I've had this question posed to me several times, and while you could poke around this blog for awhile and figure it out, I thought I'd consolidate some of the info in one post.
The answer is, several cameras.
My present active camaraderie of cameras includes a Canon SD780IS, a Canon S5IS, and a Nikon D300. I'd have several more, if I had the budget!
The SD780 is a teeny, pocket-size camera that I carry nearly all the time, even when I have one of my bigger units along. It's an excellent basic point-and-shoot, and its limitations come mainly in its narrow-range zoom (about 35-105mm in 35mm equivalent) and its poor performance in low light. Aside from that, it's an amazing unit for its size.
The S5IS is a "superzoom" point-and-shoot. It does not fit in a pocket, but it's a heck of a lot smaller and lighter than a DSLR (digital single-lens reflex). Compared to a DSLR its main limitations are poor low-light capabilities, lack of RAW file capture, and much slower "reaction time" when it comes to powering up and shutter lag. I carry it when I don't want to lug my heavy DSLR around, and also use it in situations (like canoeing) in which I don't want to risk my DSLR!
The D300 is a big, heavy, amazingly customizable machine. It takes high-quality shots all over the spectrum from bright days to nearly lightless nights. But, I don't necessarily want to lug it around all the time - though I probably should! :-). A DSLR's big advantage is that you can change lenses, and you have a lot more manual control of f-stops and shutter speeds. I have an 18-200mm zoom mounted on it most of the time (about 27-300mm equivalent on a 35mm camera), and have a couple of other lenses (longer telephoto and close-range macro) that I can swap out as I please.
Do megapixels matter? My humble opinion is that once you reach 8MP or so, you're pretty much covered up to 8 X 10 prints. The SD780 is capable of 12MP, but I have it set to 8MP because its tiny sensor simply doesn't provide 12 *quality* megapixels. The S5 tops out at 8MP and that's where I leave it. The D300 is a 12.1MP machine, and I shoot everything on it at that setting, capturing RAW files.
So why is the SD780 a couple of hundred bucks and the D300 is over $1,500 when they both top out at around 12MP? The Nikon's sensor is a lot larger, with a greater range of tonal values captured per pixel for much better performance, particularly in low light. The D300 is also a tank, well-sealed against inclement weather, and with a wealth of customizable shooting features.
So if three cameras are not enough, what's on my wish list? A newer superzoom. The lens ranges have gotten wider, at both the wide-angle and telephoto ends in newer cameras, and low-light performance and responsiveness (shutter lag) have also improved. I'd also like an "all-weather" pocket camera that can take dunking in water to 20 or 30 feet. . .
And, of course, a high-end DSLR like the Nikon D3X - mind-blowing 24MP image quality and low-light capability, but you're looking at C$7,500 for just the body! :-)
P.S. Oh yeah, at the resolutions of the photos output as 70% quality JPEG files on this blog (usually in the 350 X 250 pixel range), it would be nearly impossible to tell which of those three cameras a particular photo was taken with! So the bottom line is, it's (mostly) not the equipment, it's the photographer. A good eye can produce amazing photos with the most basic of gear.
Posted by Paul at August 8, 2010 09:43 PM