Size vs. zoom - what to do?

[ja002h]

I'm looking to purchase my first digital camera in the next month or 2. I've done a lot of research the past couple weeks, but I'm still not sure exactly what I should do. Basically, I'm looking for something small, but I also like the thought of having a hefty zoom. The problem, of course, is that for the most part those 2 things are mutually exclusive. The options, as I see them, are something like the following:

1. Get a real nice ultra zoom (probably Canon S2), and then maybe pick up an older, cheap 3mp-ish compact camera for anytime I just need some 4x6's, or can't lug the other one around.

2. Get a slightly less expensive camera (Kodak Z740 or similar), and a slightly more expensive compact model than in #1.

3. Try and get the best compromise, sacrificing some zoom for an almost-pocket size. Some thoughts would be the A620, HP R817, Nikon L1.

I initially was drawn to the Nikon S4, as it seems like the perfect solution, but I'm a little leery given the pretty dramatic range of opinions I've seen.

I'm pretty much a novice photographer, but it's always been something I wanted to get into, so I want something good, but I don't need an SLR or anything.

Thanks for any thoughts..

[bond007]

i believe Konica Minolta Z5 is also very compact ultrazoom

[ja002h]

It occurred to me that anothing thing I could do is get the A620, and then get a telephoto lens to go with it, thus ending up with a 7x zoom, which while not 10x or 12x, is certainly better than 3 or 4.

Looking at the 620, and then the 610, brought up another question for me. The cameras use the same 1/1.8 CCD. Does it follow then that the 620 is actually noisier, because it's 7.1mp instead of 5? Or is that not the case?

edit: Found a few posts on this in the Canon forums, and the consensus seems to be that the 620 is in fact noisier, *if* you post-process the 610 images.