Pretty as a digital picture
SEVEN YEARS AGO I compared the merits of two digital cameras, both of which produced pictures - a word I use charitably - at about 3/10 of a megapixel. One model cost $5,000 and the other $8,000. The more expensive camera even offered the novel option of an additional memory card - at an additional $2,000. Buying a camera back then was a real financial risk. These days, digital cameras represent a mature technology, and provided you stick with reputable companies you don't have to worry too much about buying a lemon. Almost all cameras shoot still and video pictures, although the video is silent, choppy and lasts a few seconds only. And special software is no longer required to extract photographs from cameras; they simply connect via a USB port and the memory card mounts up like a floppy disk or CD.
So with all this as standard, styling is what makes one camera stand out from another - something that became immediately apparent with the $2,490 Panasonic Lumix. This is a sleek little machine, light and not much bigger than a chocolate bar. It features a lens made by famed German manufacturer Leica and a two-megapixel charge-coupled device (CCD).
The $2,380 Nikon CoolPix 2500 is bigger than the Panasonic but still petite. One of Nikon's most quirky design characteristics is the swivelling body common to many of its cameras, including the 2500, but in this model the lens and eyepiece are covered by a protective frame to prevent damage.
It's an interesting idea, but it proved almost impossible not to touch the lens when swinging it into the shooting position. And although the frame will fend off bumps and bangs, it is unlikely to keep dust and dirt out of the lens.
Sony sent me the $1,990 Cyber-shot U. My guess is that 'U' stands for 'undersized' because the camera is impressively small (think cigarette lighter). I had two complaints about the Cyber-shot U, the first concerning the sliding lens cover, which does not latch securely, making accidental opening easy while the camera is in your bag or pocket. The second problem manifested itself when hooking up the camera to the computer: an error message appeared announcing the device required more power than the computer could provide. Nevertheless, size and convenience probably make this the ultimate camera for the casual user.
Last up to the plate was the $1,350 Olympus C-120. Olympus has long been my favourite digital-camera brand. In the early days, its machines towered over all others, and the company has figured out how to produce images with a genuine photographic look but few of the odd, digital colours produced by other cameras. So imagine my surprise when the C-120 turned out to be a bit of a disappointment. It is big, plastic and cheap-looking, and is the only camera other than the tiny Cyber-shot U to lack a zoom lens. But it was the least expensive model by $600, so what do you expect?
And what of image quality? Let's deal with the 'megapixel' concept first. This vapid bit of marketing speak is meant to give users an easy means of comparing models. One must be better than two, and two better than three, and so on, right? 'Megapixel' is a measure of a camera's resolution, that is, how big it can make the pictures. It has nothing to do with colour quality, nor does it take into account compression, lens quality or other factors that will affect quality of the image. Two megapixels is plenty for most prints and one is enough for on-screen viewing. In most cases, bigger numbers do mean newer internal components and better overall quality; the Olympus was the exception that proved the rule.
Bottom of the pile for image quality were the Olympus and, predictably, the tiny Cyber-shot U. The Olympus is a two-megapixel camera but the Sony a 1.2 only. The Nikon and Panasonic are two-megapixel machines and produce pictures of comparable quality. But the broad conclusion was that the differences between the best and worst of the bunch were small, and that any of these cameras would serve the casual user well.
