Most jpeg viewing software allows the viewer to zoom in and out as they please. So the computer screen size is irrelevant, unless you ever get a monitor with more pixels. Then larger image sizes are preferable.

I'm well aware of the ability to zoom in, out and "fit to screen" but you're missing the point -- no matter how big or small the picture is, when it's "fit to screen" it's visually 800x600 pixels. Zooming in on a big image -- and I do have several big images on my computer -- only allows me to see part of the picture. I'm well aware of the advantage that a few million extra pixels provide and make good use of that advantage when I need to -- I do NOT need the "advantage" of wasted disk space and millions of extra pixels for most photos -- I never see them, never use them and have better uses for the disk and RAM space they use.

b) ...The Nikon raw file for my D50 is about 5.1 MB, even though its a 6MP camera.

That's still a lot bigger than the 40-100 KB of a typical 800x600 JPeg and I have no current or anticpated NEED for a file that big.

c) hard drives are incredibly cheap these days. A 250 GB drive can be gotten for about $100. That will store about 100,000 2.5 MB images.

You are totally missing the point that I -- and a lot of people who ask about "starter cameras" -- have to plan our budget six months or more in advance to spend $100 dollars on a hard-drive -- and in my case, my mother board is old enough I'd have serious doubts about it's ability to support a 250GB drive so I'd have to budget for a new computer to acquire that size hard-drive.

My rent just went up 10% and I'm juggling the budget and menu to compensate for the reduction in the money available for food -- a bigger hard drive and a full featured digital SLR to fill it with pictures I'll never actually see at their full resolution is WAY down my list of wants and needs.

My advice to consider what a camera -- or any other purchase -- is going to be used for and buy something that fits the NEED is based in large part on an awareness that more people have to consider cost benefits and budget constraints than can afford to go out and buy the newst and best just because it IS the newest and best.

I'd love to have a camera like yours, but I DO NOT NEED ONE, and neither do most beginners lookig for a "starter camera."

 

[Texguy84]

One day you might want to show your images on a plasma TV. The current standard image size on them is about 1366 x 768. Who knows what that will be 10 years from now. Note that the TV, Plasma and camera aspect ratios are all different. Its nice to have a few extra pixels if you need to crop.

Heh, yes. And one day I'd like to take pictures of beautiful women posing with my brand new Cobra GT500. Doesn't mean that it's likely to ever become an issue for me.

 

[glynndah]

My! Such impassioned responses! To everyone who responded, thanks. How about a few more questions and then you can get back to whatever you were doing.

1. My understanding is that the digital camera takes the pictures which can be stored on a memory card which can, in turn be loaded onto a computer. Correct?
2. Is there any limit to the number of pictures that the memory card can deal with? I know that the storage capacity varies from model to model, but can it be re-used? That is, once the card is completely filled, can it be purged and used again? Is it analogous to a cassette tape which can be recorded over or is it more like a write-once cd?
3. Are all the formats compatible? If I like the features of the WhizBang3000 camera, am I stuck with the same manufacturer for the memory card, or can I buy the GeeWhillickers777 memory card?

I'm probably not going to be taking "professional" quality photos, except as a fluke, but I would like to be able to snap pictures of friends, family, pets and the occasional cool thing, whatever that might be. I think my best best is to go with the cheaper end of things and decide if I'm taking enough pictures to enjoy a more expensive model with all the bells and whistles.

As far as the place to buy the camera goes, I live in a very rural area and the nearest Best Buy is almost 2 hours away. The Evil Empire is closest and it's about 30 minutes on a good day.
Once again, thanks, guys!

 

[Texguy84]

1. Correct with *most* cameras. Some cameras require a USB connection, and a rare few have to be taken to some place special to get the pictures off (the $10-20 "Single-use" digital cameras that Ritz sells can only have the pictures transfered to a computer at a Ritz camera, and anyhow their quality sucks). For the ones that use memory cards (and most of the ones that you'll be spending any significant amount of money for will use them) you will probably need some kind of memory card reader for your computer. These can be found for around $10-20, and usually connect via USB. Some computers include memory-card readers mounted like disk drives in the case itself.

2. For all practical intents and purposes, memory cards can be used as many times as you want. There is a practical limit to how many times they can be used, but this is some insanely huge number (far more times than you could use a floppy disk over and over again), and by the time the thing wears out, you will have probably moved on to something better anyhow.

3. Most of the cameras don't use proprietary memory cards. I think most Sony cameras still use Memory Stick, and I don't know of any non-Sony cameras that do. Similarly, I think only Fuji and Olympus cameras use xD memory. Most cameras you will find will run on SecureDigital (SD), which is very comon and nowadays getting fairly cheap. There is also CompactFlash, but only the larger more expensive cameras use those. If you want your memory card to be useable in a later camera, I'd go with a camera that uses SD memory.

Wal Mart can be an OK place to play with a camera at, but if you're far from a big store, the best choice will be to buy it online at some reputable place.

 

[Weird Harold]

1. My understanding is that the digital camera takes the pictures which can be stored on a memory card which can, in turn be loaded onto a computer. Correct?

Partially correct. Most cameras will work without the card for a minamal number of pictures and not all digital cameras will accept removable media -- and some use removable media other than memory cards, like the Sony model that uses mini-CDRWs. Most of the cameras that will fit your "starter camera" requirement use "SD format" memory cards.

Take my Digital Solutions camera, for example -- it has 16MB of internal memory that will hold as many as 162 pictures as the lowest resolution and quality or as few as nine pictures at maximun resolution and quality. It also accepts "SD" memory cards up to 512MB -- it will accept higher capacity cards but will only use 512MB.

When it's connected to the computer it shows up as TWO external disk drives plus it has software that can autoload when the camera is detected for those who can't figure out where the pictures are when looked at as a drive by the operating system. (even though the camera itself can't find the internal memory when a memory card is installed except to transfer any images ininternal memory to the card when is first installed.)

Transfering the pictures to my computer with the interface cable is easier and cheaper than buying a USB card-reader to offload thepictures. (Cabes are usually USB, but sometimes firewire or serial -- my older RCA digital came with three cables; USB, Serial, and direct composite video for a TV)

The only time I use the card to offload pictures is to give my Elder daughter copies to her PDA which also uses SD format memory cards or ofload them to her computer through her PDA docking station because I usually don't carry the camera cable around with me. My younger daughter has the same model camera so I can just use her cable to offload pictures to her computer.

We've also dicovered that my camera used a semi-standard USB cable and the cable to my elder daughter's Sony Digital Video camera is the same cable as my camera uses.

2. Is there any limit to the number of pictures that the memory card can deal with? I know that the storage capacity varies from model to model, but can it be re-used? That is, once the card is completely filled, can it be purged and used again? Is it analogous to a cassette tape which can be recorded over or is it more like a write-once cd?

SDcards are reuseable -- effectively unlimited considering the camera will probably fail or be replaced before you wear out the SD card(s).

3. Are all the formats compatible? If I like the features of the WhizBang3000 camera, am I stuck with the same manufacturer for the memory card, or can I buy the GeeWhillickers777 memory card?

It's the format that matters -- as Tex explained above -- and depending on the limitations of the camera, the useable size might matter. SD format seems to me to be the most common card for cameras, PDAs and the like but there are other formats around so youhave to make sure you get the right format and size.

A note on memory cards -- the local Walgreens and Walmarts have photo printing stations that accept 3.5" Floppies or SD chips, or cameras compatible with Kodak/HP docking stations. I don't think they can use other format memory cards or use a direct USB connection. If you're likely to want to go that route to print pictures, the card format matters more than it would otherwise.

As far as the place to buy the camera goes, I live in a very rural area and the nearest Best Buy is almost 2 hours away. The Evil Empire is closest and it's about 30 minutes on a good day.
Once again, thanks, guys!

Digital Solutions is a essentially Wal-mart brand, but K-mart, Target, Sam's Club and other discount chains have similar ranges of digital camera selections. NOTE: My camera wasn't expensive enough to be among the cameras-on-leashes displayed for customers to try-out, it was in a bubble pack off the the side.

One thing I do like about my camera is that it formats the SD chip the same way my daughter's PDA does and the USB interface is one that (almost) any Windows computer will recognise as a "new removable disk" and doesn't require a driver disk to offload to a "computer of opportunity." It generally does require waiting out the "New Hardware Wizard" and it is't always recognised as a "camera" but the pictures can still be accessed.

Not all cameras are that accomodating, but most of the newer inexpensive cameras are becoming standardized enough that Windows can use it's generic drivers.

Whatever interface -- direct cable, dedicated docking station, photo-printer socket, or card-reader -- your camera has will work well when you're at home and have access to the cables and such that are required. BUT the interface and camera/ card capacity really matter when you're at a birthday party/wedding/concert or on vacation and fill your camera up with no way to offload the pictures so you can take more.

The more generic the interface your camera has, the more options you have when you're away from where you normally offload the pictures.

 

[Texguy84]

Transfering the pictures to my computer with the interface cable is easier and cheaper than buying a USB card-reader to offload thepictures. (Cabes are usually USB, but sometimes firewire or serial -- my older RCA digital came with three cables; USB, Serial, and direct composite video for a TV)

The only time I use the card to offload pictures is to give my Elder daughter copies to her PDA which also uses SD format memory cards or ofload them to her computer through her PDA docking station because I usually don't carry the camera cable around with me. My younger daughter has the same model camera so I can just use her cable to offload pictures to her computer.

We've also dicovered that my camera used a semi-standard USB cable and the cable to my elder daughter's Sony Digital Video camera is the same cable as my camera uses.

Yeah, using the USB cable including with the camera is the easiest no-fuss method, though be aware that it will drain your batteries. Not a big deal, just something to remember.

A note on memory cards -- the local Walgreens and Walmarts have photo printing stations that accept 3.5" Floppies or SD chips, or cameras compatible with Kodak/HP docking stations. I don't think they can use other format memory cards or use a direct USB connection. If you're likely to want to go that route to print pictures, the card format matters more than it would otherwise.

Well, this depends on the photo kiosk, in my experience. I've seen some that had 3.5", CD, SD/MMC, MemoryStick, CompactFlash (SD's older and bigger brother), xD, and even thumbdrives. I'd check to see what's available at the kiosks before you make a choice based on what you think is going to be available. That said, as has been pointed out before, SD seems to be one of the more common and interchangeable memory cards used by most digital cameras.

Whatever interface -- direct cable, dedicated docking station, photo-printer socket, or card-reader -- your camera has will work well when you're at home and have access to the cables and such that are required. BUT the interface and camera/ card capacity really matter when you're at a birthday party/wedding/concert or on vacation and fill your camera up with no way to offload the pictures so you can take more.

The more generic the interface your camera has, the more options you have when you're away from where you normally offload the pictures.

Most digital cameras I have seen included the USB interface, up to and including $1000 Digital SLR cameras, and they almost all seem to use the same type of USB cord. So keep that cord in your camera bag if there's room for it, or put it in your traveling bag or whatever if you are going to a friend's wedding, so you can copy it off onto someone's computer if you need to.

The afore-mentioned card-readers are usually small enough (and also USB-connected) to be easily packed with you if you are inclined to own one, but generally only work with Windows XP unless you have the instalation disc for the thing with you (they're much like USB thumbdrives in this way)

 

[Weird Harold]

Yeah, using the USB cable including with the camera is the easiest no-fuss method, though be aware that it will drain your batteries. Not a big deal, just something to remember.

I don't kow about YOUR camera, but mine doesn't even need batteries when it's connected via the USB cable. Part of the USB definition is the ability to power a device up to one amp of current -- some cameras and cellphones can actually charge their batteries via a USB connection.

Well, this depends on the photo kiosk, in my experience. I've seen some that had 3.5", CD, SD/MMC, MemoryStick, CompactFlash (SD's older and bigger brother), xD, and even thumbdrives. I'd check to see what's available at the kiosks before you make a choice based on what you think is going to be available.

Good point -- those self-serve photo-printing stations tend to provide the interfaces that people want them to and are constantly being upgraded.

...keep that cord in your camera bag if there's room for it, or put it in your traveling bag or whatever if you are going to a friend's wedding, so you can copy it off onto someone's computer if you need to.

On of the reasons for choosing a camera the size of a pack of cigarettes is that there IS no "camera bag" required. Just remember to bring the cable and installation disk along if you know you're going to be away from home just in case there aren't a suitable cable and drivers where you're going.

 

[Texguy84]

I don't kow about YOUR camera, but mine doesn't even need batteries when it's connected via the USB cable. Part of the USB definition is the ability to power a device up to one amp of current -- some cameras and cellphones can actually charge their batteries via a USB connection.

Well, it depends on the device. I've had my minidisc player go dead while trying to write songs to it, and the Pentax and Samsung DSLRs that run on AA batteries can drain the batteries at an impressive rate while transfering files to or from the camera (downloading pictures or updating the firmware). I think I've also had my Palm Zire go dead during a hotsync once when the battery was low.

Also, this all assumes the camera has rechargable batteries, which many do, but not all of them. If the camera runs on AA or AAA batteries, then it probably will not recharge through the USB cable (especialy if the batteries themselves aren't rechargable, as is the case with alkaline batteries)

Good point -- those self-serve photo-printing stations tend to provide the interfaces that people want them to and are constantly being upgraded.

They're modular too, from what I can see. The different media readers are mounted like disk drives on a PC, so updating them for another kind of media is probably just a case of removing a faceplate, plugging in the new drive, and updating the software of the Kiosk to look for it. What wigs me out is when I plug in my SD card, some of those things pick up pictures I deleted a LONG time ago. This can be embarassing in Walgreens, depending on the nature of these pictures and if there is a line behind you.

 

[Weird Harold]

Well, it depends on the device. ...

Also, this all assumes the camera has rechargable batteries, which many do, but not all of them.

True, My camera doesn't have a recharge function -- it uses three AAA alkaline batteries and connecting the USB cable isolates the batteries from the circuit.

I can see where rechargeable batteries can use up power faster than the recharge circuit is replacing it, though.

 

[ArtifexLignorum]

1. Correct. You buy the right sort of "Digiital film" and you go on shooting pics indefinately.

2. Yup there is a limit. The card is only so big. Divide the capacity of the card by the average size of each picture and you get close to the answer. Some cards accept dozens, some cards accept hundreds.

3. No. You are stuck with whatever style of card they impose upon you. But they all work, so it isnt a big worry.

And without number. No, you wont ever be taking photos that can reasonably be favorably compared with real film cameras from a consumer grade digi camera. At present, they just cant handle the dynamic range nor the resolution that the cheapest 35mm films can deliver.

However, it will enable you to take more pictures very cheaply and hone your craft.

Simply figure out how much you care to spend on the current breed available and pounce on the best price for you.

Then, in a while, you get to decide how to replace it.


Good luck.

 

[footlongish]

At present, they just cant handle the dynamic range nor the resolution that the cheapest 35mm films can deliver.

Ummm... you should read this. And the D70 is a 6MP camera. The 8 and 10MP cameras will be better yet.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=20280334

I shot film for the last 18 years. And now I shoot digital. I'm selling (giving away) my film SLR. Guess why ? The digital images are 5x better for a whole number of reasons.

 

[Skip1934a]

Thank you all for your prompt replies. I'm still quite confused, but now I'm "knowledgeably" confused. I'll probably start shopping around soon and at least I'll have some numbers (5 MP; 1GB memory card; 33 MPG; $4.95 AYCE;etc.) to shoot for.

I use a 5 megapixel camera, and I can print an 11x14 that rivals the quality of my'$1500.00 SLR film camera. With a 1gb memory add on you'll take more pictures than you really need. I can take 1000 pictures on a 1gb memory chip.

My digital is a Single Lens Reflex (SLR) model, which means there is no parallex offset like many cameras that use a small offset finder above the lens. That's probably why you have been chopping heads off. With a SLR, what you see in the viewfinder is what you get. Most digitals now have a LCD (liquid crystal display) of what you will get when you snap the shutter. A good feature to have, because you don't have to hold the camera at you eye

 

[footlongish]

I'm going to comment just in case other people read this.

With a 1gb memory add on you'll take more pictures than you really need

Until you start shooting RAW images instead of jpegs !

Most digitals now have a LCD (liquid crystal display) of what you will get when you snap the shutter. A good feature to have, because you don't have to hold the camera at you eye

SLRs never have the camera view in the LCD. You can only view the camera view through the viewfinder. Just clarifying. (Unless you have an Olympus E330...)

The LCD works OK until you go outdoors in bright sunlight. And one other thing... cameras need to be held steady when taking pictures. That usually means holding it close to your body versus at arm's length.

 

[Texguy84]

Ummm... you should read this. And the D70 is a 6MP camera. The 8 and 10MP cameras will be better yet.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=20280334

I shot film for the last 18 years. And now I shoot digital. I'm selling (giving away) my film SLR. Guess why ? The digital images are 5x better for a whole number of reasons.

I'm not sure if a D70 DSLR is really comperable to the kind of cameras we're talking about yaknow. Also, this was a modern DSLR camera versus a camera using cheap film, cheap processing, etc. accross the board. I'd be interested in seeing a comparison between the DSLR and a camera shooting Fuji Reala 100 or Kodak NC160 processed at a proper film lab (which, of course, gets expensive, but at around $700, so does a Nikon D70)

Also, it's worth noting that relying on Megapixel count alone isn't really very productive. DSLRs tend to have misleadingly low pixel counts compared to the picture quality they can produce, due to the fact that they use a much larger and more expensive sensor than your typical digital point-and-shoot.

 

[Weird Harold]

I'm not sure if a D70 DSLR is really comperable to the kind of cameras we're talking about yaknow. ...

Also, it's worth noting that relying on Megapixel count alone isn't really very productive. DSLRs tend to have misleadingly low pixel counts compared to the picture quality they can produce, due to the fact that they use a much larger and more expensive sensor than your typical digital point-and-shoot.

Must be one of those statistical coninkydinks; I just logged back on specifically to add a point for camera buyers to consider:

The low to midrange "cameras-and-leashes" you find at discount chain stores and elecronics stores are NOT designed, built or intended for photographers They're the digital successors to the Kodak Brownie, Instamatic and Polaraid One Step.

That doesn't necessarily mean that you can't take good pictures with them, but it does mean you don't have the kind of control over the exposure and focus that a high end SLR can provide.

"Cameras-on-leashes" are designed and built by engineers and programers without much input from Photographers. As a result, they're often not very photograper-friendly and often not even very user-friendly.

For example, the self-timer function is often hidden two or three levels deep in a menu on a mass-market camera, but it is morelikely to be an easily accessible one-touch button on a more expensive, photographer-friendly SLR camera.

Anyone looking to buy a camera needs to decide whether they want to be (or become) a "photographer" or if they just want to take pictures. Mass-market cameras-on-a-leash are great for "just taking pictures" but not even close to what a true "photographer" needs or wants from a camera.

 

[Texguy84]

Anyone looking to buy a camera needs to decide whether they want to be (or become) a "photographer" or if they just want to take pictures. Mass-market cameras-on-a-leash are great for "just taking pictures" but not even close to what a true "photographer" needs or wants from a camera.

Weeeeeel, it can depend on the camera too. I played around with a Nikon Coolpix camera of some sort over the course of a weekend in Florida, and managed to get some VERY nice pictures with it. My main beef with it was the limited available ISO ranges (100, 200, 400). Suprisingly good for low-light shots, since the smaller lens was easier to hold still for long periods of time (I was taking quarter second long exposures with the thing handheld, with one elbow propped on my beer belly). Of course, I've seen some point-and-shoot digitals that I was totally unimpressed with, so your mileage may vary.

I'm of the school of thought that a truly skilled photographer who knows his equipment will be able to massage great photos out of almost any functional camera. I've taken a rather nice photo of a bird in flight using an advantix point-and-shoot and good timing. That said, the better the camera, the better the photographs CAN be, but ultimately it depends on the guy standing behind the camera.

 

[footlongish]

The price spread between a good consumer camera, like a Canon 3IS, and a DSLR is rapidly narrowing. A photographer is only as good as his tools and the later will do tons more.

 

[Texguy84]

The price spread between a good consumer camera, like a Canon 3IS, and a DSLR is rapidly narrowing. A photographer is only as good as his tools and the later will do tons more.

True, but I don't think this person wants to lug around a camera almost as big as her head when she's just looking for something to snap shots with. I've known people who spent hundreds of dollars on an SLR camera and then just used it in Green Box mode, where the camera works just like a point and shoot, only bigger and more expensive.

 

[Weird Harold]

I'm of the school of thought that a truly skilled photographer who knows his equipment will be able to massage great photos out of almost any functional camera. I've taken a rather nice photo of a bird in flight using an advantix point-and-shoot and good timing. That said, the better the camera, the better the photographs CAN be, but ultimately it depends on the guy standing behind the camera.

I agree that having the "eye" and the skill to get the most out of any camera is what makes the real difference between photography and just taking pictures. But I disagree that a "better" camera necessarily means better pictures -- some times more features and more capabilities get in the way of taking good pictures.

Back in the dark ages when I had delusions of being a "photographer" I got very good results from a Mimaya Sekor 1000DTL camera with through the lens "match needle" light metering. That camera was stolen and I replaced it with a Mimaya Sekor 1000XTL which had almost all of the same capabilities plus an automatic "green dot" point and shoot mode. I wound up missing or ruining more photos with that "better" camera than with any other camera before or since -- It simply required too much attention on the camera to make it perform up to it's capabilities.

That camera was later passed on to my son-in-law and performed a bit better for him than it had for me, but never up to the capability that it's technical features should have permitted.

 

[footlongish]

True, but I don't think this person wants to lug around a camera almost as big as her head when she's just looking for something to snap shots with.

The size diff between a 3IS or superzoom and a small DSLR like the Pentax or Canon Rebel isn't that much. And most of the campacts are too small to hold well and don't have enough features to be a good camera. Just look at flash output for starters.

I've known people who spent hundreds of dollars on an SLR camera and then just used it in Green Box mode, where the camera works just like a point and shoot, only bigger and more expensive.

But the pictures it takes in Green mode are much better than a point and shoot. Less noise. Better flash. Takes the pictures faster. Higher resolution. Better lens(es). Raw mode. A DSLR is an outstanding P&S. If a novice came to me and said they knew nothing about photography but wanted some really good pictures, I'd tell him to buy a starter DSLR and run it in full Auto.

 

[Texguy84]

The size diff between a 3IS or superzoom and a small DSLR like the Pentax or Canon Rebel isn't that much. And most of the campacts are too small to hold well and don't have enough features to be a good camera. Just look at flash output for starters.


But the pictures it takes in Green mode are much better than a point and shoot. Less noise. Better flash. Takes the pictures faster. Higher resolution. Better lens(es). Raw mode. A DSLR is an outstanding P&S. If a novice came to me and said they knew nothing about photography but wanted some really good pictures, I'd tell him to buy a starter DSLR and run it in full Auto.

Well, while a DSLR may take excellent pictures, if she REALLY wants high quality, she should drop the sissy-boy small-format SLRs and go for a REAL man's camera, a Medium format DSLR, such as the 22 Megapixel Hassleblad H1D.

She can ALWAYS buy a bigger, better camera. That doesn't mean she wants or needs one. I've seen the picture produced by a $200 point-and-shoot. They're very very good. The camera is not as intimidating as a DSLR would be, and it's more in line with what the OP was asking for, which is a low-cost camera. I define a "Low Cost" camera as being a camera that costs less than the PC you will hook it up to, not just one that costs less than the car you will be driving around in to take it places.

As far as holding the camera goes, it's not that hard, you put it in your hand and make sure your finger isn't over the lens. If she REALLY needs that extra holding ability, she can spend $20 on a flash bracket that will screw onto the bottom of the camera via the tripod mount and give her a full-sized hand grip to hold it by.

 

[footlongish]

I'm not going to fight this anymore. Buy the friggin $200 camera. Take shitty pictures. Ignorance is bliss.

Have you guys ever owned a P&S and a DSLR so you can really compare ? sheesh !

 

[Texguy84]

I'm not going to fight this anymore. Buy the friggin $200 camera. Take shitty pictures. Ignorance is bliss.

Have you guys ever owned a P&S and a DSLR so you can really compare ? sheesh !

Actually, I have shot with a P&S, and with a DSLR (Canon 20D). The results with the P&S were very good, though of course not as good with the camera that cost 5 times as much. The OP stated she needed a low-cost camera, which tends to summarily run $700 DSLRs out of the consideration. It's not my fault you apparantly didn't read the first post in the thread.

 

[footlongish]

I said OWNED ! Have you ?

 

[Texguy84]

I said OWNED ! Have you ?

Heh, take it easy there, Killer. I owned the Nikon point-and-shoot for about a week, took it with me on vacation, generally played around with it constantly, shooting in a variety of conditions. Was very satisfied with the camera, and took some very nice pictures with it, but when it came down to it, it wasn't in the budget for me to keep the camera, so I returned it to the store for a refund. As for the DSLR, I'm planning to buy the Canon 20D after Christmas when the prices come down a bit more.