"Scott" said:
I agree that you shouldn't get caught up in the megapixel race - but having said that, I personally wouldn't get anything less than 5 megapixels. Cameras are progressing so fast these days that last year's models are old, and 2-year-old cameras are ancient!
I personally use a 5.0mp Sony Cybershot, which I bought 3 years ago when it was more or less top of the line in terms of point-and-shoot cameras go. There wasn't too much out there at or above 5, and I was then under the impression that more mp's meant better pictures. However, I soon realized that unless I was planning to make poster prints of my shots, I really didn't need all 5 of those mp's, and in the interest of fitting more pics on a single memory stick, I now typically shoot on the 3.1mp setting. The pics look just as fantastic in terms of quality, but are just a little smaller. The size isn't really an issue though, because even on the smaller setting, they are still larger than will fit on my screen without zooming out a ways.
Getting back to the original question though, about whether or not to upgrade from the 4.1 Kodak... I wouldn't, simply because like I said, even 3MPs will give you fine quality and a plenty large enough image. As long as you are happy with the photos you are getting (which, apparently you are), there's no need to spend the money to change to a new P&S camera. Unless you're upgrading to a completely new type of cam, such as going from P&S to SLR, I wouldn't bother upgrading. Low-light shots will always give you difficulty, and will require a lot of patience and more often than not, a tripod or equivalent (I personally love to use the tops of clean-ish* WDW garbage cans, which come pre-set up for me in the most convenient places!). By the way, I've seen the results of a 2MP Kodak EasyShare, and even for a 2MP cam, the colors on the Kodak were brilliant. Knowing that, I can't imagine your 4.1MP version is even half bad.
