What's the difference between the Coolpix S600 and the S52c?

I'm trying to make sure that I have chosen the best camera for my needs. I have chosent the S52c. I am a casual user and I will use my camera to take vacation pictures, pictures of items I want to sell, etc. I usually post my photos on the web, but I have also blown up my pictures to put on my wall (sizes 8 x 10 and 11 x 20).

Other than the wifi feature and one less megapixel, what are the major differences between these two cameras? Thanks.

I think the biggest difference is the wifi feature, but also the S600 as a 4x optical zoom. The S52c also has an upgraded image processor.

But other features make it essentially the same camera. And as for one less megapixel, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Especially at higher ISOs above 400. Let me explain. I came across an interesting article today about how more mega pixels is not necessarily a good thing. According to Image Engineering – a company that does testing of digital cameras for photo magazines in Germany – the quality of digital pictures has steadily decreased since the state of the art was six megapixels back in 2004. And because they don’t have a “dog in this hunt,” they put forth a compelling argument for buying new digital cameras with less mega pixels and not more.

The argument is essentially this: CCD chips on point and shoot cameras a smaller and as such, fitting in more pixels causes them to lose light sensivity. Sure, there’s more data on the chip, but the chip can’t absorb the light data and what it ends up with is a picture that has more noise than image quality. In addition, the more megapixels a camera has, the larger the lens it needs to provide the clarity it deserves and prevent diffraction due to a loss of detail with smaller apertures. But since we’re talking portable point and shoots here, those large lenses simply aren’t being made.

Finally, with larger mega pixels comes longer saving time due to their requires huge storage capacity, or more compression if not storing images in RAW format. The result is a noisier image and a dissatisfied camera user who thirsts for high quality and speed but fell into the trap of "more must mean better."

In the end, relying on a smaller MP that can balance all these needs may indeed be a better answer.