"Mr. T" wrote in message
news:eTrLg.13106$rd7.1434@edtnps89...

Another newbie question:
What would you consider more important in a point and shoot camera? High
mp, high iso or a high quality lens?

It seems that everyone advertises their high mp cameras but say little
about the lens...


Well, I'm not so sure that my particular circumstances would make for a good
model for anyone else, so take this advice with a grain of salt:

1: I have shot with only two digital cameras: a 1999 Ricoh RDC-5000 and its
replacement, the RDC-5300, which was introduced in 2000. Both of those
cameras are 2.3 MP! They have excellent 9-element all-glass lenses and they
are quite convenient. I do not have a color printer. I have Kodak Gallery
(formerly OFOTO) handle all of my digital prints, and they have produced
very pleasing results up to 8 x 10.

2: I have accumulated a very large film setup over the past 30+ years--all
Pentax M42. I have 9 Pentax SLRs and 18 SMC Takumar prime lenses, and I am
not about to abandon my film setup for digital. I scan my negatives and I
figure that my film bodies and lenses yield the equivalent of 20+MP digital.

3: I use my Ricohs for trivial work, home inventory documentary photos,
snapshots, web use, etc. They are all the digital cameras I need and I have
no plans to "upgrade."

4: My more intuitive, more serious work is done by my film SLRs. I enjoy
working with those legacy lenses. Since I am an amateur, with no need to
meet photo deadlines for an editor, I don't mind the 48-hour turnaround for
film processing. I am a relatively low-volume shooter--a roll per week.
The cost of film and processing is minimal. I usually buy my film at my
warehouse club for a dollar a roll, and processing and proofing through
Qualex costs me $5.00 per roll. So my annual film costs are under $600
annually. It would cost me a fortune to replicate anything near my current
setup in digital, and I am turned off by plastic lenses and autofocus. I
really like those Pentax manual-focus lenses, with their smooth bokeh and
excellent descriptive characteristics.

That having been said, I think that the megapixel race is all but over. My
present 2.3MP cameras make excellent 4 x 6 prints, and I do not believe that
there would be any improvement in resolution by switching to a higher
megapixel camera. I rarely enlarge digital images beyond 4 x 6.

My film gear gives me results that equal or exceed the best digital cameras
out there. Admittedly, I do not get the advantages of immediate access to
my images, and I can't shoot hundreds of shots on a single memory card, but
as I've pointed out, I am not that kind of photographer. In my particular
case, the disadvantages of film ore not relevant to my shooting style.

My film scanner has, essentially, turned ALL of my cameras into digital
cameras.

If I were just getting into it now, I'd probably buy a Nikon DSLR. And, in
a year, it would be pretty-much "yesterday's technology." I am an
economical person, with a bent for efficiency, and that would bother me.
But I was fortunate in that I acquired my equipment at very low prices, and
amortized my collection over three decades. I could not do that today. For
one thing, the cameras and lenses that I use are not being produced anymore,
unless one wants to buy the Leica R system. Contax RTS recently went out of
production, as have virtually all Nikon film cameras and lenses. By
contrast, digital gear is plentiful, even if it is "plasticky."

Clearly, if you want to capture better images with digital cameras you
cannot rely upon a 2MP or 4MP camera. The only reason that I can get away
with it is because I have the film option as my safety net. If ever you
want to try out film, you can get an excellent camera/lens combination for
around $100.00 and you can pick up a good film scanner with Digital ICE3 for
under $400. IF you can live with having to buy and process film, you're
looking at a system that will yield top-notch images for about $500.00. And
lenses are dirt cheap these days, because everyone is "upgrading" to
digital.

I do have what I see as a major advantage: if in the future we get better
scanning equipment (a virtual certainty) I can re-scan my film and get even
more information in my images. Digital does not do that--whatever your
digital camera produces today cannot be improved upon in the future.

Bottom line: there is no right choice. You need to determine what your
objectives are, decide on a budget, and then put together a system that
works for YOU. Well-meaning people will be all to quick to criticize your
choices, because they cannot conceive of the idea that what might be right
for THEM is not also right for anyone else. My advice is to ignore them.
The one person in the Universe that knows what is best for you is YOU.

And, if you intend to print at no higher than 4 x 6, your present camera may
be just fine for that purpose. Instead of spending money on a continuous
upgrade path, get some books on photography and go out and shoot pictures.
Your present camera may not offer all the bells and whistles of more
expensive models, but it does have a range of competence where it can
produce excellent results. You should exploit that range. If you
subsequently feel the need to broaden your horizons you can upgrade at that
time. The world will not stop turning if you do not use a 16MP DSLR.