On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 00:19:10 GMT, "Larry L"
wrote:


wrote


That's sorta my point - a shirt-pocket type 5ish MP camera really isn't
for anyone seriously into photography.

that is very true ... but I have been seriously into photography ( made my
living selling artsy fartsy b&w prints for a couple years, had shows in
galleries etc ) and I never want to go there again.......

My wife has a Cannon digi SLR she got late last year, that would do the
quality, but I don't want to "go looking for photos." I do want to
take the ones that jump out at me and I do want to print them in hardcopy at
decent size and resolution. They will simply be "purdy" pictures, none
of the attempt to be arty of my youth. I'm simply looking for the best
technical "quality" images available in a small water resistent package.

Well, if it matters/helps, I regularly see such "snapshots" from about
8-10 people using 8-10 different cameras, and IMO, there isn't enough
difference in them, when viewed via "standard" displays or printed on
mid-grade but business-grade printers (DT color lasers, proof-class DT
IJs, etc.) or via Wal-Mart/"drug store" type of printing. As you
probably know, once you step to something like your wife's camera and
print out at on lab-type/production-class printers, there is a
difference. And AFAIK, there's nothing that would be even marginally
justifiable, from a monetary standpoint, that combines the small size
and that level of quality, nor is there a reason to try.

TC,
R