GreenDragon - I admit to not being an expert on photography, but isn't one of the main advantages of having a higher megapixel camera being able to crop the photo and then restore the resulting image to a pleasing printable size? Although (theoretically) this can be accomplished with a longer optical zoom, other factors (holding the camera perfectly still, amount of light, range of view) come into account. Or am I wrong on this?

surfmom, your post illustrates GreenDragon's point perfectly!

"Sure, a van or station wagon *could* work, but they are ugly and I can afford it, so why not?"

Americans buy more than they need, for reasons unrelated to utility. <i>QED</i>

What Robespierre said

robjame, you are correct, I forgot about those that crop in -- I don't do it much at all, so I didn't consider them. But even then, you'd be better off zooming in with optical lense, if you have the choice, no? My 3.2 MP camera comes with a pretty decent 10X optical zoom, and I use it frequently. It won't work on moon shots, but it works quite well for things like Big Ben across the Thames

Gosh, and dpreview.com is a British website! Could it be that it's not just Americans who like bigger and bigger things? And in East Anglia, where I live, 4X4s aren't exactly a rare sight. Please let's not stereotype.

GreenDragon, what about this situation? You are taking a shot in low light, and your zoom lens at 10X won't let in enough light to get a decent shot. So you back off on the zoom and crop the photo later to get a similar effect.

Heimdall:
1. I said most consumers, especially Americans -- certainly not excluding the Brits here! However, when I was in the UK last summer, about 20% of the cars I saw on the highway were SUVs. Here in the US it's more like 40%... stereotypes exist because they have a grain of truth.

2. I didn't say that you never need the higher MP -- I'm saying MOST non-commercial users don't NEED it. Want is another matter... commercial is another matter... specialized shots (macros, low light, sports photos, underwater photos) are another matter.

I use the words MOST and MANY for a reason...

Heimdall -- on the low light, why not just increase your exposure time?

I think more than about 6MP is overkill for most people. 3MP is a minimum in my opinion and simply adequate but not desirable. The thing is, you may not know what you will do with a photo in 10-20 years. What if you ever want to crop it or alter it for some other purporse? 3MP really limits your ability to do that, but if you don't care, 3MP will be just fine. Even 8x12-sized prints will look fantastic from 3MP.

The biggest reason the camera manufacturers are pushing more MP is that they want consumers to buy new cameras, of course! But I think you'll see them stop going much higher once consumers realize the 6MP pictures from their new cameras don't look any better at 4x6 than the old 3MP pictures looked. Instead, the next generation cameras will see improvements in battery life, weight, and features (e.g. wireless download to a computer).

As for backup: my basic rule is &quot;two copies minimum of everything.&quot; No, I didn't backup my film pictures by taking two of everything, but then again, doing that would have taken more time and money. It's fairly cheap and easy to backup digital pictures. Plus, film is a physical thing you can hold in your hand, not a bunch of 1's and 0's in an electronic chip that could get zapped by static electricity or simply go bad or be erased by accident. Once you shoot a roll of film and rewind the leader into the canister, you can't &quot;erase&quot; it by accident. Sure film can fail or even be ruined during development, but there's not much under your control you can do about those factors. Digital is different. One of the benefits of digital is the ability to backup cheaply in my view.

Andrew

Higher MP doesn't cost you more to operate like SUVs. In fact, every year, the camera makers are giving you more MP at a given price point. Of course, camera makers want you to upgrade from older lower MP cameras.

Oh and station wagons and vans may not look as pretty as SUVs but your kids will be safer in them.

Robespierre, don't even go there with me.

Clearly, you buy the smallest, littlest, most economical choice. Right?

You never travel because that would be a waste of resources (gas, etc.) only because you enjoy it.

Your house is the smallest, littlest on the block, because why need anything bigger ?

You don't go to restaurants because you can always eat at home for less money and less resources consumed.

You drive a moped because it uses the smallest amount of gas, right?

You dress in nothing but jeans and tee-shirts because the function of clothes is to cover your body. Certainly don't need 100% anything when unnatural fibers will work.

You only have one pair of shoes, because you only have one set of feet.

Can we just not turn this into an SUV debate? I promise to play nicely from here on out if you do

Although I have only one child still at home (and him not for long) I bought another mini-van last June. The thought of trying to haul two dogs, three or four people and the inevitable piles of &quot;stuff&quot; to the lake on summer weekends in a smaller car with fewer doors that don't open themselves . . .

This debate reminds me of a bible study group I was in in New York City, very tony group on Fifth Ave. Our text was the famous one about not being burdened down with that extra pair of sandals, only having one tunic, no money, etc. when going from village to village preaching the Gospel.

One member of our group was a gorgeous blonde, very famous model. The facilitator read the text and there was total silence, as we looked surreptitiously around at the clothes, furs, etc. The model put her cards on the table and said, &quot;Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly have more than one tunic!&quot; We all burst out laughing and were then able to talk about ways we could pare down. Some weren't negotiable---like tunics for the model. For me it's the Nissan Quest.

GreenDragon, quote: &quot;on the low light, why not just increase your exposure time?&quot; Obviously that's the first thing you do, but sometimes a slow shutter speed isn't desirable, especially when using a long lens or a 10X zoom. Example: I was taking a series of photos in a childrens' theater where flash wasn't allowed. I cranked up the ISO on my Nikon D70 to 1600, but even then wan't able to use my 70-300mm lens

...at its highest setting, because at f5.6 shutter speed was too slow. My 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 lens was slightly better, but I had to back off the zoom to get my shots nearer the f3.5 aperture and use a slightly faster shutter speed. Now I have a 50mm f1.4 prime, and I intend to use it and crop the photos in a similar situation.

Example 2: you are on safari where the best sightings are early morning/late afternoon but the light is poor. You see a leopard in a tree, but it is far away, and even your longest telephoto lens isn't big enough to fill the frame. This time the subject is still, and you have a beanbag to steady your camera. You take the shot, and later crop the photo on your computer at home.

Both of these situations have happened to me, and I am greatful to have a 6.1MP camera. I don't think I will ever need anything bigger than that, but for other reasons that new D200 sure looks good!

I think this thread has just about run its course. For those of you who want to turn it into an SUV debate, please start a new thread. As a former Range Rover owner, I may even join in, but I'm not sure which side I will take.

Not trying to turn this into ANY type of debate

SUVs: some people need bigger cars, some people buy them anyhow. I do art shows about once a month, and pack all my stuff (including tent, stock, display, tables, etc.) and go. If I had a smaller vehicle (I've got a Honda CRV) it would never work. I also go camping rather frequently. However, I like the car and would buy another, even if I didn't do the above. Do I need it? No. Do I want it? Yes. Am I financially secure enough to buy what I want? In this case, yes

Camera: Heimdall, I said most non-professional consumers. That would exclude those taking shots on safari to sell later

Yes, we buy more than we need -- that's part of our consumer philosophy, pounded into us by 'keeping up with the joneses' and slick advertising executives. The camera is one reason -- most people never need more than 3-4Mg for their uses, which are mostly printing 4X6 at home with an occasional 8X10, or simply putting them on webpages. Sure, they may occasionally need more, but not usually.

So yes, I'm sure you can discover all sorts of unusual circumstances when one needs a 20000 Mg camera -- but the majority of consumers don't need all the muscle. They just think they do

WOW! y'all have gotten way beyond me. Most of this is over my head but I'm learning a few things. For now I'll just focus on the basics. I went out and bought a new memory card after I read the first few replies - now I think I'll get one more, and another set of batteries while I'm at it!

TRSW, what a photo! What is it a picture of?

And my contribution to the SUV debate: my undying gratitude to anyone who cuts back on their gasoline consumption by their choice of automobile, or a decision to walk or take the bus instead!

kahern - Thanks. I am glad you liked the picture. It was taken on my way back from the Colosseum near the Markets of Trajan and the Forum of Augustus.

Tom

Next month we will be in France for almost 3 weeks. Not wanting to lug my lightweight SLR and 20-30 rolls of film, I have invested in a Panasonic FX01. And to be on the safe side, I have ordered a 2GB ATP SD card for a total of $69.94 from flashmemorystore.com I hope that is large enough
Someone on this long thread asked about transfering to a CD online. I know that it can be done at kodakgallery.com: http://www.kodakgallery.com/ArchivalCDOverview.jsp? and they ship internationally: http://www.kodakgallery.com/HelpPric...#international
So it would seem one could upload their photos to their site and have the archive CD mailed directly to their country.
My only concern at the moment is whether or not it is risky to have the SD card and Lion battery pack go through the xray security....
Mich&egrave;le

Xray doesn't do anything to digital cameras or memory cards, but the jury is still out on the wands/security check.
I personally have several memory cards of 512MB rather than 1 huge one. And our son, on our Paris trip, downloaded his 1GB card to an MP3 player every night just to be sure nothing malfunctioned.
Get rechargeable batteries.

Mich&egrave;le, if you fill up that 2GB SD card, do you realize how long it would take to upload your picture files to a Kodak website? Think several hours minimum. It's not something you're going to do at an Internet cafe in 15 minutes. Also, I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable keeping my only copy of my vacation pictures on Kodak's website and rely on them to mail me a DVD (2GB won't fit on a single CD).

Andrew

I'm definitely not a digital expert - having only used a digital camera once for my trip last month to Paris. I still mostly use film but I learned a lot. And I agree w/ Andrew. That huge memory card will take forever to download/upload or even to take to have a local photolab process.

I would think you are much better off taking 2 or three smaller cards.