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"

When swapping the settings on your camera I assume you have tried the very highest settings? This will give you as good a photo as possible from the camera. Regarding the software and viewing the photo. Are the 'swirls' emanating from a central point and moving out like ripples? Is so this may very well be to do with your flash. Most digital cameras have the flash activated by default and so many users never turn them off. A camera flash is only any good for a few short feet, after that they are basically useless I find. Try taking some shots without the flash, you will need to support the camera or practise standing very still because the shutter will stay open longer in lower light. If you are trying to save a few important photos already taken you might try to resample a shot and set the pixel density to 150 or even 300 to see if that helps eliminate the ripples and wavy lines. JASC may use a different term for resampling, Corel uses Resample, Paint uses Attributes. Same soup just different gravy :-)

This is such a late post. I don't know if Jen will read this or not. I, along with others, have been very disappointed with Consumer Reports recommendations. Most reviewers, CNET and Consumer Reports included, are bestowed, let us say "favors", instead of monetary rewards, for favorable reviews. CNET authors and editors, in the past, have answered me directly when I have had a critisism, or question, or disagreement with their review. CNET reviewers let you know who they are, they haven't hid under the name CNET. Also, I have found that CNET reviews are very thorough and tailored to each item and each product they review. CNET is not afraid to enter obscure companies and their products into their reviews. The truth is, I bought one the first five disk DVD changer/player's on CNet's recommendation, and low and behold one of the generous and knowledgeable experts contributing to this forum, who was the owner of an electronics shop in Michigan, had the same model, thought it was terrific and believed there was nothing better in its category. Something was in the player that wasn't supposed to be, and he walked me through getting it out. That player must be at least five to six years old now, and it is humming along perfectly, with a gorgeous picture and all the optical, componet, composite, svideo, hdtv hookups imaginable. It was a product before its time. Strange that other reviewers didn't have it at the top of their list. I had never heard of ABS or the Falcon or Polywell or even the ACER Travelmate before I started to read CNET. Back to photography, one other opinion I highly, highly recommend is Phillip Greenspun, and his brain child Photo.NET. He is a highly respected Harvard/MIT professor and computer whiz. Five years ago it was between his and CNET's endorsement of Canon that made me skeptically give Canon a try. Through the past years, companies are catching up to Canon. On photo.net, there are detailed comparisons of photos from several brands of cameras in the same category. As I post this, Canon may have become a leader of nothing more than the past. For this thread's sake ... such as one of the competing Olympuses' and Canons'. If anyone is interested in photography, Photo.Net and Eric Greenspun's personal pages are more than worthwhile to investigate. His and his colleague's tips and tricks for taking good pictures are invaluable. I hope this is a satisfactory answer to your question. marf Here is a link that might be useful: Camera Comparison's on Photo.Net

A 2.5" LCD for less than $200 would be a real good bargain, perhaps like last years model on closeout. Realistically, I think you would be more around $250-350. Olympus, Pentax, Casio, Panasonic and Sony are ones I know have cameras with 2.5" LCD's. You can find reviews for almost all digicams online @ http://www.steves-digicams.com