Best Rugged Camera?

[jf2oo6]

Hey guys this is my first post here. I am looking for a really nice waterproof and shockproof camera for a gift. I want this camera to take really nice pictures, and also shoot hd video. I dont know if any will do 1080p, so 720p will be ok too. As far as price my max is $500. Basically I just want something that will take some abuse, takes amazing and relatively quick pictures.

I dont know if this will matter at all, but I also want to pair a good printer with this. These are probably pretty universal though right? If not please let me know.

Thanks guys.

[shoturtle]

olympus tough 8010, then the panny ts2 and canon d10 and sony tx5, these are the top rugged camera on the market.

[Mark1616]

The Sony has the best IQ with the Panasonic running 2nd. The Panasonic can work deeper if you should need it to.

[jf2oo6]

Can you explain what you mean by the sony has the best IQ? And I see the sony only has 10mp compared to the panasonics 14. Wouldnt this mean the panasonic has better image quality?

[pcake]

actually more megapixels usually means lower image quality, not higher.

[shoturtle]

if you pack in to many pixel, it actually degrade the image. 10-12mp is about the best for image quality.

[jf2oo6]

So the sony takes better pictures than the panasonic? So why are there cameras with 14 and 15mp? Is that just a selling point?

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by jf2oo6

So why are there cameras with 14 and 15mp? Is that just a selling point?

In the digicam world - yes. Manufacturers are a victim of their own marketing. In the beginning, megapixels were important - when cameras had 1, 2, then 4mp - that metric was an important deciding factor. Once we got past 6, the number of pixels became less important and has often led to decreased image quality as noted by others. Unfortunately, MP count was drilled into people's brains - so that's one of the first things novice photographers look at. Take yourself for example - you thought more must be better. You're not alone. Because of this, manufacturers must continually cram more and more MP into their cameras or fail that ever-important perception by consumers that more is better.

Now, having said all of the above, you cannot assume 'less is better' either. Other features in a camera have to be considered. And, necessity being the mother of invention, manufacturers often develop in-camera processing for handling noise - usually as a second generation after a jump in MP size. The bottom line is - you can't focus on one attribute - MP count - and determine from that one attribute whether one camera is better than another.

[jf2oo6]

Thanks John that really helps to clear things up. So I guess 12mp would probably be a good area to stay in. Does that mean the panasonic wont take great pictures?

I know there is a lot of different things that people look for in cameras, but I think my criteria is pretty simple. Just has to be rugged design, and the best pictures possible.

[Mark1616]

The Panasonic does fine, I have one in fact, but the Sony does just a little better. I didn't go Sony as I wanted the extra depth ability, not as I'm going that deep but just as an extra precaution, and I like Panasonic being as one of my other point and shoots was Panasonic.

The honest answer is if you want the best image quality then don't get a rugged camera, they are not as good as the normal counterparts, but if you want to get photos where you wouldn't take any other camera (mine goes with me everywhere and I have no need to worry about sand, dirt, dropping, water etc etc) so I get photos that simply couldn't be taken as I would have no camera.