Sorry to be late; didn't check in for a couple of days. Yes, the Panasonic makes extremely sharp photos, thanks, in part to the Leica lens. It offers two types of image stabilization, both optical (the best kind): 1. continuous and 2. at the moment of shutter let-off. Of my six non-DSLR cameras, the Panasonic DMC-TZ5 is the best one. Like most digital cameras, it has a wide range of shooting modes, most of which I never use. But they're there. It also shoots video, but I've never done it; I do know that it lets you zoom during video filming - I understand that many cameras will not zoom during video. As I said, the flash range is limited and the camera DOES NOT have an optical viewfinder. One other drawback - which you can overcome by careful "holding" - is that the flash is located below the shutter button, and it's natural to put your middle finger over it. You've got to get used to that. Panasonic has packed so much into this little camera that I don't think there was any other place to put the flash. And by-the-way, like most small digitals, it does not have a hot shoe for using an auxillary flash. If you'd like further info from me, go to My Page and email me directly. Javert

I began my interest in photography with a Pentax Spotmatic 35mm SLR back in 1968 and if someone were to offer me a dollar each for all the 1.5x, 2x & 3x tele convertors that I have thrown away over the years I could take my GF out to dinner tonight..LOL. Over the years I have stayed with Pentax for two reasons. First off, I have shot over 250,000 frames with my original Spotmatic and it still performs well. In addition, while Pentax has always stayed on the cutting edge of technology, often being the first to introduce new technologies they have managed to design their cameras in such a way that we can use any Pentax lens ever made on the brand new DSLR's. In fact, both Nikon and Canon build adapters that will allow you to use the old Pentax screw mount lenses on their new cameras. Generally telephoto lenses are used for taking pictures of distant scenes or objects outdoors, well beyond the maximum limits of a flash unit so we are obligated to shoot under the available light conditions. If we are taking a picture of a stationary object we can easily mount the camera & lens on a tripod and compensate for low light conditions by extending the shutter speed but, if you are taking nature shots of birds and animals shutter speed is critical because the subject is not going to remain motionless long enough to permit long shutter speeds. You may have also noticed that as we extend focal length we loose effective aperture. By example, your normal lens may be f1.2- f2, but if you extend to 200mm the maximum aperture will be in the order of f3.5 and at 300mm it will be f4.5 - f5.6. Every time we close the lens one f-stop we must cut shutter speed in half to get the same exposure. By Example, if you have an exposure of 1/125 @ f2 then stop the lens down to f3.5 you must drop the shutter speed to 1/60 to get the same exposure. Let us assume for the moment that you are shooting a scenic shot in late afternoon with your normal lens and you get an exposure of f2 @ 1/125. That would be a very easy hand held shot but what if you changed to a 300mm lens that has a maximum aperture of f4.5 ? You are losing two f-stops of light so you must now change the shutter speed 2 f-stops so the exposure would now be 1/30 @ f4.5 which is well below the 1/250 minimum for a hand held shot with a 300mm lens. Years ago the big 3 camera manufacturers (Nikon, Canon & Pentax) did not even offer a tele converter but due to pressure from 3rd party aftermarket sources they do now offer them, although they keep them very low key in their advertising for good reason. The main problem with tele converters, and what none of the third party manufacturers openly state is the "light insertion loss". Typically a tele converter will introduce a minimum of 2 f-stops of light loss and some go as high as 4 stops. Now it can be argued that with most DSLR's we can compensate for the light loss by increasing the ISO index. (every time we double the ISO we gain one f-stop), which is true, but keep in mind that for every increasing in ISO there is a loss in image resolution and a significant increase in grain (called noise on digitals). Tele converters also introduce both Chromatic & spherical aberrations which is a color & edge distortion that becomes very problematic when printing enlargements. While on the subject of aftermarket products there is another option needs to be mentioned, that being mirror lenses. While the big 3 camera manufactures do make some very good mirror lenses, there is a long list of aftermarket manufactures that build inexpensive 500mm & 1000mm mirror lenses. Be very careful here because most of the inexpensive mirror lenses have a fixed aperture which is typically f-8. While they will perform marginally well for shooting scenics from a tripod, due to the fact that most birds and animals are most active in early morning or late afternoon those lenses are almost useless for nature photography.

Jen, I understand how all confusing the numbers are. It took me awhile too. I glanced at the link you posted. You'd probably benefit those info more if you have a digital SLR. Basically, the smaller the number of mm, the wider the angle would be. ie: 28mm is wider than 50mm. You mentioned that you want to take close up. You'd need a camera that has "macro". It allows you to get as close to the object but still be in focus. Pay attention to the number of the macro which means how close you can get to the object. If $400 is your limit (which IMO is alot to spend on a good camera) 2 things I'd suggest: 1) Go to a camera store/department and play around with several model, you'd get a better understanding of the focus point and zoom capability. Get the model number and shop around or online for a better price. 2) If I have $400 to spend, I would bypass a point and shoot camera altogether and would invest in a digital SLR (DSLR). You mentioned Canon and that's among a good brand to go with. With $400, you can easily get a used Canon Rebel XT or Rebel XTI with a nice lens that has a decent macro, zoom range and a wide angle. Most photographers that owns DSLR are serious photographers (either beginners or pros), and we all tend to take care of our equipments. So, getting a used one is not always so bad; although, you may still want to check out the camera as you would with any other used item you'd buy. The Canon Rebel XT & XTI are being replaced to higher end models. It shouldn't be hard to find one inexpensively. You may want to use your local city Craiglist (online listing) and see if someone locally would sell it to you for a good bargain. Sometimes, you'd find someone throw in extras with the kit. I've seen it as low as less than $200. Why a DSLR vs. a point and shoot? A DSLR allows you to shoot instantly, no slow shutter speed, no missing the "kodak moment". You can do continous shooting for action. You can set it on "auto" or you can play with the settings once you grow your knowledge of photography. You can invest on better lenses later on when you have more $$$. If you keep with the Canon brand, those same lenses will fit on your next Canon camera body if you ever chose to upgrade with the latest technology. If you'd be using the camera for macro, a DSLR would allows you to purchase specific lens for better (closer) macro. Or, for less $$$, you can get extender tubes which connect to the lens and let you get so close to the object that you'd be almost touching it. Hope these tips help and good luck on your findings. Natalie

First, thank you to all of you for going thru this decision process with me. Thank you Zitro Joe and Alisande. I read Ken's website and checked out the Best Buy pixel comparison. Good information. I have looked at many comparison photos and info on the internet and I do like the extra pixels for viewing and zooming in on the computer monitor. However, I just need to get closer to my subject when I want that kind of detail. I am now deciding between the Nikon D5000 with two kit lenses (18-55 mm + 55-200mm) and the Nikon 90 with one kit lens (17-105 mm). I am told the 17-105mm has better optics. I really like the grip and feel of the D90. I fits in my hand better and feels more balanced. My only problem is the extra weight. I am wonder how important the weight is for any of you. The D90 with the lens on is 10 oz heavier than the D5000 with the 18-55 mm lens, and 8 oz heavier than the D5000 with the 55-200 lens. I am not planning to take it on long trips just short outings. I have some aches and pains in my neck and shoulders, but there is a hand strap available (that I would use with either camera) instead of a neck strap. The other things I like about the D90 besides the grip and feel are: Better viewfinder Larger monitor Depth of field preview Stronger build Better optics in the lens A little better in low light? One nicer kit lenses What I like about the D5000: Lighter weight Built-in protection for the LCD screen because it flips around There is no question that I would choose the D90 over the D5000. I am just concerned about the weight of the camera. The salesman points out that if it is too heavy I will be less inclined to take it with me. Is this true of any of you? Does the weight cause you to leave it behind? Thank you again.