I'm in the market for a digital camera. - I already own a 1.3MP camera (from my Palm Zire 72) It's really good and fun but not good enough cause of the lack of optical zoom and flash. - I need something that will produce high quality shots yet still be quite portable. I'll be using just it for urban and travel hobby photography, nothing big. I was looking at Canon IXUS Series. - The IXUS 30 (3.2MP) is now selling for less than US$200 and it's REALLY small! (Plus NO damned AA's! good flash, big screen and SD/MMC slot). - Then the 4.0 MP for $250, the 5.0 MP for $300, the 7.0 for $400 and so on, but they do get bigger and heavier as the MP progress. - Is 3 megapixeles too little? - Is there something better than canon in this category? Olympus? Fuji? Nikon? Thanks in advance for your opinion. Peace.

I own a Nikon Coolpix 995. It is an older camera and is 3.3mp. It takes beautiful pictures and any macro photography (very close up) I do is crystal clear printing an 8 x 10. That being said, I would like to have better resolution for editing photos by zooming in and cutting in an editing program. The size of the picture you want to take and the size you will want to print is where the difference takes place. The better the mp the less grainy the picture will look enlarged or printed very large. I worked reconstructing fatal traffic accidents for several years. We used a procedure called photogrammetry to diagram a scene. The camera I used for that was a 4.0 mp Olympus. It took great pictures. Resolution was very important for that process and this camera did the job just fine. The crime lab people I worked with used Nikon 5.0 mp cameras, and those took great pictures too, but they are big and not as travel friendly. They are about the size of a 35mm SLR. I think if the price is right, and depending on what you would like to do with the camera, 3.2mp would be fine. One thing to keep in mind is that the heavier the camera, the less likely you are to have it with you when you want or need to take a beautiful shot. I have always been partial to Nikon products because of the quality of the glass they use and how crystal clear the pictures are, but that is just a personal preference. Any major manufacturer turns out nice cameras. Hope this helps. Rookie 79

I've used Nikon, Olympus and Pentax digital cameras that took beautiful pictures. I agree with rookie_79--quality of the optics is probably the most important factor in turning out crystal clear photographs. Cameras that allow you to adjust various settings tend to take better pics than point-and-shoot models. The more compact a camera, the more likely you'll have it at hand for great photo opps... but the solid, bulky ones seem to take better pics than the compacts. BTW, if you're willing to spend $500+, Pentax's DSLRs might be worth a look. A64 3500+ on Abit AN8

I agree. Megapixels don't mean jack if it ain't got good glass. I have a Fuji FinePix 3800 which for 400 bucks have done an excellent job for over a year or so. I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid...

I think anything more then a 5MP would be overkill, pick a good quality camera and in my opinion the higher the optical zoom the better. Don't waste money on one's with high digital & low optical. You may also look at what kind of media card you want to use as you will probably be buying a larger card because the camera's never come with a big enough one for the average camera user. So add that to the cost. ASUS A7V8X AMD XP 2700+ 2.17ghz 768mb ddr 2700 nVidia 128mb FX 5200 WD 80gb SE DVD R/RW

Sheep! Forget that lil'canon elph! I fell, in love with the Panasonic/Leica FZ3 and FZ5!!! (with 12x tele!!!!!) BUT...twice the price and twice the size. I don't know what to do, dammit. Peace.