Canon rolls three 10MP PowerShot IS cameras

You're still shooting through a small plastic (or cheap glass lens). After a certain point (I think it is 7 MP). The reason why Hasselblad's have 22 MP is because they have the lens to support it. I am willing to bet that no one would be able to tell the difference between a 10 MP point and shoot vs. an 6 MP (other than overly large images).

dynsight doesn't seem to have much experience with Canon's line of digital cameras. I've been using them for years, constantly waiting and checking on the competition and they never quite measure up. Canon has hit a sweet spot of features, functionality and quality with the PowerShot line.

Also, of note, lens size has very little to do with image quality. As an example, a microscope uses an incredibly small lens to capture very detailed images. The lens simply focuses light on the image capture device. A large lens is not necessarily capable of capturing and focusing more light. The real determining factor in image quality is the size of the sensor in the camera.

I disagree. I am quite familiar with the Canon, I own a 40D. the quality of the images vary drastically with the quality of the lens. You simply cannot improve the quality of a point and shoot with an improvement in sensor. If the lens distorts the image (or does not allow in enough light) it is not going to be effective.

That is the reason why the SLR's are more expensive. They are much better.

Throwing more MP on low end camera does not make that much of an improvement.

Any photographer will tell you that...it is not megapixels, it is the quality of the glass in front of the sensor.

These days most of the current spate of digital cameras produce impressive results. Competition is tight and the quality keeps improving. For your average consumer, these P&Ss will do pretty much all they'll ever need a camera to do.

Lens quality is important, but more critical when you're looking for commercial standard image fidelity. Then you step up to a DSLR.

If you take a DSLR and a P&S, give both to your average photographer, chances are, they'll prefer the P&S.

I happen to have a few digital cameras ranging from a Nikon DSLR to a Fuji F-40. I take most of my casual shots with the F-40, reserving the big gun for my commercial work. It's a tool for the job kind of thing. 99% of the people who buy these cameras will--likely--be pleased with their purchase.

I'd no more compare a DSLR with a camera like this than I would a domestic sedan to a formula one race car. They both have places where they perform the best-lens not withstanding. I do agree, more pixels do not a better image make, but the optical systems on some of these little cameras are much better than they are generally given credit for. Yes, there is barreling and a slight chromatic/sharpness drop-off at the edges of the image, but at these price points and for what the consumer finally ends up with, there really is little to complain about.

It is pointless to compare a low cost, compact point & shoot camera, such as these new Canon models, with a high end SLR. They simply have different uses.

The casual user will be very happy with almost any P&S camera on the market. They are almost all excellent for basic photography purposes. They are simple, reliable, and easy to use. They are compact and convenient. With good knowledge of the camera and its limitations, even a professional will be able to capture excellent photos with a P&S.

In contrast, as a (formerly) professional photographer, I have always loved my SLRs. With the right complement of lens, lighting, and tripods, a good SLR with a good photographer will be able to capture amazing photographs in almost any situation.

For me? My primary camera is an SLR. And I also have a P&S that I carry in my pocket all of the time.

That 1 bit cartoon is just the Apple TV's Flash implementation.

Actually how do people become patent artists?! Seems like a new aesthetic neo-paleolithic etch-a-sketchisto-expressionism with a touch of post-manga VCR-owner's-manual-illustration, that reminds me of the animations used in The Secret Life of Machines.

You are almost correct. What glass you use IS important. I shoot an aging 20D with a 70-200 f2.8L IS and that $1500 glass does shoot better than a stock set.

However, MP does increase value as it captures more details. The big thing with MP is that it is like MH in the computer world. People just look at that and buy the higher number without much further research.

Yet a Power Shot 10MP won't shoot better then the Mark III at 10MP.

SLR are better due to the filters they use at each MP point. This give you cleaner shots, and better color. I bet that this 10 MP won't outshoot my 8 MP 20D in most cases. BUT they are fine cameras. My boss uses the older brother of these IS Power Shots when she travels and i, as well as her, admits that it has brought her images up quite a few notches.

Now can you take a Power Shot and but the 70-200 glass on it and it outtake my 20D? Maybe as these new kids have the Digic III and my aging 20D has the Digic II.

That leaves us with the unanswered 5D that is the ONLY body yet to get the Digic III upgrade. I am very much hoping, but doubting, that this 5D (may be named the 4D) will have built in IS for glass that does not have it.

All in all, these cameras are great!! Of course, if you are a Nikon fan, there is always the D3 :))))

RichGetz.com

i have a cold, and did not proof LOL

MHz not MH

Canon has great information on their site...

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=HomePageAct

Also, anyone looking for a Pro printer. I love my Pixma 9000. What beautiful prints!!!!

Makes a good point and more-or-less the one I was making too. Even thought the lenses, CCDs and software in the DSLRs are superior, the P&Ss have their place.

Perhaps its that I'm old enough to remember the point and shoots of the end of the film era, but they, generally, don't hold a candle to parallel offerings we see today. Mind you, they were a little cheaper. But if you add in the cost of film and processing, maybe not so much.

Yet, all my friends have point and shoots of very nearly every stripe and frankly, they mostly do well. Exposure, focus, saturation are, for casual cameras, very impressive. Even the Kodak ones do well.

The best is yet to come though, 5 years from now, no-doubt we'll be talking about terapixels and being able to shoot into the infrared and ultraviolet spectrum(s) with options for xray.