I really like CNet's reviews/advice.

The word is Chutzpah...

I'm no great digital camera expert, although I used to do serious art photography with large format (5x7) cameras - black and white only. I'd love to go back to it using digital, but printing quality B&W in large sizes needs an expensive printer and more megapixels than I can afford right now.

In the meantime, I use an old Fuji FinePix S3000 (3.2 MP) for taking general photos - mainly documentation photos of the industrial control systems that I design &build. The Fuji cost me about $150 at Target - a discontinued display model - no case (OK) and no manual (no sweat - it's on the web).

It uses 4 AA alkaline batteries, which are cheap and available anywhere. This model has a 6X optical zoom lens (which means that you don't lose pixels when you zoom, which you do in a software zoom). The viewfinder is apparently an LCD, but it looks as though you were looking through an SLR viewfinder (of course it has the usual "large" LCD on the back - you can switch between them). Very nice and bright. They use a memory card which is nearly Fuji-exclusive, but they are available at decent prices from places like Tiger Direct and so forth.

Point is, the Fuji Finepix series (the big, bulky models, not the micro-mini style) seem to be pretty good cameras for the money, and they are somewhat over 3.2 MP these days.

I would say, that for most ordinary photography where you don't intend to make huge prints or blow up tiny areas of the picture, that 4 to 6 MP is plenty. Go for as much optical zoom capability as possible, and put in a memory card large enough to store at least 100 photos at max resolution and you should be set.

Oh yes, and take dave Friedman's advice about DPReview.com.

Good luck

PS - you might want to avoid Kodak...

I am an active photographer and my suggestion is for you to head down to Best Buy and look for a 5 mPixel camera. 5 MP is plenty for up to an 8X10 print. Now as for brand, get a Canon, Nikon or Olympus. All stand behind their products. Try out what they have and pick one that suits you from their stock. 3X or better optical zoom is good.

And as for why Best Buy? Because they have a service policy of replacing defective cameras with new ones. You walk in with a bad one and walk out 30 minutes later with a new one and if they don't have that model they upgrade you for free.

BK

Thanks for the post. I actually need to buy a camera as well thanks to a gift card and my aging Canon Powershot s100 (only has about 2 megapixels. I loved that camera, and it was very rugged and dependable. I really preferred a Kodak because it was so much cheaper than competitors, but thanks to your post, I'm going to go ahead and stick with Canon (not exactly a Lexus of Cameras either, but at least it's reliable).

I bought a Kodak camera for my daughter some years ago at Walmart. It didn't work out of the box. Walmart wouldn't take it back because of Kodak policy--I had to return it to Kodak. I didn't really want a relationship--just a camera--so I threw it away and made a vow never to buy another gadget from Kodak.

I've bought probably 2 dozen camera since.

For carrying around, use a Sony Cybershot DSC-V3. I shoot in lowlight ambulance calls and love the laser focus and the night shot. For more complicated stuff, I have a couple Nikon d70s.

I own an Olympus SP-500UZ, which is a 6 MP ultra-zoom camera (10X optical) with lots of bells and whistles. It can be had for around $320 on the street and PC World really likes it. I think it's a great camera, though it's not exactly pocketable. I would say that Megapixels are not all that important. I mean, they are in some sense, but the problem is that most manufacturers squeeze outrageous number of megapixels onto a tiny sensor, which causes too much noise.

If you don't care about having lots of manual controls, I think that the best camera in terms of image quality and size is the Fuji F10 (now replaced by the F11). It's a small camera, with enough megapixels for most people (5 MP, I believe) and it uses a new sensor technology which allows you to take almost noise-free shots without a flash (e.g. at ISO 400, 800, etc.). It can be had on the street for around $270.

Another nice one is a Canon A610, which can be had for around $250 on the street. It has some manual controls and is considered a very good camera. It's somewhat bulky though.

I would say that more money for megapixels isn't really worth it. A 5 MP camera should be fine for most practical purposes. And if you need 7 MP or something high like that, I'd suggest not getting a compact camera since squeezing that many MP's onto a tiny sensor will give rise to some noise issues on larger prints (defeating the purpose of more MP's).

I really like http://www.dcresource.com for camera reviews and DPReviews is quite good too. Good luck!

I am sticking with my Canon s200 digital elph. I take mad amounts of pictures with it and won't be replacing it any time soon with a camera with more megapixels - I just don't see the point. More is not always better. In fact, it takes better shots than 3 and 4MP camera's I have seen. And the prints look like film shots 99 percent of the time, which is more than I can say about Nikon or Kodak cameras. ebay has it for less than 100 bucks.

Just about everyone here is giving excellent advice; the only thing I have to add is that being able to shoot close-ups can be handy, so a 'macro' feature is desirable.

The advantage of cameras that take AA batteries is not so much that one can throw in alkalines in a pinch, but rather the ability to use cheap, nonproprietary NiMH rechargeables.

I too have not been impressed with Kodak's products; my wife has a tiny Pentax Optio (what good is a camera you don't take with you?) and I just upgraded from my old Nikon Coolpix to a D50 ($535 net with 28-80 zoom from Dell, with an Epson photo printer that will be free after rebates -- thanks to FatWallet's Hot Deals forum).

Overall, I'd rely much more on the online digital camera review sites noted above than on Consumer Reports. The problem is that CR test results for electronics products usually come out only after half the models tested have been discontinued. And as the products they test increase in complexity, they have a harder and harder time keeping up, in many cases not testing important features and in others putting great stock by features that may verge on irrelevance.

I understand the frustration, but from Kodak's point of view, this is a camera that was released over three years ago (at least a couple of lifetimes in digital cameras) and is out of warranty. I doubt that Canon would be willing to do much to repair a problem that I might have with my not-quite-equally old 10D.

As for a replacement, you need to decide what is important to you, as there are a number of tradeoffs that have to be made regarding size, cost, features (e.g., do you want a lot of manual control? Do you need long focal length?). There is a lot to be said for a camera small enough that you can always carry it with you, but you sacrifice in terms of image quality and features. There is no single "best" camera.

On the megapixel question, most current cameras give you more pixels than you need if all you are going to do is print out 4x6 prints. For large prints or the ability to crop extensively and still have a useable picture, the number of megapixels is important.

Re: Kingsley Browne's comment, perhaps this is a problem of resisting a paradigm shift, but I've had a nearly identical experience and I wasn't too happy about it, either. The film SLR camera that I got for Christmas when I was 18 still works almost two decades later. Why should switching to digital consign us to tolerating throwaway gadets -- particularly when those gadgets aren't exactly inexpensive?

My first digital camera was also an LS443, purchased at Costco for about $300 in December, 2002. I had exactly the same problem: the lens mechanism jammed and the annoying "E45" error kept appearing. I, too, investigated Kodak's repair alternatives, found them wanting, and bought a Canon Powershot A5 for around $400. (That camera is now resting at the bottom of Monterey Bay, but that's another story.)

My resolve never to buy another Kodak camera weakened when Fry's offered a Kodak Easyshare LS753 (5 MP) camera for $99. I needed a decent walking-around camera that I wouldn't mind breaking or losing. I've been pleased so far: It's been working since June, and I can also use the LS443 battery as a spare. Here are some LS753 pictures from my trip to Florence.

Several friends have asked me which digital camera I'd recommend, probably because they know I'm a technnophile who enjoys researching before buying damn near anything; why not take advantage of my obsessive tendencies and "expertise," which tends to run very, very, veryveryvery shallow but extremely broad.

I should also add that I'm a shutterbug from w-a-a-a-a-y back, and made the leap into the digital world about three years ago. I bought my camera, the Canon A80, based in large measure on the recommendation of a professional photographer, Ken Rockwell. I've relied on his extremely thorough and totally opinionated reviews for purchasing decisions on lenses, flashes, camera bodies and digital cameras, and I've got to say the man has never steered me wrong.

He's posted a Holiday Buying Guide that tells you all you need to know about his take on the best digital cameras for all types of photographers, with links to additional info if you need to know even more.

Check out the rest of his web site, especially the How-to section; there's tons of good stuff to be found.

As far as my camera goes, I'm very happy with the A80. Although it's now a couple of years old, it has some design features that make it preferable to some of its newer siblings in the Canon line.

The swiveling screen is a big plus; it enables you to shoot over the heads of a crowd, while letting you to see what's in the picture. It lets you get down for low-to-the-ground shots without forcing you onto your belly. You can use it for unobtrusive candid shots, where the camera doesn't appear to be pointed at anyone.

But the most important aspect of the swiveling screen is the ability to protect it by folding it into the camera body. These LCDs are pretty fragile, and it's nice to be able to drop the camera into your pocket without worrying about scratching the screen.

Another thing I like about the A80 is that it uses AA batteries, not some funky proprietary design by the manufacturer. This means that wherever I am, I can always get batteries if the old ones die. I use rechargeables, which last a lot longer than standard alkelines, and they recharge in less than 30 minutes, too. But it's nice to know that I have the option of ducking into some little bodega if I need to and be able to keep on shooting.

What don't I like? The red-eye reduction feature is irritating, so I turned it off. I also ditched the auto-focus assist beam, cause I think it's distracting when I'm going for candids. I tend to almost never use the flash, preferring natural lighting, and I can handhold some pretty slow shutter speeds if I take my time. The camera can be slow when trying for action shots, but you can deal with this by selecting the fast "motor-drive" option, which cranks off about 10 fps.

I also disabled the digital zoom; anything beyond the 3X optical zoom is just a crap-tastic feature designed to one-up the competition. Trust me, "10X Digital Zoom" is sucker bait for Helen Keller Photography Institute grads. If 3X won't work, get closer. Or, you can buy the telephoto lens Canon makes to fit over the bayonet mount on the front of the camera body. I haven't used it, but I hear it's okay.

I'm tempted by the Casio EX-Z750; it's so small and has more features and capabilities than the Canon, but I've been completely satisfied with the results I've been getting with the A80, so much so that all my expensive Nikon 35mm gear sits unused, gathering dust.

Here's a review of the A80 that's fairly exhaustive.

Kingsley, the Canon wouldn't have broken. Remember, this was appparently a widespread problem. Why take the risk of buying the Chrysler of cameras when there are so many alternatives?

I think, if Kodak had a manufacturing defect, they should remedy it even if after 3 years, which is far, far, far less than two lifecycles of camera use (though probably two lifecycles of production).

I'm always wary of Consumer Reports when it comes to electronics or computers. Apart from the issue of lagging behind fast product release cycles, they are too easily impressed by feature-itis, resorting to checklist comparisons rather than paying serious attention to what the item is *for*-- actual video, image or sound quality or real world ease of use (of the features that are actually used).

I think they have improved, but I don't blindly take their word for it.
Their service and reliability data can be useful.

My LS443 broke down a couple years ago, about a month out of warranty. Kodak grudgingly agreed to repair it, noting with ill grace that this was a one-time concession on their part. It took them six weeks to get it back to me (during which I went on a trip to the Far East that, gee, wouldn't it have been great to have a camera).

When the camera came back, it worked fine. For about a month.

I have a Canon now.

Let me get this straight, your camera is out of warranty, not being made anymore, and rather than repair an obviously defective model (only to have it fail again on you soon, judging from what others have said), offered to sell you a refurbished camera(which is what your repaired camera would be, at best) that is at least as good if not better than the broken one instead, at a discount, for an amount that would be likely less than the repair cost (only quibble I have is that statement), and you think this is a bad thing? Call me confused, but that sounds like a good offer to me.

Concidentally, there was an article in today's Sydney Morning Herald about companies who refuse to fix products that are faulty, regardless of how long its been since they were bought:

"The [Australian Competition and Consumer] commission said the law enshrined basic warranty conditions for the return and refund of money for faulty goods, and this was not limited by time."