I read a number of very interesting articles recently about digital cameras, so I thought I would throw out an idea here for anyone looking to purchase one in advance of their summer holidays.

The headline measure of a digital camera is often how many megapixels it has. More megapixels equals a better image, right? Wrong!

With most point-and-shoot digital cameras the megapixels are arranged in a very small, typically less than a square inch, CCD device. On modern cameras this means the megapixels are packed in there at a rate of 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 or more per square millimeter. If the camera's lens is unable to resolve the image to this level of accuracy what happens is that the image 'bleeds' between adjacent megapixels. There won't be a visible loss of quality as the image quality is ultimately much more a function of the lens than of the camera itself. What it means is that some of those megapixels aren't adding anything to the image. They are redundant.

So when looking to buy a digital camera, it's worth focusing (pun intended!!) more on the optical performance of the lens rather than the headline number of megapixels. A 4mp camera with an excellent lens is going to way outperform a 6mp camera with a mediocre lens.

Does this mean it's worth going for a cheaper camera, with less megapixels?

Not really! Cameras are like most things in life and for the most part you get what you pay for. Buy paying for a good lens rather than paying for redundant megapixels is a good idea. When you talk lenses, if you hear the names Zeiss, Leica, Nikon or Canon you know you are on firm ground as these companies live or die by their reputations for optical performance.

In terms of taking good photographs, a good adage is that:
The photographer takes the photograph
The lens renders the image
The camera is only there to hold the film (megapixels) flat.