Oooh! Thanks, that does help me understand the numbers more.

Also, that explains why the camera sees more than I do. I was always freaked out and confused by that.

Keep in mind that all of the 50mm standards are based on 35mm film. The image sensor on digital cameras is quite a bit smaller which screws with all of the math. It's part of the reason the really high end digital SLR cameras jump in price so much, they use a full size CCD inside which means the lenses actually perform as expected.

I think I'm drawn to the SD890 because of the 5x zoom.

Keep in mind that if you get a camera that is high megapixel (I'd say 8 MP or above) you can crop and zoom after the fact and actually get excellent results. The optics on the extremely small zoom systems in most of these compact cameras leaves a lot to be desired. I'd go for one with less of a zoom but better quality shots and with a 10 MP resolution and just shoot the extra area in the field and then crop and zoom when I got the footage home.

Here is a more complete explanation of crop factor in lenses and how it can lead to misleading information from camera manufacturers:

[link]

Both the SD880 and the SD890 are 10 MP, but I wasn't thinking I would be shooting at that high resolution anyway because the file size would be so goddamn huge. My A530 is 5 MP, and that seems to do pretty well (they're pretty gigantic at 1 MB already!). I don't really know how to do much photo editing beyond the standard resize and crop. I like to just use what I shoot. I might shoot some hi-res photos and see what you mean about crop-and-zoom, though.

Here is a more complete explanation of crop factor in lenses and how it can lead to misleading information from camera manufacturers:

I don't think I understood any of that. But since I don't know much about photography, I guess it won't affect me.

God, I haven't even opened the box to my new digital camera, and already I'm missing my Pentax K1000.

Both the SD880 and the SD890 are 10 MP, but I wasn't thinking I would be shooting at that high resolution anyway because the file size would be so goddamn huge

The memory cards are so cheap that it really makes sense to shoot at full resolution. Take a shot at full resolution and then just crop and resize. You'd be amazed how tiny an area you can crop down to and still keep very sharp detail. Much closer than you would ever get with an optical zoom system inside any compact camera.

I know I've asked this before, but I'm curious about any change: who here shoots in raw? Why? What's the resolution of your camera?

who here shoots in raw?

I am usually at least wearing socks.

I occasionally shoot in RAW but to be honest don't end up using what it gives me very often. If I'm shooting in really low light or something like that I'll shoot RAW so that I can do some extra tweaking to the image in Aperture after the fact.

We shoot in RAW from time to time, but it really depends on what we're after. Are we shooting desert landscapes to blow up and sell? (Err, that didn't sound like I meant it to sound.) Then we might choose RAW. But not all that often.