Suggestion about 3 cheap cameras

[fastshot]

Hi all I just wanted to ask you your opinion about these 3 very very cheap cameras because I'd want to buy my first digital camera:
Canon PowerShot A490 (43 euros)
Olympus VG-110 (55 euros)
Nikon Coolpix L27 (48 euros)

I know that differences are very small between very cheap cameras so... I ask you to tell me what's the less worse
I think I'll use it also for some night shots of urban landscapes so I think it could be usefull for those occasions to have a slow shutter and a tripod.
Well below are the main differences I care most about the cameras (no video data because I just don't care):

Canon PowerShot A490
-year 2010
-Focal Length (eq.) & Aperture Range 37-122mm; f/3.0-5.8
-CCD Sensor 10.0 megapixels (1/2.3")
-image stabilization NO
-Shutter Speed Range 15" - 1/2000
-Metering modes Multi-Area, Semi-Spot, Spot
-Autofocus (num. of areas) 5 (from www.juzaphoto.com)

Nikon Coolpix L27
-year 2013
-Focal Length (eq.) & Aperture Range 26-130mm; f/3.2-6.9
-CCD Sensor 16.1 megapixels (1/2.3")
-image stabilization
-Shutter Speed Range 4" - 1/2000
-Metering modes Multi-Area
-Autofocus (num. of areas) 9 (from www.juzaphoto.com)

Olympus VG-110:
-year 2011
-Focal Length (eq.) & Aperture Range 27–108mm; f/2.9-6.5
-CCD Sensor 12 megapixels (1/2.3")
-Digital Image Stabilization
-Shutter Speed Range 4" - 1/2000
-Metering modes Multi, Spot AF-area
-Autofocus (num. of areas) ??

There's a big difference between CCD Sensors in Mp(10 VS 12 VS 16) but I don't understand if its important because the sensors size is the same (1/2.3"). Can you explane it please?

I'd be more interested to Canon because of the very slow shutter speed (15") that would allow to take better night shots with a tripod (...right?), it has 3 Metering modes but it's 3 years older than the nikon. Olympus has a buch of "Magic Filters" that I guess increase its price but I really don't care of them! Nikon seems to have a better autofocus and, as Olympus, has an "image stabilization"...well I've lot of doubts about this option because I've red that in these very cheap cameras it's quite useless so I don't know if it can be a plus for these 2 ones; in particular:

Somewhat disappointingly, the A490 / A495 lacks Canon's optical image stabilisation system.[...]Canon's optical system for reducing the effects of camera shake makes a very real difference to the potential for getting good hand held shots in low light, adding an extra three to four stops of compensation.

Sadly, the Olympus VG-110 lacks true mechanical image stabilization, instead opting only for what Olympus calls "Digital Image Stabilization", which increases the ISO sensitivity (and along with it, both the shutter speed and image noise levels) to try and freeze motion.

Can you please show me how to read the datas I've written above and which camera could be better for me?

Thank you very much in advance,
See you

 

[Ubrales]

My choice is the Nikon!

Megapixels don't mean much especially when the sensor size is the same. More pixels on the same size sensor means less resolution.

"Image stabilization" is an electronic way of getting rid of "camera shake" which causes blurry pictures due to uncontrolled movements of the camera by the photographer. Longer exposures accentuate this blurriness. Image stabilization tends to reduce this blurriness.

There are methods to steady the camera. One is a plain old steady hand. Other methods include a tripod, or resting your elbow on a steady surface. I hold my Nikon upside down and rest the camera against my forehead for a steadier shot. A simple way of practicing steadiness is to tape a small ladies compact mirror to the lens and reflect a beam of light against a wall. Now release the shutter and check for steadiness of the reflected spot beam on the wall.

At higher shutter speeds the sensitivity of camera shake is reduced because the exposure time is greatly reduced. This is accomplished by using a high ISO (speed) setting. Higher ISO settings lead to graininess. It's a trade-off.

Get the Nikon, start taking pictures, read up on these topics in detail, and you are well on your way.

Good luck!

 

[fastshot]

Megapixels don't mean much especially when the sensor size is the same. More pixels on the same size sensor means less resolution.

Well I can't understand this matter: why increase megapixels size if the sensor size is the same? I saw many P&S cameras of 5-6 years ago and they mounted 1/2.3" and 1/2.5" sensors but they were 8-10 MP! What are the advantages? I guess today there're more interpolated/calculated/fake megapixels in a 16MP photo by a P&S camera, isn't it?
So I'd want to ask you if there's a kind of perfect balance between sensor size (in my case 1/2.3") and megapixels (in nikon l27 are 16) to get the best result. I mean, in other words, that if we take 10 photos at different resolutions shot by the same camera (let's say the nikon above) and enlarge them to the same size and then print them, I guess there'll be some of them at higher resolutions that will look the same in image quality because of the interpolated MP and some of them at lower resolutions that will look fuzzy because they've not enough MP, so I wonder maybe ther's a better balanced photo in that group... I don't know if I'm clear

PS if this matter is already discussed at this forum can you show me the topic? thanks

 

[Ubrales]

Megapixels don't mean much especially when the sensor size is the same. More pixels on the same size sensor means less resolution.

Well I can't understand this matter: why increase megapixels size if the sensor size is the same? I saw many P&S cameras of 5-6 years ago and they mounted 1/2.3" and 1/2.5" sensors but they were 8-10 MP! What are the advantages? I guess today there're more interpolated/calculated/fake megapixels in a 16MP photo by a P&S camera, isn't it?
So I'd want to ask you if there's a kind of perfect balance between sensor size (in my case 1/2.3") and megapixels (in nikon l27 are 16) to get the best result. I mean, in other words, that if we take 10 photos at different resolutions shot by the same camera (let's say the nikon above) and enlarge them to the same size and then print them, I guess there'll be some of them at higher resolutions that will look the same in image quality because of the interpolated MP and some of them at lower resolutions that will look fuzzy because they've not enough MP, so I wonder maybe ther's a better balanced photo in that group... I don't know if I'm clear

PS if this matter is already discussed at this forum can you show me the topic? thanks

http/www.digital-photo-secrets.com/tip/333/do-more-megapixels-mean-better-photo-quality/

Please read this and other similar technical articles on megapixels and image quality.