On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 22:15:09 -0700, "flambe"
wrote:

For someone with "a background in photography" you got lots to learn.
Plain and simple the Fuji is a more capable camera and should deliver better
images regardless of sensor pixel count.
The Casio line you have is made up of very good pocket size cameras. They
all perform about the same regardless of sensor megapixel count. The
physical size of these things and the constraints that places on optics are
significant limiting factors, among others.
You seem confused about in-camera jpeg processing which has two parts: image
processing and file size compression.
Read and learn.
The instruction manual of your Casio is a good starting point . . .


I've digested the Casio manual and a Sony manual before my first post.
Buy your reply pretty much explains it all. Thanks.
You are right.. don't know much about the digital revolution that has
almost wiped out the mom and pop professional photography businesses.
My background is strictly in film cameras. I photographed weddings,
portraits and events with medium format camera's , and rarely used
35mm. But when using 35mm, a decent compact camera was just as
capable as a SLR if you stayed withing the parameters that the camera
would allow.
In error, I assumed the same thing about the Fugi and the Casio. But
you say I'm wrong in that assumption.... and I believe you.
I had a Casio 2 meg camera that worked fine.... the Casio 8 meg camera
does a much better job.... and I thought maybe the 12 meg would again,
do an even better job.
I'm not factoring in jpeg compression... just the simple physics that
are obvious to me... an old film guy
Also, my quest for quality in a smaller camera was prompted by my
buying my daughter a 7 meg Sony, that has much smoother and better
skin tones than the 8 meg Casio. Since I'm an old 'manual'
photographer, I like the control the Casio offers that the Sony
doesn't offer.
Again, thanks for your response.