Andrea, I shoot RAW exclusively now for the reasons you stated except occasionally flip it over to sports because it goes auto to burst (I think), and does only .jpg. I love Photoshop, has a very steep learning curve, waited years until I got a $299 upgrade with Elements to CS2. I don't just use it for my photographs, and I agree with you about some of the software that comes with cameras, read about Nikon's, refused to get in the camera wars, was really torn between Canon and Nikon, at the time I thought Canons had better noise reduction at the expense of IQ, understood that going in. I started just doing graphics learning all I could with PSP (quit upgrading at 5 because I didn't like some things), then bought Photo Impact (fun for awhile but a waste of money), but when I saw the power of PS, I was sold. I don't use all the features, no, don't jump on the upgrade bandwagon (lightbox is really cool, can't afford it), but I love their USM and ACR white balance corrections and several others such as highlight/shadows tool (because of the limited dynamic range with all digital cameras, may be better with the more expensive, super-high resolution ones), when I want to make them pop more. And a lot of it is strictly a matter of taste. There are some incredibly talented with PS; I'm not one of them. The actual conversion process doesn't take more than 30 seconds, and when I can, I batch convert using scripts. I know everything you said is true, especially you can use Nikon pics right out of the cam, sharp as a tack, same with some good P&S cameras. Have to watch oversharpening, too. For web viewing, people probably can't tell the difference about sharpening. I can see it, very occasionally I don't bother with it, depending, but do like to do my own cropping and straightening, can't stand really crooked photos unless for creative effect. Other software does that just as well. I highly respect your opinion, and it sounds like you are some kind of pro. I don't presume to know everything. Blowing blows more dust in than I get out sometimes, always do that first regardless, a couple tries, then test, but I have used the wet method only once, got it better, but just let the dustbunnies I missed be for now and try to be careful changing my lenses. The only people I'd really trust to clean my sensor filter, not the sensor on Canon, but extremely delicate, is Canon. Nobody on the Canon dslr forum I've read yet on dpreview for almost 5 years now sends theirs anywhere for sensor filter cleaning; they all clean them themselves, most very confidently (not me!) many, many use a wet method usually Copperhill or a pen. I used extra pure alcohol and qtips I got at the medical supply center, just a drop w/eyedropper. I first try the dry method with Walgreen's brand q-tips very gently. The camera store person told me some use plastic knives from McDonald's! Not for me! I don't really trust my local camera store or Best Buy technicians. With the camera store, last time I was in was tempted to butt in and tell the customer something I happened to know, while the salesman didn't seem to, held my peace. Had some photos and a painting scanned I wanted to retouch, state-of-the art, awful, ended up using my camera and tripod. The camera store wasn't set up to cater to dslr users, maybe they're more with it now. I hate cloning out dustbunnies once a bad one gets in there, most don't show at the sizes and resolution I use, but do clone quite a bit for other reasons and like the healing tool. Once a piece of fiber got in there, it drove me nuts, that I got out by blowing, need a better blower, the Hurricane one. Sorry for taking up so much "airtime". Sooner or later most dslr owners are going to have to choose how to deal with it. Then if I screw up, I screw up, and will pay the consequences. You HAVE to clean your lenses, even on P&S cameras, which I do as little as possible. I know Nikon has fine cameras and lenses; that is why the choice was so hard, and sometimes I still look back, but now I'm invested heavily in a few lenses not as many as some have, don't need them, but very expensive and wouldn't get near what I paid for them if I sold them, even though they are all in mint condition.

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

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

Pretty sure I don't have voice recording. My one camera, is a Canon A650IS which is a couple of years old. Its been described in reviews as a Canon G7 minus frills. I like the 12 megapixels in it, and size. 6 x zoom. Lately, I use a Canon SX10 IS, with 20 x zoom. Also no voice recording. Would be a nifty feature though. The most important part for me seems to know when I left one grove and am in another. What I do sometimes, is take an image of my palm in-between to indicate the transition, or a note on a note card. But I can see where the voice option would be very streamlined. Seems like most manufacturers have really worked the bugs out of most cameras these days.