WVSPORTSMAN

SO ARE YOU SAYING A 1.3 IS EQUAL TO 5MP? IF NOT, THAN MP'S DO COUNT. THAT'S MY POINT. 8 MP IS GOOD, THAT WASN'T THE POST TOPIC HERE. HE WAS WANTING DIRECT ADVICE ABOUT CAMERAS IN GENERAL FOR THE MONEY. DO YOU THINK THAT NIKON IS A GREAT BUY AT $200? I REALLY THINK HE COULD DO ALOT BETTER WITH THAT MONEY, THAN THAT CAMERA. YES IT IS TRUE THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 5MP AND 8MP IS NEAR INVISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE ON A SMALL PRINT, I KNOW WHEN I BLOW UP A PHOTO, IT IS NOT DISTORED/BLURRY AT POSTER SIZE. IF YOU CAN SEND ME A 1MP PICTURE OF ANYTHING, BLOWN UP THAT LOOKS ASGOOD AS A 12MP CAMERA'S PHOTO, I WILLBE HAPPY TO CALL YOU MASTER OF KNOWLEDGE. STILL FRIENDS RIGHT?

AF Hunter

Personally I use a Fuji Finepix S5000 for hunting and fishing. Comparable price and love the quality and ability to add filters/lenses. With my 1 gig card, I can take 15 minutes or so of video with it that does not come out choppy. Good luck on your search.

For finer photos, I use the Canon EOS 5D but definately would not take that out hunting.

Loadsmasher

Oh yeah, im not disagreeing with that, there is no way 1MP will stretch out to 5MP, just dont base it soley on that, I guess we can be pals. HaHa yeah no worries man, I just know thats one thing I was confused about when I was in the market. All depends what you want to do with it!

WVSPORTSMAN

LOADMASHER... YOU ARE WISE AND I HAVE A NEW FRIEND!!HAHA.. ALL IS GOOD ON NET.

Buck Magnet

For an extra $50, I would go with the Panaxonic Lumix DMC-FZ5 http://hotbuyselectronics.com/panasonic_dmc_fz5.htm It is a little bigger in size and has less mega-pixels (5), but it has a 12X optical zoom, a Leica lens, and the large lens will make for MUCH better quality pictures in low light conditions. The camera is actually suprisingly easy to carry afield and the pictures that you can get with it are amazing. My best friend had a previous model that was only 4MP and took some stunning photos with it, here are a few of his using this camera...

TerryM

Don't get too hung up on megapixels. They only start to matter much if you enlarge past 8x10". As in film photography a quality lense is far more important and the quality of your image is based on the quality of the processer inside the camera ( the brain ). There are prfessional photographers using 6 pixel cameras that are worth over a thousand dollars for the body only. Most people will rarely print past 5x7 and almost never crop or edit the pictures. Most point & shoots are all about equal in processor quality and glass for a given price point. The price climbs with features like lcd screen size. Right now 8 pixels and 3x zoom is the biggest part of the point & shoot range.

Loadsmasher

I try

MGH_PA

I do like nikon. However, the MP argument, although off topic, does pertain to Bob's question. MP's do matter...to an extent. The problem is, especially on most consumer P&S cameras, manufacturers use the MP number as a marketing tool. What I mean is, they will often take the same sensor from pervious models (that were lower MP) and just up the MP. What you get with increased MP is increased noise (especially on a sensor designed for say a 5-6mp camera). More pixels means less photons captured per pixel, which generates "noise" or grain in your photograph. Sure it allows you to blow images up and make large crops, but generally most "PRO's" realize the MP is more or less the least deciding factor when choosing a camera, and advise for you to compose the picture in the viewfinder when you take the picture, rather than cropping later on. They know that really a GOOD camera starts with good GLASS. The lens is the heart and soul of IQ (image quality). Nikon generally has a bit "sharper" IQ with their glass, whereas Canon generally has a much smoother even tone to it's images. Canon lenses also tend to be a bit faster (especially the pro L lenses, but that's for DSLR's so we won't go into that).

Now what does this have to do with Bob's post? The MP craze is just that...a craze. What's nice is that it makes "older" cameras in the production line drop in price. For instance, I shoot an Canon A610 which can be had for the price close to this Nikon that bob's asking about. Even though my A610 is only 5mp, it's on a sensor sized for the camera, has a rotating LCD, Digic II, FULL manual controls (plus several program modes, aperture priority, shutter priority, etc, solid zoom, and takes AMAZING pictures). Plus the A620 (7mp version) and other deviations are available all close to this cameras price point. I would look at a few reviews of "older" cameras, perhaps 1 year old in the Nikon and Canon line. You may end up saving some decent money and even gaining a camera that can produce even better IQ. Just my $.02.

Diesel77

GR8, looks like a good camera and a good price. I own several of the smaller cameras like the Sony Cybershot 8 MP, but have found the DLSRs with detatchable lenses offer much more in taking pictures like with F stops etc. Here is an example, 1st pic is with a Cybershot, second pic is with a Nikon D40x. Much more detail anddepth even though the Nikon was taken at 30 yards and the Cyber show was at about 10 yards. The DLSRs can do a much better job especially for taking pictures at 10 yards + like of deer in fields, or whatever your target is.

SouthDakotaHunter

My current camera is a 4MP, it's a couple of years old but still works well. I probably wouldn't go any lower than 4 or 5 megapixels.

You also want a camera that has a optical zoom (not just digital). I also like cameras that use standard AA batteries (in case my recharables run out). My wife had a nikon dig cam that use some type of special recharable battery. Was a pain if the juice ever ran out. I am a fan of Nikon products in general. That being said, my 4MP Sony took WAY better pictures than my wifes 5MP Nikon... I would get a camera that has good reviews. The camera in the link you provided doesn't seem to have a lot if info on it - not necessarily bad...

I also put my camera case in a ziplock baggie when heading out to the field...