Simple, cheap but high-res camera.

Funny that professional zooms have less reach than mega zooms.
Ever wondered why?

"My zoom is bigger than yours..."
++++

Get ready for a new star....
I'm selling my SZ-10 in the next week or two.

Of course looking for publishing quality images really needs a dSLR.
That said most compacts do a pretty good job in decent light as well.

OP if your aim is to get images published, you'll need a dSLR. If your aim is to get close enough quality in daylight hours then most compact cameras can handle this. I personally don't find the IQ of compacts that different in good light. In dim light they differ a lot, but then all pale into insignificance compared to a dSLR.

Sorry - hope I didn't sound condescending.

Absolutely not at all. There's nothing wrong with asking questions, right?

That chart you linked to seems a bit generous. My camera is the Panasonic DMC-F27, which is 6 megapixels but the resolution isn't that great. Perhaps it's an example of a camera with high megapixels that is let down in other ways.

I'll read the other comments in a while - there's the possibility I may be able to blag a free camera...

You made me curious so I looked at cnet and amazon. The one thing that stood out was a number of people who said that the DMC-F27 introduces image noise at all but the lowest ISO settings.

It's all down to choice - really.
Go find a shop and check 'em all out.
What's nice for one person - might be not liked by another.
They all have pro's and con's, the fors and againsts.
Even cameras costing £1000's will lack sommat the reviewers pick up on.
A camera costing £60 will still have good and bad comments written about it.

Of course looking for publishing quality images really needs a dSLR.

Just yesterday came across this thread on dpreview, which could challenge that statement :-) Really cool close-ups of birds with "normal" superzooms like the Canon SX30: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=41133963

OK, I have no experience of publishing photos, but to me those birdies look very publishable!

I'll agree with the statements that the MP count really isn't everything. Of the cameras I've owned, I still think my 4MP Olympus C-765 from 2005 made the sharpest and nicest pics. But I haven't got myself that DSLR, yet.

Those dp previews are definately up there with the very best, don't you agree?
So thorough and completely impartial.

That's not a review from dpreview. It's a post on their public forum.
Note that those images are all shot at base ISO and processed in photoshop rather than in the camera. Using the same camera and just pushing the button will not produce the same results.

From the post:
"My main point here is that at base ISOs and with minimized in-camera processing the SX30 image (while soft) contains very little noise and detail is retained intact with very little artifacting. Basic post-processing providing NR on the background only, and careful sharpening of the in-focus foreground produces significantly better end-results than the camera's jpeg engine can accomplish. This method may be too much effort for casual snapshots, and for many users will not be worth the trouble."

Note as well that they choose as they said the best of many, many images.
Some of them are pretty good and sharp, however some are clearly not sharp if looked at closer.

What looks 'publishable' to someone might not really be 'publishable' - but then it all depends on how you define 'publishable'.

Somebody might want to put an image at 800x500 or 960x760 or so on his webpage and then a lot of compacts will do the job.

However if you look at the professional publishing industry they do require usually certain image quality standards.
Stock photo companies (such as Getty images, Alamy, Corbis, istock, do only accept images that match the image quality their customers ask for.
So if you want to sell for magazines, books and other publications, this is where they buy.

You might want to check out their requirements.
Submission guidelines:
http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/prepare-images.asp
Cameras accepted:
http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/recommended-digital-cameras.asp
Cameras not accepted:
http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/unsuitable-cameras.asp
+++

Ok - the fools have it.