I'm glad the megapixel wars are almost over. I think it's more a function of the skill of the photographer and the quality of the camera rather than it the # of pixels being used. Yes, more resolution may mean a sharper print but I've seen some magnificent 16 X 20 prints made from a mere 4 megapixel shot, from an excellent Canon DSLR. They many not pass the magnifier test but they sure look great and thoroughly professional when seen from a reasonable viewing distance. They are certainly as good as one could expect from film printed by most labs.
My 10 mp Canon "high-end" P&S does very very well. The only thing I can think of to make it better would be a larger sensor but that would increase the cost even more, and it's already expensive for a point-and-shoot. Of course, it does have that "manual mode" which is awfully nice!
As for the cheap P&S cameras, well, they are no worse than most comparably priced P&S film cameras and quite often are far better.
I think you're right. It seems that some of the big guns are actually getting smaller or staying the same as far as pixels. My XSi has 12 and the T1i has 15 and some people think it is a bit noisier than the XSi, though I haven't heard as much said about the T2i. I just think that eventually they will settle on a number and hopefully be done with it, or eventually the small sensors will go away and they will all be full frame 35 mm sensors, even though some of the big guns are smaller APS-C like the rebels or APS-H which I believe is similar.
They all take great pictures, and like you said even the better end PnS cameras can take excellent images. Even my old 2.1 Kodak from years ago could take really nice images. I think we are at a point that the cameras take better pictures than we can output, whether it is on screen, which really is pretty crappy, or even most printers. I hope that a lot more research is put into the output end in the near future.
Also true, it is mainly the function of the photographer to take the images. I've seen great pictures taken on a lowly Pentax K-1000 in the past, just like there are some incredible shots from simple PnS digitals. It seems like these days, every article is about how the photographer used this camera and this lens and this photoshop or post process to make the image.
Some of my favorite images in my files are from an old Beauty range finder I picked up at a garage sale for a few bucks. The lens tended to saturate the film and by todays standards wouldn't be called sharp whatsoever, but the images of my daughter are beautiful. Hopefully someday we, I included can get back to just taking pictures again.
I used to love reading articles in the past where the photographer simply said, I went out on a beautiful fall morning and saw this group of Geese and had to follow them to the lake and this is what came of it.
Don't get me wrong, I like technology as well, though as a footnote rather than a whole note. Sometimes it feels like technology is the point of the hobby, rather than the art itself.
Heck, after all this blathering on, I think I'll go grab a roll of film and run it through that old Beauty again. For old times sake.
