[pct-l] Does size matter???

[montedodge at msn.com (Monte Dodge)]

 In cameras that is. Just reading a photo magazine that states, "  You divide the height and width of your megapixels by 200 to see what size you can blow up your prints. So if you have a 3.2 megapixel camera with something like 2048 X 1500 you should be good to 8 by 10 prints. Any larger you lose quality. So your new 6.3 /6.1 meg.  should be good for prints in the 11 x 14 range with their 3,000 by 2000 something formats in megapixels.
      Anything larger than 11 X 14 is where your old 35mm starts breaking out ahead.  ( You can do prints in the 13 X19 range but the top of the line Digitals with their higher megs are needed for quality.
     Other item I noted from mag. is sensor size. It's not all about megapixels. Sensor size comes into play as Digital SLR's have larger sensors than point and shoot.  Even the cheapest SLR Cannon Rebel has a large APS size 22.7 X 15.1 compared to many of the newer 7 and 8 meg . point and shoot cameras which have many megs jammed onto a very small 8mm to 9mm sensor.
     Of course if doing a thru -hike , I wouldn't drag a heavy SLR when I could take a nice water res. camera like the new 4.0 meg. Pentax , Olympus 400 Stylus or any other cameras in the 5 to 6 oz. weight area. 
     Don't forget about a nice 35mm these either!  In the days of digital , you still get great shots with a light 35 which can give you some good blowups back home. I would pack both on some of the more " Scenic" sections and use one as a back up.
    35mm " Old School" rangefinders are low tech and can be used with a dead battery as well. I have an older Canon QL III from 1972 with a great 1.7f len which is quite fast and nice for low light camp shots. Films offer a ton a choices as well.