I could have saved you some typing:

http://www.dpreview.com/

One should always consult this site BEFORE buying a camera. It's all there.

Heck, every one of you digital camera owners should sit down and read the Learn/Glossary section of the site.

But then what would I have done with my lunch break?

Looks like a good site and plenty to learn there. Thanks for the link.

ColeyG,

Thanks for an excellent summery on digital cameras.

While it is not waterproof and should be carried in a small Pelican case or a small dry bag when fishing, I and several of my fellow professional travel photographers have found the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2 to be an excellent pocket camera.

It has one drawback, common to many P&S models, no rangefinder which can make composing in bright sunlight a bit difficult, but manageable.

When buying a camera, it is important to determine what you want it for? If pix for posting on PP or prints for friends is your primary need, a camera with 3 MP would be fine.

If there is a desire to see some work in a printed publication, more megapixels are desired.

It is important to understand that all megapixels are not equal. The sensors in a P&S are smaller than a dSLR (digital single lens reflex). The image quality from a P&S will not be as high as one from a dSLR, but it can come pretty close , even in magazine reproduction from my experience.

Dave needs a camera that will produce images that an editor will be happy with and it sounds like the Olympus does not cut it in that category.

For a pocket size I'll highly praise the Lumix.

If I were to go for a bit larger P&S that would fit into my shirt pocket, I'd look at the Canon G-9 with its 12megapixel sensor and viewfinder but that could be overkill for the fisherperson that isn't looking to publish their images.

Thanks for sharing, that is what makes PP such a great site.

Whoops, I meant to say wouldn't fit into a shirt pocket for the G-9. Unless it is one of those like in some of my fly fishing shirts with bag pockets.

If it takes sharp high quality pics, that would be my primary consideration. A guy wouldn't necessarily have to use all 12 of those megapixels... just set it for a lower resolution to make the file-size more manageable.

FNP makes a good point.

The most important question is why do you need a specific camera and megapixel number?

It is a good question to ponder, if you have a camera that does the job for you?

If it doesn't it may be time to upgrade.

Shooting at a lower resolution can do the job in many cases. It also allows many more images to be recorded on a single media card.

Shooting in jpg format is much simpler than using the RAW settings that some cameras offer.

RAW gives you more control, but demands significant time on the computer in Photoshop (tm) that is not necessary when shooting well exposed jpg. files.

It all boils down to the personal need of each individual.

Of course that does not boil down to choices of fishing tackle in most cases, which is more a question of I have to have that, than I really need it:).

Ummm.....Doc you mean my MEGAHAWG didn't you???

lol

CM

Memory cards are cheap. 2GB xD cards are what - $40 now? Computers can easily handle any of the photos produced by *any* digital camera.

I will ALWAYS tell everyone one of you, if asked, to keep your camera set to the MAXIMUM resolution possible.

You can always SHRINK an digital image - be it to put it on PP, email it, etc.

You can NOT enlarge a digital photo and retain the same quality. Specifically, for printing.

The more MP's the photo is, the better it is going to look when printed - especially at the larger print sizes.

IE, when you DO catch that Fish of Lifetime, you will kick yourself if you accidently take a photo in anything less than the highest quality your camera offers.

Heck, it doesn't have to be a fish. I've seen a ton of photos on this board that would ROCK as a poster in the 20x30 size. Not going to happen if you purposely reduce the image size at the camera level.

Speaking of the G9

By far the best camera for point and shoot I have ever owned was my Canon G6. Set it to auto and get clear crisp photos every time. I sure wish my 2 year old would not have thrown it down a flight of sixteen stairs. DOH

I bought a Canon digital Elf 1000 to carry every where as it is small. It pretty much sucks. The pictures just are not crisp and clear like the G6.

The down side to the G6 is that it was a tad big as a carry every where camera.

I'm thinking of possibly buying a Canon Rebel to carry in the boat.

WOW! Nice cam

click here for full review of Canon G-9

Sounds like the biggest drawback is speed. Has that been a frustration for you Sebastes?

I guess the other big risk is drownability... but at this point, it seems like the image quality so many of us are after can't be found in the existing line-up of waterproof digicams.

I'm seriously considering that G-9.

I had the G1 and several other Canon cameras. The biggest flaws of the Canon's (at the time) was severe chromatic aberration (purpling of bright sky) and they were slow to focus.

I found the Canon's didn't do to well in high light situations - which seems to be a lot while out on the river.

Heck, I still think I have the G1 floating around someplace. You can have it, Doc!

Well crap.... I first saw the new Olympus Stylus 10mp point-n-shoot on their website about a month ago and thought I'd pull the trigger on that one as a replacement for my faithful Pentax Optio W33 brick. Sigh.... Thanks for the info/resources guys. I may have to do more research before I talk with a guy who's sole intent is to just sell a camera.