They have changed from what they were earlier.
A lot has happened since those days. Cameras react much faster, they are much better now in low light conditions and batteries have become better too.
My comment on the relation between quality of optics and number of megapixels is still valid.
Memory cards are now so fast and have so much storage space that a separate off-loading device such as an iPod is not really necessary unless you are a professional photographer or take huge numbers of photos on long holidays.
I now own a Nikon D200 which finally, after many unkept promises, does operate with my old Nikon lenses. The D200 is a nice and fast machine. It needs a very special proprietary battery, but that battery is so good that so far I have not been in a situation where I was short of power. It does not produce very sharp pictures though. The newer models are better.
First a few reflections:
A sharp digital image may be better than an out-of-focus one on argentic film. It all depends on the subject and the level of detail you want.
Photo manipulating programs can interpolate easily to produce acceptable resolutions for printing, even if the original is low quality. Of course, this low detail quality will be visible in print, but the pixellation (appearance of visible squares in the image, which is annoying) can certainly be avoided.
Ease of distribution, treatment, back-up, and long-term availability is better for digital pictures than for argentic film.
Low-light situations are much better covered by argentic film. So if you are taking pictures in low-light situations, either provide very bright lighting, or take argentic with slow shutter speeds. This is the single most limiting aspect of digital cameras today, but they are getting better fast!
I would still advocate high-resolution argentic film for some special cases, where the detail really matters. But you should be well aware of the importance of this aspect at the time of taking the picture, and even then you need more than 35mm (e.g. 60mmx60mm) to do better than today's good digital cameras.
I find it often frustrating to have to wait for long development times and pay substantial sums, when in fact I could have had a perfectly valid picture for my purpose from a digital camera. Certainly all work that needs a short time to delivery should be done digitally.
More "megapixels" is better.
However, photos then also fill up the memory more quickly.
I own a FireWire iPod with a download attachment.
That means I have 40GB of autonomous disk with me and do not need to carry a laptop computer on trips. The attachment you see in the image is now no longer needed as there exists a direct iPod USB adapter:
But more megapixels is not everything: a 5 megapixel or more camera also must have a sufficiently large lens of sufficient quality. That means a pocket-size camera boasting 8MPixels but with a tiny lens is probably nowhere near as good as a 5MPixels one with a big lens.
Cheaper digital cameras most often are "automatic", i.e. it is not possible to have complete control over the exposure. This is especially annoying when taking panoramic pictures and there is often no good remedy. Only digital cameras in the expensive professional range, and a very few in the amateur range provide enough control for this special case. (See http://www.cern.ch/VisitsService/Panoramas/ for some examples and note how in certain directions the colour shades change because of the lack of exposure control. Don't think that you can easily match all pictures of a panorama by using a graphics application. Even Adobe Photoshop does not provide anything simple; it's hard work. The best programs I know of are Apple Quicktime Studio and RealViz, there is a good site about panorama stitchers.
My Olympus E20 took 6 seconds between moving the ON switch and the time the camera was ready to take its first picture. That is barely acceptable, however good the camera is otherwise. My newer Nikon D200 switches on with no perceptible delay.
The time taken for storing a picture into the memory is also an important criterion: one camera took 20 seconds per view, which is intolerable for making panoramas or work at action events.
Memory should be fast and big, but also "compatible". It's no good to go around with the latest chip in a tiny sliver of plastic if you can't read the photos off it. Compact Flash (CF) is probably the most universal memory card, though big and now replaced by the SD format. Newer cameras also have decent transmission speeds through a USB-2 cable or sometimes even FireWire [iLink], but a separate memory card reader is still very handy, and for those only Compact Flash is really universal. (perhaps interesting to know that in most cameras the CF card is inserted upside down).
If you do more than just a few family pictures, you will find yourself changing "modes" all the time. Access to these settings is then important: how fast and easily can you switch from automatic flash to fill-in flash? Features may be hidden deep down in a hierarchy of menus and so become practically inaccessible when needed in a hurry. Can you remember it all or will you need to take the user guide with you? I need these functions immediately accessible:
I used to recommend to go for simple, standard "AA" type rechargeable batteries. All other models of battery were a pain: when you need them urgently, you usually can't find the special shapes, but you can always find a set of 4 AA-type alkalines in any shop. My new Nikon D200 sins against this rule twice: not only does it use a special shape battery, even in that shape it needs a special model within the Nikon battery range! But the quality of batteries has gone up so much that this criterion is no longer very important.
