Smoothy wrote:
>> You know, if this were objectively true, everyone would buy the two
>> Canons and no one the two Nikons.  Still, quite a few people buy the
>> Nikons, even though the Canons provide much more flexibility.
> 
> There could be other reasons for this, like the 2100 and 3100 being much
> smaller and
> lighter than the A60 and A70, and some other considerations like battery
> charger or
> Scene Modes which is usefull for beginners and...
> You know, not everyone is looking only for picture quality.      ;)

Exactly, and some confuse manual controls with quality - reviewers in
particular.

First of all, I am not much interested in the Nikon 2100.  It has a
smaller sensor than the other cameras under consideration, so there is
reason to expect a somewhat shabbier quality.

> Consider these two pictures:
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0139.JPG
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/DSCN0014.JPG
> Do you notice the grains on the boat bodies in 2100?

Sorry, I don't have much of an eye for "grain" or "noise", and the two
images are so different that I find them hard to compare.

While we're on the topic of "Sail Honeymoon", what do you think about
the sharpness of the writing on that board in this image:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/a70/samples/IMG_8565.JPG

> or these two:
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0161.JPG
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/DSCN0001.JPG
> Can you see the clearness of the building bricks in A40?
>
> (the 1st & 3rd ones are taken by A40, for which A60 is a replacement,
and I
> don't think its picture quality is better than A60).

It seems to me that the Nikon image is blurred all over.  Whether that's
due to Steve shaking the camera or some autofocus bug, it does not
appear to be a typical trait of this camera.  There are some really
clear images by the 2100 at Imaging Resource (especially the "far" shots
of the house).

Moreover, the chimney in the Canon shot is seriously bent.  This is also
the case in the corresponding image by the A300.

> or these ones:
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/A70/FULLRES/A70INFP1.HTM
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CP3100/FULLRES/CP31INFFP3.HTM
> Look how noisy the wall behind her, and her face are.

Honestly, I am surprised that you find them so different.  What I do see
is the characteristic softness of the A70, but even this could simply be
due to less in-camera sharpening.

Bed time here, so I leave this reply somewhat unfinished.  I'll think
more about it in the morning.  What I had hoped to find is that one or
the other camera is definitely superior for landscape shots, but I have
seen little conclusive proof one way or the other so far.
-- 
    Tore