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"

What Smitty says is true. I would just add that the problem of your camera's software being incompatible with your pc isn't a consideration anymore. Just make sure the camera you purchase stores the pictures (files) on a little card, like an sd or sm. Then you need no software to move the pics to your computer if you have a 3 in 1 or 5 in 1 card reader on your computer -- I have it on my hp printer! Most os's will have the ability to transfer the files from the card to your computer's hard drive. Then you can use imaging software, such as photoshop, to edit your photos. I just use the stuff that comes with my hp printer, which is very limited, and cannot change the file size as he mentioned above.

Hi,
don't lose youreself on megapixels with compactcamera's so don't go higher then 6 megapixels,
why? more pixels gives 'noise' (sorry if this is not the correct term, my english is not that good) that is why 4 or 5 megapixels is even better and i know that some will argue on that and manufacturers remain silent aout it, if you go for a professional camera (but you don't) they compensate that with technology so less problems there.
As said go for a "real" brand like canon nikon sony etc. panasonic is also good.
Canon is said to be the most user friendly.
I have an 'older' canon a75 and has about 3 megepixels,
to post here on the forum even i have to resize the pictures.
Good Canon choises are a540, a510 and a530, and are in you're budget.(if mine would break down i would buy one of those)
links to reviews;
http://www.steves-digicams.com/default.htm
http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.digitalcamera-hq.com/canon-digital-cameras-ratings.html
http://www.dpreview.com/misc/links.asp

Andrea has a Canon A530 and I recently bought one. I found the only difference between A530 and 540 was the size of prints you can do. Even the salesperson said the manual is dry though. I hate manuals. Good luck.

Carla

The Canon A540 has 6 megapixels and A530 has 5.

"Canon A540 has 6 megapixels" oeps then go for A530

Susan,
I have been watching newer cameras and am particularly interested in the image stabilized ones. The Canon S2 (and S3) IS as well as Sony H1 are my favorites at this point. I rejected the Panasonic FZ30 after seeing a group of iris pics with poor color trueness. (this could be the photographer).

Last year I bought the Canon A95 and haven't adjusted to the stiffness of the shutter button compared to my old Olympus C-3030. Its menu is friendlier. Wish I'd been patient and bought its successor, the A620. The Canon has better peach shades (roses and iris) but the Oly is better on certain lavenders (iris). Both have been fine on people.

I think this Highly Recommended list at dpreview is most helpful. Link attached. Good luck.

So sorry for taking so long to acknowledge all of your wonderful responses to my original question. I read them all shortly after you posted them, but I have about six projects going on currently, so haven't had time to respond. I had already done a lot of research on cameras before posting this question, then on Saturday, we went to CompUSA and played with a bunch of cameras. I was really taken by the little compact fellas, like the Canon Powershot 450 and 550. I also liked the Sony Cyber Shot 70. After that, I came home and read more camera reports like crazy. I'm still leaning towards the Canon 450, but I need to go back and really futz with the buttons to make sure they're not too small. The only difference between the Canon 450 and 550 is 5.0 megapixels vs. 7.1 megapixels. I think I'll be fine with 5, since I have no intention of blowing pics up above 8 X 10, and would probably never even do that. My old Kodak DC280 has 2 megapixels, and I have taken some amazing shots with it, so I think 5 megapixels will suit me just fine. I don't need or want a bunch of true photograpic bells and whistles in terms of settings. I did realize that I can still input my photos from the old camera to the new computer, but it seemed like a good opportunity/excuse to upgrade. After all, it has been six years. ;-)

One of the things I really liked about my old camera is that it came with Adobe Photo Deluxe, which is/(was?) a junior version of Photo Shop. I am very familiar with it, and hope I can find something similar in its ease of use.

And while the new cute little battery is small in the new cameras, I sorta liked the fact that I could carry a coupla four-packs of Costco AAs as a backup to my rechargeable AAas with the old camera on the road. And could also loan them to friends whose batteries ran out. Ah well...modern world and all. ;-) I'll just have to buy an extra rechargeable battery for the new cam. I hear they're a bit pricey.

I have well over 2000 photos taken with the old dig cam in my files, and am very familiar with sizing and sending them via email and posting to the gallery.

One of the things that I'm hoping will improve is the color for some roses. Whites are particularly problematic with the old camera (what Harry said). I think/hope the new cameras will be better with this.

I'll let you know what I decide on...it probably won't be until the weekend. DH works nights, and I want him to okay my final decision! Thanks ever so much for all of the great info!

Susan

Susan, it sounds like you've done your homwork very well, but let me add one more thing.

You speak of carrying extra batteries. My Kodaks use 2 AA Nimh batteries, they cost more than "regular batteries". BUT, I invested into a small 4-battery Nimh charger for about $10 and I have purchased additional Nimh (nickel metal hydryid) batterys for use in instances like you described.

Both of my Kodaks fit into a "docking" device and uploading pictures to the computer is simple as pressing one button.

Also, while in the dock, the batteris are recharged. While these combination works well, I found that the Nimh recharable batteries didn't last as long as I wanted.

So, at WalMart, I found a one-piece dual battery than lasts much longer and recharges in the dock just like the conventional Nimh batteries. It was only $9 for this better battery. I bought one for each of my Kodaks.

In short, if you take a lot of pix, it is well worth the modest investment to get rechargable batties and you can be prepared at any time and save money in the long run.

There are numerous methods of connecting to the computer with the camera, but I have found the dock to be a great convienece.........

good luck,
Smitty