Camera Oasis

My mistake

2009-03-05T13:24:00.000-08:00

Even those of us in the PR world get swanked.

Remember this geeky looking Fujifilm instant-film camera I shared a few weeks back?

I'm told it's from 1998.

Still homely, however.

Casualties in the megapixel wars

2009-02-28T15:07:00.000-08:00

Seriously: how long did you think camera companies could churn out higher- and higher-megapixel cameras before consumers became fatigued with it all?

They're figuring out that a new 12- or 14-megapixel camera isn't a necessity when jobs, hours and salaries are getting cut.

That 6- or 8-MP camera most of us bought a year or two ago will do fine, at least until the recession moderates.

As a result:

Ritz Camera filed for Ch. 11 bankruptcy protection this week. Hundreds of stores, stocked with Fuji, Nikon, and Olympus cameras that no one's buying. Most Ritz stores were mall-based, within easy clobbering range of the Target or Best Buy across the parking lot. If you bought a camera from Ritz, I hope you didn't pay extra for a Ritz warranty.
Ritz's court filings say they owe Nikon USA more than $20 million. That kind of liability isn't going to make things easy at Nikon. Take good care of that D90 or D300; customer service may get whacked.
Olympus downsized a portion of its U.S. sales and technical staff this week. The last Olympus digital camera I adored was the C-5060. Today's crop of pocket Olympus models have a few interesting bells and whistles. But no one raves about the quality of their photos, and it's all about getting great photos.
Kodak's 3,500-4,500 layoffs by mid-year have a lot to do with the recession, but fewer shoppers in fewer retail locations don't create an optimal situation for the inventors of the digital camera.

Bottom line: I'd expect the digital camera business to re-set in 2009. Slower shipment of the new models announced at CES and PMA, in order to preserve pricing. That may mean more deals on current inventory, but I wouldn't be the first person in line to buy a new Canon D10.

Photo Marketing Tip: bigger call-outs

2009-02-13T06:55:00.000-08:00

Blundered into a Wal-mart this week, and found a clerk and a customer in the photo department, sorting through cameras. The customer wanted a camera that would stitch together multiple photos to make panoramas. (Many Canon and Kodak cameras do this, or come with stitching software that makes it a breeze to do it on your computer.)

The customer and the clerk were baffled. This feature wasn't in the little camera cheat book that Wal-mart gives its photo departments. Because I've actually used this feature on a Kodak Z1285 camera, I picked up a box. After a good 5 minutes of squinting, I found the "call-out" on the box -- in a type-size that an ant would have trouble reading.

I helped sell Mr. Customer a camera that met his needs, and that's a good thing. But here's a word of advice to all camera manufacturers: USE BIGGER PRINT on your packaging! The people buying your products do not walk into Wal-mart with magnifying glasses or photographer's loupes. Want to sell a feature? Make it easier to find the features they're looking for.

End of rant.

Review beat: Objectivity, where art thou?

2009-02-10T06:46:00.000-08:00

When you're researching a digital camera, there are many sources of independent, serious reviews: Stevesdigicams.com, dcresource.com, dpreview.com. If you can wade through the tech-geek speak, you'll come away more knowledgeable about your particular camera.

Want real-world customer opinions? Try Amazon.com. Semi-professional video reviews can be found on YouTube, although it's sometimes painful to put up with the shaky video quality.

But I draw the line when sites such as Buy.com and TigerDirect.com tout their videos as "product reviews." There's no objectivity involved when the video clip features a sales rep from the camera manufacturer talking about the "great features" of his or her employers' camera. In the real world, this is simply an infomercial, and not a good source of objectivity.

Full disclosure: I work for Kodak. I like some Kodak cameras, and don't care for others. When I offer an opinion, I try to keep do so with a minimum of hyperbole.

Loose screws

2009-01-31T04:40:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite little digital cameras is the Kodak V603. It's nothing extraordinary -- 6 megapixels, 30 fps video, and a pretty standard 36-108 Schneider zoom lens. But it was the right size at the right price, and captured great photos.

My one mistake: giving it to my daughter, who dumped the camera into her bag along with her iPod, cell phone, and Lord-knows-what-else. All that jostling around resulted in a problem: loose screws. Cruise around the web, and you find the V603 earned a reputation for losing the screws that hold the metal alloy covers on the camera.

Last time I saw that camera, it was held together by yellow duct tape at the corners. Not pretty.

Most digital cameras have tiny screws that might work their way out. So, get a set of precision screwdrivers (usually $1 at the Dollar Store). Tighten up any loose screws. Then, place a tiny dab of clear nail polish on any screws that felt a little looser than others. (Be sure to keep the nail polish away from buttons and the lens mechanism; if you're worried, mask the buttons and other sections with easy-to-remove tape before handling the nail polish.)

And you can skip the yellow duct tape.

Separated at birth

2009-01-26T19:12:00.000-08:00

Camera companies spend loads o' cash designing cameras. They do studies. They make clay models, churn out non-working prototypes, and show 'em to would-be owners to see what'll work.

Everyone wants to have that breakthrough design.

So, I'm moseying around the camera universe one afternoon, and I spot:

And I've got to ask: was there a saloon in some European city where the camera designers get looped and take home the wrong USB drive?

Size matters -- not megapixels

2009-01-26T07:29:00.000-08:00

In my film camera days, a roll of 35mm film gave you a negative of 36 x 24mm. That area was the "recording surface" for the images I shot.

Digital cameras today are promoted for having 8, 10, or 12 megapixels. That's not the size of the recording surface; it's geek-speak for the number of tiny recording cells on the sensor.

You can squeeze millions of these cells on a sensor. But if the sensor itself is only 7.2 x 5.3 mm -- typically the size found in a pocket digital camera -- you have less overall area in which to capture an image. Add megapixels, and you're just squeezing more tiny cells on a small sensor, which leads to image degradation in the form of "noise."

So, when you're looking at different cameras, megapixels are irrelevant. It's the size of the sensor that really determines image quality. There's a semi-technical explanation of this at this web site, and a simpler (and somewhat exuberant) discussion on Ken Rockwell's website.

Most times, you don't find sensor sizes printed on the camera package. You find megapixels. But here's what I've found:

A 1/1.8 sensor generally captures more-detailed, less-noisy photos than cameras equipped with a 1/2.5 sensor.
Cameras with 1/1.8 sensors include the Canon A630, the Kodak C875, and Panasonic FX-150. They cost a little more than cameras with smaller sensors.
Cameras with (smaller) 1/2.5 sensors include the Canon A590IS, Olympus FE-350, Casio EX-V8 (a personal favorite), and most ultra-compact pocket models from Canon, Kodak, and Nikon.

Deal alert: Canon's factory-refurbushed A630 (a camera I own and enjoy) can be purchased from their web site for $149. That's much less than I paid for it new.

The last instant camera

2009-01-21T03:17:00.000-08:00

Fujifilm has come out with a new instant film camera. In light of Polaroid's discontinuing instant film to concentrate on self-destructing consumer electronics, Fujifilm's Instax camera may end up as the only game in town. Read a review here.

I'm wondering what designer thought up that outboard viewfinder on the same side of the camera as the control buttons. Or the idea of prints popping out the top of the camera.

Then again, a viewfinder on a camera is almost a rarity, these days. So even a weird, cyclops-like one is better than nothing, right?

But I'd really prefer to see Fujifilm pick up the slack, and sell instant film that fits the millions of current and recent Polaroid instant cameras that will become doorstops when Polaroid's film inventory is exhausted.

Bursting with creativity

2009-01-19T09:24:00.000-08:00

One of the least-discussed functions in point-and-shoot digital cameras is the "burst" mode. It lets you shoot a sequence of shots, usually 3 to 6 images, without removing your finger from the shutter button.

Why is this useful? Get yourself a DVD of the Beatles' film, "A Hard Day's Night." You'll see a scene where a photographer shoots a rapid sequence of portraits of George Harrison. Most of the faces he makes are goofy. A few are keepers. If you have kids, you're better off shooting a quick series of photos of them, and review them later to choose the best shots.

Unlike motor-driven film cameras, digital cameras use a burst mode to capture a sequence of images. Some cameras keep shooting images for as long as you hold the shutter button, but only save the last few frames. Or the first few frames. My old Kodak DX7630 offered the option of one or the other.

Today, all but the least-expensive digital cameras offer a burst mode.

If this sort of technique interests you, here are a couple of pointers:

Check the specs to see how many images a camera will capture per second in still mode. (Video can grab about 30 frames per second, but not usually at the same high image quality as still shots). A Canon SD700is, for example, can grab about 2 frames per second. Its replacement, the Sd850is, only nabs 1.4 shots per second -- possibly because it's capturing larger (8MP) image files.
Do a little research to see how quickly the camera saves image files to a memory card. Low-cost cameras sometimes have a very slow "write speed," leaving you waiting 10-, 20-, or even 30 seconds while your photos transfer from the camera's buffer to the card.
Find a camera with good low-light performance. Burst modes almost always mean you'll be shooting without flash. A built-in flash just cannot recharge quickly enough to fire as quickly as your shutter. Fujifilm's f31fd, f40fd, and f50fd earned praise from online reviewers for their low-light performance.
Edit on a computer screen, not on the camera. Review your burst-mode shots on a large monitor. Even the best camera LCDs won't show as much detail as a 17-inch monitor. Remember, you can always discard the unwanted shots after you've found the keepers.

Review beat: Maybe "DP" stands for "don't post"

2009-01-12T12:48:00.000-08:00

One of the digital camera review web sites has all but given up individual reviews of point-and-shoot digital cameras. They've decided to focus on DSLRs and their accessory lenses. The exception are "roundup" articles, in which they'll do a quickie analysis of 4-5 compact cameras.

Is this well thought-out? P/S cameras may not snag those magazine-cover quality images, but the abundance of intriguing photos over at flickr.com suggests that not everyone wants -- or needs -- a DSLR. A new DSLR costs more than $500; you can buy two, or maybe three high compacts from Canon, Kodak, or Panasonic for that amount of money.

I like my DSLR, but carrying it everywhere is a pain. I just don't do it. Most days, you'll find a pocket-size digital camera in my jacket. Most times, it gets the shot I want.

Memo to DP-XXXXXX.com: go upmarket, and you might lose the readership that got you where you are today -- a subsidiary of Amazon.com.

Time on my side, courtesy of Kodak

2009-01-09T13:47:00.000-08:00

This is one of my favorite photographs. It shows an 1871 lighthouse in Sodus Point, NY.

I captured the photo with a $150 Kodak point-and-shoot digital camera, the Kodak C875, an 8-megapixel camera. Eight MP is considered the "entry level" resolution in most of today's cameras, but in 2006, this was the top camera in Kodak's 'entry level' line up.

The secret to this photo is a function in the camera called "long time exposure." The C875 permits you to make exposures up to 8 seconds long. That's plenty of time to capture all the colors in the sky -- including a few that weren't obvious to the naked eye, that night.

The camera took in plenty of light. A tripod, of course, is essential. That's all I did.

And, in case you're curious, the resulting image required no post-production editing. I sent the file off to AdoramaPix, and they sent me back amazing 11 x 14-inch prints.

Have Your Cake and Shoot It?

2009-01-06T14:24:00.000-08:00

I don't know. I love this execution. But something about a camera that adds calories...?

Isn't that the 180-degree turn away from what digital's supposed to do?

You decide. Have a look at this URL. From Wired.com's Gadget Lab blog.

Next: point-and-shoot brownies???

Sell your camera or review it -- not both!

2009-01-05T09:30:00.000-08:00

Read this Craigslist ad, and you'll discover how to review a camera. But you won't do much to sell it.

Eventually, you figure out that the seller/reviewer has a Nikon D90 digital SLR. A lovely camera. He or she might have the 18-105 VR kit lens to sell, too. Or another lens purchased afterward. It's hard to tell.

But there's no asking price. And I wouldn't begin to guess what's included with the camera.

I would guess that he's suffering a pretty severe case of buyer's remorse. We've all been there, pal.

I don't miss pricey newspaper classified ads. But they had one saving grace: brevity. If you want to sell something, be accurate, and be brief. If you want to be David Pogue -- who writes funny, detailed reviews for the New York Times -- that's fine. But Craigslist isn't the right venue.

Sunday Tip: January is camera buying month

2009-01-04T06:03:00.000-08:00

Forget Black Friday; this is a very good time to buy a new or used digital camera. After the holidays, people look to unload their older cameras that have been replaced by newer models.

Also, with the Consumer Electronics Show starting in a few days, announcements of new models from major manufacturers will make what's on store shelves now seem obsolete, and thus ready for close-out.

If you're buying new: 6-, 7- or 8-megapixel cameras will meet 90% of most picture-taking needs. Really. If you need a 21-MP camera, check your driver's license: you may be the lost grandson of Ansel Adams, suffering from amnesia.

In the stores, consider display models, and ask if they'll either extend the warranty or take a few dollars off for buying a floor model. The worst they can say is, "I'll ask the manager."

The Kodak Z1012 IS camera shown here is a 10-MP camera that's been out a little over a year. Kodak recently brought out a newer, larger camera with a different lens -- making the Z1012 a potential bargain at retail or online.

Buying used via Craigslist or fee-Bay? first- or second-generation digital SLRs are a great deal on the used market. Nikon D40s and D50s and Olympus E-series cameras are, for the mostpart, very durable and receive less abuse than pro-level DSLRs, because they were targeted toward casual photo-enthusiasts.

I have mixed enthusiasm about used point-and-shoot cameras. I bought a used Kodak C330 from a fellow online, and gave it to my father-in-law as something to keep in his glove compartment. He uses that camera more than the larger, 12x zoom digital camera he purchased just two months earlier, and he's happy with the smaller camera.

On Craigslist, however, you'll see too many used digital cameras. Many come with a warning that the camera's battery hatch won't stay closed. This means the camera was dropped, and I'm reluctant too buy any electronic device that's held together with duct tape.

Resolution: Re-thinking High ISO photos

2008-12-31T22:47:00.000-08:00

The websites that compile painstaking reviews of digital cameras do a really great job. DPReview.com and DCResource.com are two of the best, in my opinion.

But they get wrapped around the axle on the topic of high-ISO photos and the noise-reduction most digital cameras apply to these low-light photos. They use words like "smearing" and "watercolor."

Here, I say: get over it.

High-ISO photos aren't meant to be Louvre-worthy portraits. They're just not. But the semi-embarassing photos below -- taken at a local high school's "air band" concert a few nights ago -- aren't hideous. They're fine as snapshots, and you could probably print reasonable 5x 7-inch prints from them with little objectionable results.

I shot these photos using a Kodak Z1012 IS camera in High ISO mode. These are absurdly high -- ISO 1600 and 3200 -- and obtainable only with the camera's lens at full 12x zoom.

These photos will not win any prizes. None at all. Nor do I expect them to.

But they will elicit an emotional response, most likely laughter, from people who see them. And any emotional response created by a photograph is better than not having a photo to start with.

Afterlife for a Konica rangefinder, sort of

2008-12-30T07:08:00.000-08:00

This may be useful for those of us with far too many classic film cameras, and no real market for them.

Today, there's very little demand for the 1970s-era 35mm rangefinder cameras I love. I have a handful of really good ones: Olympus XAs, Vivitar 35ES, Canonet GIII QL17, and a few Minolta Hi-Matics. Plus a few that need a little work, but I simply couldn't devote time to resuscitating. These have "DOA" tags on them. And on their own, they're useless.

But in trolling for a Konica Auto S3 on fee-Bay** the other night, I found 27 separate auctions for parts for the camera. Only one actual S3 camera, but more than two-dozen parts for sale.

So if you have the patience and precision screwdrivers to disassemble and tag the working pieces of a camera -- and the skill to photograph them using your digital camera's macro mode -- parting out a non-working 35mm camera might be a way to get some value from that old buddy on your shelf.

And, in case you're wondering: my Auto S3 works fine, and no -- it is definitely not for sale.

***

** I rarely sell items on fee-Bay anymore. When they decided to become son-of-Amazon.com, and abandoned the individual casual seller by messing with their fee schedule, I went to Craigslist.

Would Adorama lie to you?

2008-12-29T18:03:00.000-08:00

Addendum: One more "one" camera that earns a raspberry for one of my favorite photo merchants.

Adorama, where I've bought my share of digital and film camera bits, sent me an email hyping a deal on, among other items, the Polaroid One 600 Classic Ultra Instant Camera.

Huh?

"Classic" is only partly right. In a few weeks, it'll be a relic. Polaroid's discontinuing its line of instant film for these beasts. What would I do with this camera in, say, 8 months? Make a hood ornament for my wife's SUV?

C'mon, Adorama. I trust you guys, usually.

But selling this photographic equivalent of the AMC Pacer isn't playing straight. Unless you're going to be carrying Polaroid 600 instant film well into 2010, you should have a disclaimer somewhere that tells would-be buyers that the One 600-Classic is destined to be as useful as my Kodak Six-Sixteen Junior camera is today.

Admission o' Guilt Dept.: I've always had pricey habits; my first film camera was a Polaroid Colorpack II, and you had to apply lacquer to your B/W prints as soon as they developed. When my Dad gave me his original SX-70 instant camera in the early '80s, I thought I'd died and gone to heaven. I was a big Polaroo for a long time, then the digital revolution steamrolled the company. The guys who own it now have all but lost their shirts in the investment bank disaster, and they're threatening to dismantle what's left of Polaroid today. Sad, sad conclusion.

Never Buy a One

2008-12-29T17:27:00.000-08:00

Today's observation: never buy a digital camera with the "1" or "One" in the name.

My first Panasonic digital camera was the fabled Lumix FZ-1. It was a 12x optical zoom, and the aperture stayed at a constant f2.8 at all focal lengths. It took incredible photos. But it was only 2 megapixels and fairly slow to operate, even in 2003. The next iteration of FZ models fixed a lot of these issues, but I had already invested in the FZ-1.

Now Panasonic's come out with this new DMC G1, roughly the same size as my old FZ-1, but with interchangeable lenses like a digital SLR. And a bigger DSLR-like sensor. And an $800 price tag. Right, $800 for a baby DSLR. I can buy a Nikon D60 with lens for much less than $800. What are you thinking, Panasonic?

Other "ones" worthy of this list: the Kodak EasyShare One (a wireless digital camera that's about as slow as my old FZ-1). Sigma DP-1 (also slow, and $999 buys you a camera with performance characteristics worthy of a 2005 model). Samsung's upcoming HZ-1, which has lots of promises -- from a company best known for TVs and toasters.

In my experience, digital cameras with the number "1" in their name should set off a neon light in your brain: it means that version 2 is already in the works. If you need to be an early adopter, go right ahead -- but most of the books talking about the G1 now allude to the next version having, among other things, digital video capability that the G1 doesn't.

Panasonic fooled me once with the FZ-1. And as much as I think they make pretty good cameras, I'm not forking over 800 clams to be the guinea pig with the G1. When they're up to a G4 or so, give me a call.

Instant Obsolescence

2008-11-19T13:39:00.000-08:00

If you cruise Craigslist, you can get great deals on recent digital and film cameras. People are practically giving away terrific film cameras, probably because they're too lazy to get film processed. Someone in my town was selling a Yashica T4 with a great Tessar lens for $50. A year ago, you couldn't touch one of these cameras for under $100.

But if someone's offering you a Polaroid "One-Step" camera that uses instant film, run.

Polaroid -- which invented instant photography in the last century, and got a billion-dollar damages payment from Kodak in a patent case -- announced earlier this year that they'll stop making instant film for their cameras. That would leave Fujifilm, which makes the stuff overseas, and doesn't import much of it to the U.S., as the sole source.

So, unless you need another dust-magnet that resembles a camera, keep hunting for that Yashica T4.

(Full disclosure: I work for Kodak, but not in camera or film sales. My first camera was a Polaroid folding camera, and I never recovered from exposure to the "fixing" lacquer that you used to coat you black-and-white photos.)

Abandoned Sites

2008-11-04T12:04:00.000-08:00

Want to know what's going on in photography, 15 months ago?

Hop over to SLR Today, which somehow seems to have halted publication in August, 2007.

Meanwhile, over at MJU-MJU, someone started out saying nice things about the Olympus Stylus Epic -- a really great film camera that's sadly no longer in production. Then, in 2006, the world changed. And that's all he (or she) wrote.

Someone should catalog some of these timeless sites, devoted to photographic marvels that once showcased the technology at its pinnacle. Given all the '70s - era rangefinder cameras I own, you'd think I'd take on the job.

But, no. I just have to delete them from my bookmarks list.

Is that a Vivitar in your pocket? Probably not.

2008-10-13T10:52:00.000-07:00

Vivitar used to make some exceptional lenses, and the 285 strobe flash that was every news photographer's workhorse. My favorite 35mm compact rangefinder camera was, and still is, the Vivitar 35ES camera -- built by Cosina, which made and makes low-end cameras for many big brands of the day.

(Trivia: Vivitar's original name was "Ponder and Best.")

More recently, they slapped their brand on inexpensive digital cameras. One was a decent 6-MP underwater camera that sold for around $100 USD. But most insiders knew that Vivitar -- like Polaroid -- was a brand for hire. You could, for a price, slap it on a digital picture frame, a TV screen, or a toaster. But it didn't have that legendary Vivitar lens quality us film dinosaurs so enjoyed in the 1980s.

Fast-forward to today: Vivitar's name has been sold yet again, to Sakar. (Read it here.) Sakar markets a wide array of plastic photographic accessories that you won't find advertised in Popular Photography.

So, get set for Vivitar lens cleaner fluids and LCD protectors.

When image stabilization matters

2008-10-10T12:08:00.001-07:00

If you're shopping for a camera, here's some advice on image stabilization:

In general, it's nice to have. Mainly on cameras with a long optical zoom. Because a longer lens tends to magnify mistakes, including camera shake.
Contrary opinion: if you're looking at cameras with short zoom lenses (say, 3X optical zoom), you don't really need image stabilization. That short-range zoom won't magnify your mistakes as much as a longer lens.
If you religiously shoot without a flash, then image stabilization can be your friend. (Think: football, basketball, wildlife photos.)
If you religiously use a tripod, you must turn off image stabilization. The resulting images will be flawed. (Think: natural light portraits, still life scenes.)

I tend to use sensor- or lens-based image stabilization, in which the camera's mechanical parts perform the steadying work. Cameras that boast of "digital image stabilization" automatically increase the ISO (or light sensitivity) of the image, so your camera can select a faster shutter speed. This isn't bad in some situations, but higher shutter speeds almost always result in digital noise -- multicolored speckles in your image -- that reduce the accuracy of the shot.

Historically, Panasonic Lumix cameras delivered the best optical image stabilization -- but the company used that technology to compensate for tiny image sensors that resulted in noisy photographs. Now, the playing field is slightly more level; almost all superzoom cameras have image stabilization.

Consumer Reports and digital cameras

2008-10-06T19:56:00.000-07:00

Consumer Reports had nice things to say about the Kodak Z1012 IS digital camera. You can read a little bit about it here.

This 12x optical zoom camera is handy for those occasions when you're far away from your subject and there's plenty of daylight. Like when you're up in the bleachers at a football game, or trying to photograph a wild animal from a distance. Superzoom cameras like the Z1012 IS and Panasonic's FZ series are reasonable substitutes for a digital SLR, which can cost a few hundred dollars more.

One really good feature on this camera: it's got a very good digital HD video function. I've used a Kodak superzoom to record a concert in a college recital hall, and got very satisfying results. (The lights were on throughout the performance; I don't know how well it would work in a dark auditorium.)

All this said: Consumer Reports is like the Kmart of product reviews. They review toasters, dishwashers, Hyundais, and DVD players. If you find this particular camera intriguing, I'd suggest hunting up a few reviews on other websites, like Steve's Digicams or DPReview; they spend most of their time reviewing digital cameras and lenses, not toasters. So I tend to take their recommendations a bit more seriously.

Sunday Tip: Taming the Ghostly Orbs

2008-10-05T19:36:00.000-07:00

In the days of film cameras, you hardly ever saw these little translucent circles in your photos. But for some reason, digital cameras seem to capture them with alarming frequency.

In the photo at right, the mystery orb is in the lower left corner. It's called "dust." My guess: most compact digital cameras have a flash very close to the lens, which may serve to amplify the appearance of these imperfections in the photo.

Of course, they're more evident when you're making pictures against a dark background. Had the photographer moved in a little closer, you'd see less of the dark wall mural of Jim Croce -- and probably not see the ghostly orb.

So, there are two tips here:

Clean your lens once in a while. Use a microfiber cloth or a lens pen. Try not to use facial or bathroom tissue. Breath lightly on the lens, then wipe gently in a circular motion.
Get closer to your subject to decrease the likelihood of distractions in your photos. Zoom with your feet, not the camera's lens.

Midnight Compression

2008-09-30T18:41:00.000-07:00

One good indicator of whether you'll get sharp photos from a camera is if the camera lets you adjust the image quality setting. This is generally found as a menu option called JPEG Compression.

Inexpensive digital cameras generally don't allow you to adjust JPEG compression. Other cameras let you choose different compression levels, such as "Standard" or "Fine." Choosing the "fine" setting results in slightly larger image files, as the camera's processor isn't squeezing your image file into a smaller "standard" setting.

If you visit Flickr and use their Camera Tracker, you can track down a specific camera and view the output quality. (Check out full-size versions, not the default snapshot size). Then see if the image quality meets your expectations -- and visit the manufacturer's website to see if the camera's specs list several JPEG compression levels.

Don't confuse this with image size. Most cameras permit you to select a smaller megapixel size; say, a 7-MP setting instead of the camera's maximum 10- or 12-MP setting. Choosing a slightly smaller megapixel setting will save a little space on your memory card, and if you never print photos larger than 8 x 10 inches, you can easily reduce the file size to a 6-, 7- , or 8-MP setting.

(The photo above was taken with an 8-MP camera, but I've cut the file size down to what you might get with a 1.5-MP camera, if you could find one. Click the image for a larger view. The image looks OK on a computer screen, but the original file -- 1.32 megabytes -- was used to 8 x 10-inches in prints.)

But since I never know whether I'm going to want an enlargement, I'll use the camera's largest file size (usually painted on the camera itself someplace). I can always reduce the file size in a photo editing program later on.

For what it's worth: 8-MP is usually all anyone ever needs.