Well given that they aren't listening to the wants and needs
of their customers, I can only guess the number is rather large.

Regards,

  John S. Douglas, Photographer -  http://www.puresilver.org
             Please remove the "_" when replying via email

The OP said they were coming from a SLR film world and wondered
what was best in replacing it.  Then someone suggested
the FZ20.  The FZ20 produces poor images at high ISO,
dpreview says the images are not useable (yes that is
subjective) above ISO 200.

Also, the color fringing is horrible, see:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz20/page5.asp
(other pages of the review show the high noise, especially
when compared to other cameras).

Then excuse me about the interpolation to 12.6 mpixels.
You can do that with any camera.  But if you have excessive
noise, then you interpolate noise.

The FZ20 camera can hardly be considered the best possible,
which is what the OP was asking.  There is more to a digital
camera and quality imaging than simply megapixels.

Roger

For the OP's sake, I hope it is true. But my experience with digital cameras
and compact 35mm has been just terrible. They break in no time at all or
fail in bad conditions.

But here's to the OP - Best of Luck! Sincerely.

If every purchaser were like us, the camera manufacturers would have gone
out of business decades ago.

The manufacturers NEED to sell the sizzle, rather than the steak, if they
are to keep sales up.  And some buyers will trade up an entire system over
the slightest "improvement" in the newer gear.  I remember 30 years ago,
when Pentax introduced the Spotmatic-F, which had only three differences
over the previous model, the Spotmatic II:

1: The shutter button had a locking mechanism

2: The meter came on whenever the lens cap was removed, rather than having
to switch it on (I never thought of that as anything of an improvement--it
means that I must take care that my lens is capped when not in use, or I
risk using up the battery sooner).

3: The lens could meter at full aperture.

Big deal!

But it seemed back then that EVERYBODY who owned a Pentax wanted to upgrade
to the latest whizbang body.

Look at digital today:  Every time the manufacturers add another MegaPixel
to the cameras' sensors, there are tons of people that feel the need to
"upgrade."

Look, I like progress as much as the next guy, but this upgrade migration
thing can make a guy go broke!  We pay big dollars for what is usually
marginal increases in performance or functionality.  Perhaps pros can
justify this, but we amateurs have other mundane things to do with our
money--like pay home mortgages.

If I were going to get into photography all over again, I'd buy a good, used
Rolleiflex.  I'd pay to have it CLAed and I'd get another 50 years out of
it.

I've accumulated FIFTEEN prime lenses, and I find that 85-90% of my
landscape work is done on the normal lens--yes, the lowly normal
lens--because it does not introduce apparent perspective distortion to the
image.

Even when I shoot with my digicam, I zoom the lens to an approximately 50mm
focal length (equivalent).  Carrying a bag of other lenses around did
nothing for me.  Too bad it took me 25 years to realize that.

A decent photographer can produce good results almost in spite of the
equipment that he is using.  The equipment part is of relatively little
importance.

try graflex.org

Specific cameras
http://www.graflex.org/cameras/

products list
http://www.graflex.org/graflex-products-list.html

I'm always amazed that so many photographers bought a Pentax Spotmatic
at sometime in their life. 25 years ago I met a man who'd bought 2 and
basically gone to work on them with a hacksaw - he ended up with a
full-frame stereo camera with interchangeable lenses.