Folks: I finally broke down and bought the new camera-- a Panasonic DMC-TZ5. It's 9 megapixels, has a rechargeable battery, and a 10X zoom. It also has a 3" LCD for us old folks. Reviews have been very positive. You can even take movies with it! Here's the best part: I bought it on Amazon after tracking prices there for a few days. It finally went below my "threshold" of $225, and I snapped it up for $222 with free shipping. Bought a card and a little case, too. MSRP is $349, so I got a pretty good deal. Spent this afternoon reading through the manual and taking a few test shots. Uploaded them into the PC, tweaked them a little, and moved to Picasa for sharing. Very easy. Too bad it's been raining all day. I'm anxious to get outside and shoot some pics of the WS babies and the transplants. Thanks for all your help and recommendations! Prof

i am a big fan of canon i had a sony point & shoot and wounld never buy sony again from yahoo shopping couldn't get the link to work Digital cameras Some big-camera features come in strikingly small packages from ConsumerReports.org November 2006 More than 30 percent of U.S. households have yet to switch from film, and millions more are seeking a second, or even third digital camera, so this should be a hot holiday season for digitals. Manufacturers are responding by crowding more capabilities into smaller, lighter, more stylish models. And they're adding special twists such as water resistance, large-type icons for the eyesight challenged, and--in one case--even a slimming feature that claims to take 10 pounds off your subject's image. This guide, along with the Ratings, can help you find the right camera. Noteworthy cameras examines three new models that arrived too late for us to fully test and rate in this report. Match the size to your needs Virtually all digital cameras take decent pictures these days. In choosing one, first decide if your priority is small size or extra photographic power and flexibility. A few models strive to offer it all, but none do so without compromise. Small cameras continue to shrink and grow sleeker, and many have an LCD large enough to dominate the camera's rear side, even as their resolution keeps growing. Five megapixels is already considered minimal resolution, and 7 or 8 is offered by a small but growing band. Other features trickling down from large models to a few small ones include zoom ranges larger than 3x, image stabilization, and manual controls. One familiar feature may soon be on the endangered list: the optical viewfinder. Meanwhile, larger and more powerful cameras keep gaining new capabilities and, in some cases, growing cheaper. Some advanced compacts--cameras that offer extensive controls and higher-than-entry-level resolution while retaining the convenience of a built-in lens--rival some SLRs and weigh nearly as much. Resolution now runs between 8 and 10 megapixels, and the ability to save images as a RAW file is standard. (A RAW file contains the captured image before it has been processed by the camera's built-in software and gives you maximum flexibility in controlling things such as sharpness and color balance.) More super-zooms, with optical zoom ranges 10x or greater, feature optical or mechanical image stabilizers. Most of these cameras are bulky and weigh a pound or more. However, innovative designs make a couple of models smaller and much lighter than the rest, heralding a new day for this type of camera. SLRs, once limited to those on champagne budgets, are increasing in resolution and coming down in price; several are now available for less than $1,000. Recently, three manufacturers--Sony, Nikon, and Canon--all introduced 10-megapixel models in that price range, thereby upping the ante in the growing competition for serious photographers. CR's take. Compacts are the mainstream cameras, with the capabilities most people need, for as little as $200 for a fine performer. Choose a subcompact if you're willing to pay extra, and can accept a few compromises, to be able to carry it in your pocket. Get an advanced compact if you want lots of control over exposure and the image but prefer a built-in lens. Go for a super-zoom if you want to shoot closeups of distant subjects. Spring for an SLR if you must have it all, are willing to lug around that much weight, and can afford separate lenses. For more specifics see Types. Don't overspend on resolution Most new cameras now offer at least 5 megapixels of resolution, though a few older, 4-megapixel models may linger in stores. Buying more than 5 megapixels costs less than it used to, but you'll still pay $30 to $50 per additional megapixel for a basic compact camera and a bit more for a higher-resolution subcompact. More megapixels usually translate into more picture detail. But beyond 5 megapixels, you're unlikely to see the difference unless you crop images heavily or make poster-size prints. Even with the 8x10 prints we use for our tests, high resolution doesn't assure high overall print quality, since other factors, such as lens quality, affect the score. With small cameras, high resolution can impose trade-offs in picture quality, especially in low-light conditions. Our Ratings illustrate this: Only a third of the highest-resolution (7- or 8-megapixel) subcompacts produced excellent prints, compared with more than half the 5-megapixel models. And while a few subcompact cameras now offer ISO settings of 800 for handheld shooting in dim light, the resulting shots are often grainy and noticeably worse than those from SLRs at similar or even higher ISO settings and the best (expensive) point-and-shoots. CR's take. A 5-megapixel camera should provide all the resolution most people need. If you often crop or blow up your images into posters, get at least 7 megapixels. If you're attracted to a particular subcompact or compact because of its high ISO settings, check our Ratings or make sure you can return it at no cost if its handheld low-light performance is disappointing. If you need both high resolution (greater than 5 megapixels) and impeccable quality, focus on the advanced compacts and SLRs that had excellent print or image quality in our tests. Weigh zoom range trade-offs Another feature to consider carefully is a zoom range that's greater than the 3x found on most cameras. (A zoom lens' range is the ratio of its highest, telephoto focal length to its lowest, wide-angle length. For example, a zoom lens that's considered equivalent to a film camera's 35-mm to 105-mm lens has a range of 3x.) The wider the range, the greater the flexibility you have for composing shots. A few compacts and subcompacts now feature ranges as high as 5x, enough to make a distant figure fill the frame. Through innovative design, a few super-zoom cameras, such as the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ1 and Nikon Coolpix S4, even manage to squeeze a 10x zoom into a package just a couple of ounces heavier than many basic compacts and a little bigger (or pricier) than many subcompacts. Most super-zooms are double or triple the weight of smaller cameras and cost hundreds more than the best values in compacts. (The same applies, of course, to SLRs that accept any lens.) Super-zooms also have lenses that tend to bring less light into the sensor and be less sharp. CR's take. Despite recent advances in zoom technology, you shouldn't pay extra--financially or in terms of size and weight--for a zoom range greater than 3x unless you often shoot distant subjects, such as wildlife and sporting events, or need a very wide-angle lens for landscapes or group portraits. Consider reliability Overall, digital cameras have been among the most reliable products in our subscriber surveys. Fewer than 10 percent of those purchased between 2003 and 2006 had ever been repaired or had a serious problem. That said, our latest survey (see Brand repair history) found small differences in reliability between point-and-shoot cameras and same-brand SLRs. And reliability by brand differs somewhat and might help you fine-tune your buying decision. Olympus has been among the more repair-prone brands of SLR. CR's take. It doesn't pay to buy an extended warranty for a digital camera. Check whether your credit card provides coverage. Such plans, often found on gold and platinum cards, may lengthen the original warranty by up to one year. Choose your time and place Camera prices don't fluctuate seasonally, but most new models reach the market during two periods--March through May and September through November. During those times, many older models are replaced by more capable ones that often cost about the same. You can often find street prices, availability dates, in-stock status, and return policies at the Web sites of online retailers and electronics stores. In the latest subscriber survey conducted by the Consumer Reports National Research Center, online retailers fared well in our Ratings, but if you want personal service, you might want to consider shopping in brick-and-mortar stores. CR's take. To catch the wave of the latest models, buy between May and August or November and February. During these periods, older models may be discounted before they disappear. (You can tell that a camera isn't long for this world if the manufacturer offers a limited-time rebate.) Scrutinize too-good-to-be-true offers. Some dealers use them to unload refurbished cameras. If you're comfortable with refurbished and the price is right, fine. But remember that the latest model, even without a steep discount, may be as good a value because it has more capabilities.

"I'm so impressed. This has helped me a great deal. I would love to just verify one thing. You said Image Stabilization is possible thru the use of a special lens?" Yes, some lenses have it, some don't. Some don't matter as much. My 10-22 does not have it, and it gets photos as if it did. Each lens is different. I only have one lens with IS, the 28-135, but what it basically means is you can get clear shots at lower shutter speeds (NO BLURRING DUE CAMERA SHAKE BUT BLURRING IF YOU DIDN'T NAIL THE FOCUS RIGHT), down to like 1/10 sec that you could not without it. 1/60 a sec is about the limit handheld w/o IS, but some people are steady enough and/or use a monopod and can get 1/30 and still sharp. Monopod you can get down to around 1/10. Any lower than that and you need a tripod. When you look at the lineup of Canon lenses, it says IS on the description. That means it has image stabilization. With Nikon, I think it is VR. Means the same thing. IS is almost a must if you have a long zoom lens and want to shoot say birds closeup without a tripod. JoanMn made some good comments. "Shooting pics in RAW you need to make color corrections?" Not always. It just gives you a second chance to change exposure and white balance, also does color corrections if needed. Some are not needed. "So it's not a perfect picture just by pointing and shooting with RAW?" Not usually with me, but when you have more experience and know what settings and approach to use, you up your chances of getting a perfect photo out of the camera. That is the goal. RAW just gives you a better second chance. Post processing jpgs gives you a second chance with color, sharpening, contrast, other things but will not get back lost detail. It gives an otherwise blah photo more "punch". RAW can do that but sometimes the lost detail just isn't there. "You still have to make corrections?" Most people do on photos they display on the web, those who want perfection, here I think most are posting out out of the camera shots. At small sizes, it's not such a big deal but can be. If you want really nice prints, you should tweak most of your photos but you do not have to. At the minimum, you should straighten and sharpen them. Photos out of dslr cameras tend to be soft. A little sharpening makes them look better. I sharpened my white dogwood blossoms. You can tell the difference. I did not have to shoot RAW to do that, but did have to shoot RAW if the white balance was off (I liked it the way it was) and I lost some of the detail in the bright areas. With RAW, I got most of it back. You can't do that shooting in JPG. There may be other things about it I'm not up on yet that make it more advantageous. It can be a pain because it involves some more steps in post processing, but it is worth it to me on my nicer photos. Others I don't bother, like one you want to post on ebay, proofs, quick and dirty, etc. "The photo's are beautiful and the hands on monitor pic is great. If I only understood it. But, I'm learning a bit as I go." After I saw it explained about 10 times and saw examples people posted on another forum, can't name it here, rules, I began to see the advantages. Once I started doing it, it started making some sense and I'm comfortable with it now, but haven't reached expert status. I was looooooost at first. But my experience with my little point and shoot which had some advanced features helped a lot and in no time I was shooting in aperture priority, shutter priority, and doing some night fireworks shots full manual. If you do decide to go dslr, you can get some basic settings from people, shoot in program mode just like a point and shoot and grow into the advanced features at your own pace. Some of this is advanced, and you cannot possibly be expected to understand it. You will understand it more as you see it discussed and think it over. I inundated you with too much information, but if you are thinking about a Rebel XT, those are the possibilities. One very important thing I failed to mention is that with the low noise at high ISO on the XT and mine, you can take really, really nice photos indoors without a flash. Nikon isn't quite as good that way but excels in other ways. Sometimes you need a flash anyway because the available light is just not sufficient. You get to know by practicing what you can and cannot do. The big thing with some people are concert photos. If you get the XT or a Nikon, you are not allowed to use flash in some venues, sometimes no camera at all. If you are not allowed to use a flash but are allowed to take photos, you bump up the ISO way high (advantage of Canon, silky photos at high ISO, no noise until 1600 and 3200, amazing) and get photos you simply could not get any other way. Stunning ones by those who know what they are doing with just the right lens for that situation. I chose the white blossom photo because of the white highlights, there were others I could have used for an example. I shot a race today and I did not get my exposure right and did not shoot in RAW for the action shots won't go into why, shot all the stop action shots in sports mode. Thank heaven for Photoshop. The runners are too dark because the camera metered on the whole scene, the bright buildings in the morning sun and the runners were mostly shaded. I should have chosen a mode where I could use partial metering. Now I am going to have to use the shadow highlights tool to correct most of them, shot 595 photos. You can batch process, I don't know completely how to do that, so many things to learn yet, but as far as I am concerned, CS2 was worth it just for that one tool, shadow highlights which will fix most of the keepers for me (I actually got a bunch of duds I will toss) even though you can probably do it in other programs as well. That is going to be a lot of work and is an example where you color correct even though you didn't shoot in RAW. I shot a few in RAW where there wasn't so much motion. I should have taken some trial shots, read the lcd and histogram (you want a nice mountain touching both ends if you can get it, sometimes not possible, have to compromise) and used those numbers to go full manual or something, don't know yet but will find out. I can't see those little numbers that well for one thing on the lcd or in the viewfinder, and I am not expert enough to shoot full manual a whole series of shots. Some do. There are other ways around that, and I will try to get some answers as to what I should have done from the "pros" lol. If I was able to be any help to you, I'm happy for that. Kind of a hasty response; I've been up since 5:30, and it is getting hot. Days of it ahead yet according to forecast. As you move along, you will get some "aha" moments, that's what she was talking about. That's the way it's been with me. I need some more "ahas" myself lol.

Have you analyzed your photos to figure out why they're blurry? Is it camera shake, shutter speed too slow, movement on the part of the subject, not enough light, ISO setting too low, aperture setting too high? You can learn a lot by studying the EXIF information in your images. IS is very good, but it's not a magic cure-all, and it's more expensive than non-IS. If my hands were steady, I'd use a Canon 400mm lens for bird photos instead of the Canon 100-400mm L IS lens, which costs about $450 more and doesn't produce as good an image at 400mm. Here is a photo of a little bird about 60 yards from where I was standing, taken with the 100-400. There was a wind of about 15 mph, causing the twig the bird was on to bounce up and down. The bird itself was moving, as were my shaky hands. I've kept this photo only because this was the only time I've seen this bird and I'm not likely to ever see it again. And here is a photo taken with a non-IS Canon 16-35mm L lens. The subject was not moving, there was a lot of light and I managed to get a very clear and sharp photo despite my shaky hands and slow shutter speed of 1/60 second.