Kinda hard to tell what kind of camera that is from the pic being so tiny, but I have a Nikon 5700.
I shoot on large size, highest quality jpg, then post process it to downsize the image if I want to post the image on the web.
On my dslr, I shoot RAW + jpg, but its alot more cumbersome to transport on the bike.
Sorry for the large pic. It was a touch of sarcasm to communicate how big it might feel while attempting to use it when riding. I am thinking that it may just be cumbersome to have to store it in the bags and that a smaller unit might work better.
You might give the Nikon 5400 5MP (5/28/03) a try, ~$150
or its replacement the 8MP 8400 (9/16/04), ~$550
or the 12MP 5100 (8/30/07), ~$282.
Depends on what you typically take pictures of when you carry your camera on your bike. The cameras I listed, the lens lies more in the wide angle spectrum than the 5700.... better for bike shots without having to back so far away from the subject... worse at being able to zoom in on landscape shots etc...
They are more of a rangefinder size camera in the 35mm world, compared to the semi-SLR size of the 5700.
But personally I find the 5700 small and light....
but then I normally travel the airports with a 50lb backpack as my carry on,
and if I ride my bike somewhere I need to lock it up, I ride with a 12lbs of log chain across my shoulders...
Lil, I have a camera or two that are fancy in size and features. But increasingly have gained appreciation for the slender ones that can fit in a pocket. The advancement in photo quality is striking, and these small cams can have a really good movie mode. One of the Sony Cybershots (regardless of pixel count) are fine cams.
I've got a Sony DSC-H1 and it takes great pictures and fairly good video. But I've taken it on many vacations and on the bike with me and recently I have been looking into buying something smaller. It gets to be somewhat of a hassle having to carry around the camera, I would much rather have something that fits in my pocket.
i forgot to mention mine are a 7 and a 5 megapixel..
honestly EZE.. i have an older one that i call the junky camera .. that i use when i think i might drop it or i know it might get banged around that is older and i think its a 3.. and serious.. if you dont want your pics enlarged too large it takes a just fine picture..
of all th epics i post.. some are with it .. some with the 5 and some with the 7 and unless you enlarge all of them to 8 X10 you really cant see a difference.. or at least i cant
TOM is right, for web posting (~800x600), any of the above mentioned cameras are pure overkill. A 1 MP camera would suit that purpose just fine and still allow room for cropping the image.
Here is a table comparing MP to image size and print size...
Megapixels - Image Pixel Size - Print Size (300ppi)
0.5 - 800 x 600 - 2" x 2.6"
1.0 - 1280 x 960 - 3.2" x 4.3"
2.0 - 1600 x 1200 - 4" x 5.3"
3.0 - 2048 x 1536 - 5.1" x 6.8"
4.0 - 2272 x 1704 - 5.7" x 7.6"
5.0 - 2592 x 1994 - 6.5" x 8.6"
6.0 - 2816 x 2112 - 7" x 9.4"
7.0 - 3072 x 2304 - 7.7" x 10.2"
8.0 - 3264 x 2448 - 8.2" x 10.9"
10 - 3872 x 2592 - 8.6" x 12.9"
12 - 4288 x 2848 - 9.5" x 14.3"
I agree with you two. A good small camera that takes a beating just coming along for the ride. Thats even before you bang it around.
I think the lens should be more of a consideration at this point when buying a camera than the MP's. It will be for me next time around.