Could someone explain to me

[Macguy59]

why in PCWorld's latest issue (buying guide), there are some digicams listed in their top 10 that just have "fair" picture quality? Are we to obsessed by bells,whistles and megapixels? I always thought the true judge of a camera was the quality of the picture it took. But what do I know :roll:

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Firstly, most computer magazines aren't very good at reviewing digital cameras, so I'd take the ratings and rankings with a lot of salt.

Secondly, there are other factors that are just as important than image quality, because the camera that produces the highest quality isn't going to be of any use if it can't take the picture. So things like lens used, the photographic capabilities of the camera, egronomics, user interface, size, weight etc are all important factors in choosing a camera.

[Jason Dunn]

Picture quality is in the eye of the beholder, meaning that for Joe Average consumer, a camera that's easy to use and affordable might be a better choice than a camera that takes amazing photos but is 2x more expensive and 5x harder to use. For me, image quality is critical, but I'd sacrifice a bit of image quality to get a wicked fast shutter lag - which is why I'm looking at the Casio Exilim. The Exilim picture quality is good, but not GREAT, yet I'm willing to overlook that because it takes photos as quickly as my Canon Digital Rebel.

[Macguy59]

I understand going with "good" as opposed to "very good or excellent" if it had other compelling features. I just don't think "fair" belongs in a top 10 list. Like Jason,shutter lag time is important to me.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Why not? At least it's not "poor" or "awful". Fair is probably just that.. suitable for 90% of the people out there, who print mostly 4x6s, with the occasional 8x10.

[flooder]

I would have to agree with Lee.

If you go to a National Park this summer. 80% of the Americans that are shooting film are are using a carboard camera.