You express your needs very well. The key issue with digital cameras, is the mega-pixel value. The higher the mega-pixel value, the better quality picture you will get for the most part. But, the important determining factor most people use, is whether or not they plan on having prints made and what SIZE. The size of your prints AND their quality is largely dictated by the mega-pixel value. In short, if you only require prints no bigger than wallet-sized or slightly larger, a good 5 mega-pixel camera will suit your needs very well. If you intend to make prints of a size of 8 by 5 and larger, I would recommend a higher megapixel value than 5mp. The reason for this, is that with, let's say, a 3mp camera, and you have 8 by 5 prints made, the prints will come out sort of blurry and lack the crisp & clear details you need. The term for this defusion is pixelation. What that means, is that the lower mp camera cannot "capture" the large amount of detail & crispness that you may want for larger prints. A lower mp camera may take pictures into the camera at a size of 900kilobytes, which does not translate well onto a larger print. Of course I am speaking of generalities here. Many of the folks here in the forum probably learned the hard way by buying a cheaper camera & then regreting it later. The quality of many/most of the pictures here are for the most part excellent! Prices on digital cameras have fallen dramatically in the last few years, so you should be able to obtain a good camera for your needs. Another issue that is sometimes completely overlooked, is what program to use to adjust your pictures to their best appearance AND SIZE. A quality program makes this task a great deal easier. This can be seen by the time your have some super shots in your camera, and then after being reworked, they look really bad. A reasonably good program can be found from several companies. Myself, I have been using Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0. It can be obtained for a reduced price and has filled my needs very well for processing pistures of coins which I take through a stereo microscope! Stunning pix can be obtained with a rather easy learning curve. If you want the Cadillac of photo editors, Adobe Photoshop is one of, if not the best of the many offered. But quality comes with a price, So don't waste money on a secondrate editing program, or you will not realize the results you desire! Another issue that many overlook, is the "size" of the picture when it is taken into the camera. For example, my primary digital camera is a 5.0mp Kodak. The "raw" piture inside the camera is over 12 megabytes! Much too large to email easily for all parties! Unless you have a special reason to distribute the pictures in their original size, it is redundant to a degree. My own formula for resizing pictures out of the camera, is to touch up anything like focus, brightnesss & contrast AND reduce them down to a much more managable size of 400 - 450 kilobytes. The reason for this reduction, is to make them more managable for emailing and storage in your computer. If someone sends you a picture, which do you appreciate the most, one or more that just take a few moments to download into your email at a smaller size like 400kb, OR a piture that has not be reworked at all and takes 10 minutes just to downlaod into your computer...in short, downloading a 12mb picture on a dialup, 56k, computer can take considerable time waiting for it to download. Large pix of 12mp for example usually take up the full screen and sometimes even more. The bottom line for this is that you should rework the original pictures from the camera to obtain the best appearance AND reduce them to a size that are easily managable. I am sure others here can recommend a couple of excellent cameras at your price range and advise you on the minimum mp value you have to buy to maitain your standards of quality. This interaction/cooperation of forum members is invaluable and can save you money! best wishes & good luck! I hope I answered some of your questions. And thank you to all of you who post such beautiful roses! : ) Sincerly, "Smitty"

Sharon, I signed up for his emails the last time when you gave us the link. Thanks so much! I haven't had time to read all of them due to so many things going on here, but I wanted to thank you for the link. I have saved them all, and hope to read and learn. Lots of good lessons! Happy New Year to you!

We have a Nikon D40X, which has been discontinued in favor of the D60. You know you can't beat a DSLR. Not only is the picture quality amazing at the fastest iso settings, there is absolutely no delay when you take a picture. As a matter of fact, if sports are important to you, 3 frames a second in continuous mode is what you'll want. It delivers. It's also nice to be able to change lenses. I look at it as upgradeable. There is a drawback, size. Because of the size and weight of the camera we actually just bought a compact to supplement. We use the compact for everyday type events and the Nikon for the bigger ones (as long as I'm the one carrying it around). Okay, why'd I tell you all that when your looking for a compact? Because our compact is an Olympus Stylus 1010 and the picture quality rivals the Nikon. Both are 10 megapixel cameras (actually the Olympus is 10.1). Of course we can do much more with the Nikon but the Olympus is much more convenient when traveling or just taking everyday shots. The Olympus cost us $400 with extended warranty, 2x 2gig xD memory chips, and bag. You can get a Nikon D60 for about $650 is you look hard enough. And D40X for a little less than that. Either one is under 4 digits. If you haven't already, take a look at the Olympus. Klaa2

24 photos? W/ flash? Plus using the LCD? Sounds like enough to eat the battery to me. My uncle had (has?) a Sony from a few years ago that uses AAs, and his had about the same performance. He's much happier with the rechargables. My Olympus E-20 can use 4 AA batteries or a Lithium Ion battery. The LiIon is much more powerful (you can tell with how fast the flash 're-sets'), but they're expensive. I have a couple of sets of AA rechargables for the camera and the external flash, and I can get off about 50 shots before I notice the flash start getting weaker. At max resolution, my memory cards only hold 52 shots, so I just take the oportunity to swap the batteries and memory card all at the same time. I think those rehargables are 1600 mAh, but as I've said, I've seen much higher capacities these days... Actually, I don't know how many digital cameras these days take AAs anymore (though I haven't looked, to be honest). Most that I've glanced at seem to come with some type of rechargable battery pack with a seperate charger or a cord/cradle to recharge a non-removable rechargable battery. This is especially true of the smaller ones, that just don't have the room for a couple of AA batteries. Here is a link that might be useful: Energizer 2500mAh AA 4-pk w/ Charger