> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0139.JPG
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/DSCN0014.JPG

> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/a40/samples/IMG_0161.JPG
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/nikon2100/samples/DSCN0001.JPG

> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/A70/FULLRES/A70INFP1.HTM
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CP3100/FULLRES/CP31INFFP3.HTM

JPegs...  ;)  You're trying to compare the imaging quality of two
cameras using jepegged images?  Hehehehe...

Ummm...

Actually I think there are no online resources for you to compare for
yourself.  You would need someone (who knew what they were doing) to
set up the cameras with the "as same as possible" settings and fire
off at almost exactly the same time at exactly the same subject and
then post clippings of the two resulting images.  I say clippings cuz
uncompressed images as you know, are huge.

Anyway, you really won't be able to tell anything from jpegs.  Well,
other than how badly the compression messed up the image.  There might
be a difference in how well a manufacturer implemented the codec but
I doubt it.  JPEG has been around for a long long time. It's very well
known.

As fas as which of those cameras produce "clearer, crisper" images I'm
willing to bet that it's so close the human eye will have trouble detecting
the differences.  Color sat. and bal. etc. are a different story tho.

Given that the/any two cameras have a similar CCD size I would think
that you would be able learn more by looking at thier respective lens
designs.

This is one reason reviewers spend most of thier time on the feature set,
CCD type and size, Lens construction, and then just point out any
shortcommings or advantages.  It's really difficult to compare the
"sharpness" (if there is such a thing) between any two similar cammera
models.

Online JPEGs aren't the answer for sure!