What digital camera ?
 

I'd really like to buy a digital camera, but I'm pretty clueless with digital photography :| I have about £160 ish to spend, I was looking at this one http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...329470-8146005 but as I said, I dont really have much of a clue :| any recommendations ?

I recommend buying a camera from an established camera manufacturer, one who knows about optics rather than a camera from an electronics company. (e.g., Nikon rather than Sony)
I REALLY like my Nikon CoolPix 995, but I think it would break your bank (I don't know what they're running for now).

Yeah moses pretty much nailed it. I wanted the Nikon, but I wound up with the Sony. One good thing I can say about the Sony is that a) i like the memory sticks and b) it works great in Linux. Oh. That's two things.

Rarely, but I disagree. I think Sony did/does a great job with their optics. They may be newer to the business, but that doesn't mean they are any less of a competitor. They have Vario Sonar, Carl Zeiss backing them (although I am an extreme amatuer I do believe those are good things :D ). As for whether it's as good as/better or worse than the Nikon I don't know; but I don't think they are exactly one to "rule out" simply based on a lack of Optical History...

Cool

I have had good expierence with fujifilm. I have a A200 finepix. Takes nice pics. Built strong to. I was looking at a picture I had just took and it fell out of my had and on to the cement sidewalk and memory card came out but I put it back in and it worked.:eek:

I eat crow. Sony was a bad electronics company to (ignorantly) use in my comparison. I didn't do my homework, and I was wrong not to.
Anyway, Sony has, indeed, bought the right to use a very well designed optics system for their digital cameras, but I believe my statement, in general, still stands. If you want good pictures, go with a decent optics system first.

i have a medion 4.1 mega pixel, i dont know much about the company and they dont have much info on their web site, but it takes good pictures uses compact flash and i got it at a yard sale for $70. i havent tried it on linux yet but will soon. looks like it willl work i think. if you find one for that price i recomend it but sometimes(because of the website?) i feel like im the only person in the world who has this camera.

my sony mavica took really nice pictures in high light situations, but was always grainy for indoor photography.

i have a olympus that always seems to do the job.

the only thing i would want in a camera now is that it is small enough to carry around in your pocket. a screen is a necessary feature - so you can delete unwanted pics. AA batterys are a desirable feature also. usb drive so you don't have to worry about additional software or compatibility with linux.

I think litium-ion batteries are the way to go. They last much longer than AAs, and if you buy a second one, you don't have to fumble around with a package of batteries when you need a replacement, just pop the dead one out and put the new one in. When you get home, you can recharge them both. No mess, no fuss.

Olympus makes excellent products - I recommend them highly.

glyph - my brother is pretty happy with his Canon. I don't recall the model but it was shirt-pocket small. Heavy, too.

moses - yeah lithium batteries are a must, or at the very least NiMH rechargables. I plunked CDN$170 on a charger and infoLithium battery for my Sony last summer and it's already paid for itself.

glyph - my brother is pretty happy with his Canon. I don't recall the model but it was shirt-pocket small. Heavy, too.

i saw the new canons in the store......that's what i want. i have a elf 370z film camera and it takes nice pictures.

I think Kodak does a good job. I have a 1MP Kodak DC220 and it is real nice. It's about 2-3 years old, but I'd buy another Kodak for sure.

Peace...