On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 12:51:24 -0400, Michael wrote:

That's got to be one of the most inane ways possilble of measuring value
for cameras.

Sort of like -

"In conclusion, the Toyota's the more comfortable car, with good
handling and an excellent reputation for reliability. But the Mazda runs
$81 per horsepower, while the Toyota is more than $86 per horsepower.
So, obviously, the Mazda is the better value in a mid-size sedan for the
typical new car buyer."

Nah. More like the bad old days when ads pushed "muscle" cars
with their 7 liter engines, huge carb's with air scoops in the hood,
and they got you from point to point in, oh, about the same amount
of time. And they produced more noise, pollution and (naturally)
cost more. But it's not really an inane way of measuring value for
cameras. Why, you may ask? Because it's not really measuring the
camera's value for consumers. It's measuring the value of the
cameras for the manufacturers. The manufacturing cost of 8 and 10mp
cameras isn't much higher than that of 5mp cameras, but they can
sell for much higher prices. If the sale of 8 and 10mp cameras
results in large profit increases, it makes those cameras much more
valuable to the manufacturers than the 5mp cameras. Whoever wrote
that article for the NY Times wrote it more as a business analyst
than as a technology analyst. I wonder which section of the paper
the article appeared in.