Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Chris Jacob
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/30/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
07/15/09
06/12/09
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
Spend more time buying high-quality glass, worrying about image stabilization in lenses, and noise-handling.
12/11/08
Dean, Dean, Dean my boy - it's not ALL about pixels. It's also about the build quality, speed (on several fronts), price, color representation, CA handling, ergonomics, available glass, and a whole host of other things.
Think about it like a buffet - yeah, there might be a place down the street that will let you eat your fill of swill for five bucks - but that's just for college students.
There's a place on the other side of the street that has the rarest and most expensive meats, but the plates are portioned like they were meant to feed a Barbie doll - that's for old rich folks with more money than sense, and a desire to always have "the best." Which, of course, is always defined as their own product by the people selling it.
"Best" is very subjective though. Me, I like a good mix of quantity and quality - best value for the price. Yeah, it is possible to have quantity *and* quality, but you're going to pay through the nose for it.
It's like the old adage at the mechanics - "Cheap, fast, or good - choose two." It's more like cheap, big MP count, low noise, good lenses, good color, good lenses available, good ergonomics (yes, this makes a difference), good internal processing, good iso abilities, aaaand a few more things - chose six or seven, and then we'll randomly take away two and give you whatever that is. And all this, even if you have the cash to buy the camera that has everything, doesn't make a lick of difference if you don't have the eyes to see the shot or the ability/luck to know where it's going to happen.
I haven't shot with a Canon 5D, but from what I hear it's a mighty nice camera, if it happens to do what you want. But, more megapixels alone does not a better camera make. Think about the new 8MP cameraphone - think that's going to take better quality pictures than say an old 6MP Nikon D70?
12/11/08
But yeah, 15MP is more than enough. I suggest 50D :P
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
But then it's always nice to have larger sizes so you can process your photos like reducing noise, cropping, etc before you bring it down to size so its less noticeable.
12/02/08
That's a deal-breaker in my book.
Too bad Nikon doesn't offer Bluetooth connectivity in their newer cameras. Now THAT would be killer.
12/02/08
12/02/08
So I guess users are relegated to using the on camera flash or using the IR trigger on an off camera flash. Frankly this wasn't very well thought out.
12/02/08