I am quite happy with my new Olympus E-600. It isn't that sort of camera that you brag about in your photographer friends party, but I was looking for a good all rounder, since sometimes I do photos for anthropological research and most of the time can't fiddle with lenses and setting in the middle of some event. Overall I am quite happy about this Olympus, it works well on auto, although for macro shots I have to change ISO sometimes so I can shoot without flash. But if I set ISO lets say on 800 beforehand, I can just go on and not bother looking at the setting. It has very basic screen, which I prefer over all the teletuby screens of more "lifestyle" cameras. Screen setting are rather readable, simple font instead of the all fancy buttons. Also I like that it is not too heavy and I can hold it well without too much hand shaking (which is a problem if you shoot whole day), as well as I find it comfy for smaller female hand, so I have a good grip on it. Besides that, it does night shots really well on night shot setting (there is just usual turning wheel, not an interactive menu to switch between auto, macro, night, action, etc.). It may be not what you are looking for, but you might want to try it out at least. :)

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"

Irish, if you take pictures for a living, I think you can call yourself a photographer. :-) Briefly, you've been using a compact P&S. I think you would do better with a camera that has a wide-angle lens and good low-light capability. I've seen some gorgeous images with the Panasonic LX3 and hear great things about it all the time, but unfortunately the price has been rising. Also, it has no viewfinder (only an LCD screen), but that might not be a problem for you. (It is for me.) Another possibility is one of the super-zooms. One of the best of these is the Panasonic FZ28, soon to be replaced (next month, I think) by the FZ35. This lens starts out as a wide-angle, but has a very long zoom so you can get good results far from your subject. It has an electronic viewfinder, which I like. Another good camera is the new Pentax X70. It's producing some excellent images, but it, too, has no viewfinder. Unfortunately, the super-zooms aren't noted for their low-light performance. But you could try one and see if it does what you need it to do. The price range on the models I mentioned is $300-400. The last time I looked, Amazon was selling the Pentax for $319. If you go up to a DSLR you're going to paying in the $1,000-and-up range, depending on how many lenses you'll need. Hope this helps. Susan

Although I am currently only working as an advanced amateur shooting for my own purposes, way back in the late 60's while in the Air Force I was professionally trained as a "Still Photographic Specialist" and I worked as a professional photographer for a short time after I got out of the Air Force in 1972. I principally shoot Pentax invented the through the lens pentaprism viewfinder and they were the first company to make cameras with a built in light meter. At the time Nikon was makng the Nikon F, which is unquestionably one of the finest camera ever made, but the Nikon F did not have a built in light meter, Instead they had an optional viewfinder that had the light meter built into the viewfinder and with the optional viewfinder it was designated the Nikon F Photomic. Canon was still making some world class rangefinder cameas but they had not yet got into the SLR market. From 1966 until 2006 I had amassed a collection of 21 ranging from an 16mm fisheye to a full 1,000mm that weighs in at nearly 32lbs including the dedicated wooden tripod that came with it. Pentax lenses, so when I decided to upgrade to Digital I chose a Pentax camera because Pentax has reverse engineered their digitals so we can still use all of our lenses. Needless to say, I am fully comfortable with a totally manual camera, although I do appreciate the conveniences of modern technology. As a sideline, I have been teaching a free photography class at our local senior center for about a year, and as you might imagine I hear your question quite often. First off, let me make it perfectly clear. Just buying a professional camera will no more make you a better photographer than what buying a stethoscope would make you a nurse. Before you buy a camera you have to stop and think about what you intend to do with it. If all you need is a camera to take good high quality scenics and family album type photos then I would not recommend the expense of a true DSLR. Professoinal photographers need a DSLR because they need to select lenses for the type of photography they perform. By example, a news photographer needs a fast normal lens and generally a moderately long telephoto, whereas a sports or wildlife photographer needs super long telephoto lenses while a scenic photographer needs super wide angle and a portrait or fashion photographer needs normal and short tele lenses and a nature or forensic photographer would need macro lenses for super closeups, while a laboratory photographer might need a microscope adapter for their camera. While that Nikon D3100 package is a very good deal, you must keep in mind that it is an entry level DSLR and while it does have enough automation that you can basically take it out of the box and use it as a point & shoot while your learning, but if you decide to really get into serious photography within a year or so you will begin to see its limitations. Basically that camera has different modes, which means you can select Full Automatic mode, Portrait Mode, Scenic Mode, Sports mode, etcetera and the camera will make the necessary adjustments to meet the need of the mode selected. It should also have a manual mode so as you advance it will work with you. For a true beginner making the initial switch from basic Point & shoot to a more sophisticated camera I would advise you to consider what the industry now calls a "Bridge Camera". (In fact, I bought a bridge camera as a backup camera). Generally the bridge cameras have the same basic shape and size as a DSLR and many of the advanced control features but instead of interchangable lenses they have a super zoom lens and they cost much less. By example, Walmart carries a number of bridge cameras from Nikon, Canon, Fugi and Kodak. My personal choice was the Kodak Easyshare z981, which has 14mp resolution and a 26x zoom lens(equivalent to a 26 to 676mm zoom.) It has a 3" display on the back of the body and it will shot both stills and video,and it has all the modes that you will have on that Nikon. All for a mere $238 plus you will have to buy a memory card separately. Another great bridge camera is the Canon Powershot SX30-IS. It has a 35x optical zoom and sells for $350. One word of caution. 200 to 250mm is about the longest lens that you can successfully use as a hand held camera. I would strongly suggest if you buy a camera that exceeds 200mm or 8x you will need a tripod too. Having said all of that, no matter what camera you choose, in the beginning you will feel a bit awkward until you get the feel of it. If you run into situations you don't understand or you have photos that you would like constructive criticism I would invite you to post them in the photography forum and their are a number of very knowledgable ppl that will help you along as you learn.