Hi everyone, i'm going for a working holiday in London, stopping over in tokyo for 2 days en-route. I've been stressing over this choice between the minolta x50 or the casio z40 for a few weeks now. The general consensus seems that casio's image quality is not so good, but i haven't been able to find much information on the minolta x50. i'm planning to buy it in Japan, but want to know have decided which one to get before I leave. The minolta is a bit more expensive, but it is 5mp cf to 4mp for the casio. I think minolta seems to have the better name for image quality, but i really don't know without many reviews to read on? Should i take a risk and buy the x50 hoping it will be the better camera?, or go for the casio knowing what to expect? Also, if i decide to buy the z40, i can get it on ebay in Australia before i go for similiar price to buying from Japan, but with the advantage of having local warranty. The x50 i have to buy in japan because it is much more expensive to buy here at the moment, i've only seen one shop with it.
Also, i've been told that if i'm not professional photography (i am a total amateur) then i couldn't tell the difference between 4mp and 5mp anyway. is this true? perhaps i don't even need a camera with such high mp. Also does zoom matter much? the x50 only has 2.8 while the z40 has 3. And i'm impressed by the super battery life for the z40 plus it looks really cool and comes in different colours. but then, i shouldn'tbuy acamera just because i like the colour.....
thanks for any suggestions!!
And truly, should i buy in japan anyway, simply because "made in japan" would be better than "made in china"?