It\'s not a DSLR, but short of interchangeable lenses and a view finder, Craig Ellison thinks the HP Photosmart R967 has all of the features you could want in a digital camera.
Features is one thing, quality is another. I'm very curious why this article doesn't talk about real quality at all.
I don't know about HP 9xx series quality, but knowing that 3xx and 6xx series are very poor (high noise, bad optics quality and other problems) and comparable to lowest grade "cameras" from manufacturers like Trust , I wouldn't expect improvements big enough to change the situation in 9xx series.
I am not a camera expert. But from what little I know, the number of mega-pixels don't matter much.
It has more to do with the quality of EACH pixel. Then there is the quality of the optics which seems to make a huge difference.
I typically stay away from any camera that is from a comptuer company (Dell, HP, etc) and only buy from a real camera company (Canon, Nikon, etc). I am not a pro, but I think the real camera companies understand better what a good final image should look like.
And in fact Canon and Nikon are two top manufacturers, usually making best cameras and of best quality/price ratio. Sometimes there's some models from other manufacturers (would like to note Panasonic), which outperform the competition, but companies like Minolta or HP doesn't seem to be able to manufacture any camera worth noting.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.