That's right. I'm a slightly technologically challenged person, and I don't have a blog.

Maurice -- Thanks very much for your recs. The dimensions of the camera are a bit larger than the 550 and I care about that. That is sort of why I'm not too happy with the 550. But I have always liked Canons. Another reason I'd prefer the 550 is that your camera is heavier (weight on the linked website is pre-battery). I also care about a very light camera.

If I can figure out how to post photos here using imageshack...believe me, anybody can.

I just posted my questions, tried it, trial and error, more questions...and eventually I got it.

This sounds like a potentially restaurant-friendly camera.

this one, i might buy. (i havent been looking at all the posts..maybe its already mentioned here..by another name? canon changes product names across the pond) so compact...got everything i need in the right places.

one interesting feature...metal body. i have a metal fetish when it comes to cameras. they'll last forever and can handle rough use.

FB -- I had that camera before, and liked it. I'm going with the Canon SD-550. A little bit bulkier, but slightly more megapixels.

I just upload using battery power - it's very fast. Camera comes with the cable that goes right into a USB port.

don't all cameras have such an interface? my stone-age kodak certainly does. and with windows xp i don't need proprietary camera software to view and evaluate images before transferring them.

that's not what i want a card-reader for anyway. the reason to get a card reader would be if transferring the images from the camera to the computer drains the batteries faster. it does on my kodak, but for that i have an ac adapter so i don't need to use the batteries. rather than shell out for an ac adapter it seems smarter to buy a card reader that plugs into a desktop or laptop's usb port and reads the images directly from the card.

as per omni, transfers don't impact the batteries too much, but i'm not sure how true that would be for 1 gig of downloads at once (after a long trip, for example). i'll check it out for a month or so and decide later if i need the card reader.

Are you planning to use rechargable batteries?

My camera has to be on in order to upload.

My card reader costs about $15. I bought it at the same time I bought the camera, at the store. I recommend it highly.

If you get a card reader, you can use the card to store files other than pictures. And if you get one for work and one for home you can transfer files that way.

I never bothered to install the Canon software. If you have Windows XP, you don't really need it to unload and file the photos. I use Picasa for editing, cropping, etc.

I'm having a problem downloading pictures from my camera. I've been using my A610 for 9 months or so and this has never happened before. Using a card reader, I tried to load the pix onto the computer as usual but got a message that the program (the file number of the folder containing the pix) was not responding. I re-formatted the card, took new pix, same thing happened again. The pictures can be reviewed as usual on the LCD. Does anyone have any idea of what's going on and how to correct it?

[later] I was able to download the pix directly from the camera, using the cable rather than the card reader. Can I assume the problem is with the card reader?

Well, at a potluck someone accidently grabbed my beloved Canon A620 with a 1Gig card inside. Boo Hoo! I am sure it was an accident but what the hell do I do? Has there been a major new release since this camera? I've discovered I do need the extra pixels, not just for vanity. It wouldn't kill me to have two cameras but should I get the same or is there something new to consider?

fucking larcenous farmers.

they have a whole host of new ones in the powershot a line. however, the good news for you (and bad news for me) is that the last i checked amazon, the a620 was as a result down to $215.

The A700 is the latest in the A-series, but it has fewer megapixels than the A620. (Larger LCD.)

Extra pixels are generally only necessary for larger prints.

Or the card.

The next was the A700, but it doesn't have the swivel screen and it does have a smaller sensor, I believe. Most people over at dpreview seem to thinkg the A6x0 is better. Canon will be coming out with some new cameras toward the end of the month, but I don't have any details.

Nothing was wrong with either the card or the reader, it turned out. I had simply pushed the "lock" button on the card in the wrong direction.

I've promised Mongo a bean poster and I know he'd just be sick if I didn't come through!
Actually the county wants to use some of my beanfield shots as big blow ups. But 6 mp sounds just fine. I also like the the low light shooting (although the A620 was wonderful for that), but the flip out LCD was brilliant and I don't know if I could live without that.

Crossed with this. I think this just about clinches things, especially if I can get it for close to $200.

$225 right now, with free shipping. bastards.

$214 at Pricegrabber.

zinnnnnnnnnnnnng!

I'm getting a Canon EOS 30D, but haven't decided on the lens yet.

Canon A620 + 1 Gig card + shipping = about $231.

newegg.com

My ex just gave me an intense education in cameras and lenses, and effectively dissuaded me from getting the EOS with this Sigma lens I was looking at.

I went for the Nikon D200 (10MP) with an 18-200mm Vibration Reduction lens, which gives a full four f-stops lower (or higher, I forget how they word it), making it an incredibly fast lens. It's also very lightweight, and he says is the only lens I will ever need. This is very good: not having to change lenses means only having one set of filters, and not getting dust in the body from swapping them off and on.

It's the camera my wedding photographer friend uses, and she raves about it.

I had thought I really wanted a good macro lens, and the Sigma was tempting (and cheaper)...but in the end, am keeping my Canon Powershot Pro 1, and its macro is great.

I wonder how hard it's going to be to learn Nikon. I've had Canons since 2001.

I'm sort of in shock, but good tools pay for themselves, and I really need to be able to photograph food in low-lighting situations.

Whoa, though, I wasn't expecting to do this today.

by all accounts that i've heard, the nikon d200 is a great camera. congratulations!

I want to report that I have not yet bought the DSLR. I decided to wait until the fall. Other new toys to play with at the moment.

Itching to get a new pocket camera. Thinking about a new Panasonic (Panasonic DMC-LX2S).

It's 10 mp, but what I *really* like about it is that it has ISO settings all the way up to 1,200, which theoretically means that it could do very well in low light situation (i.e. dark restaurants.) The previous incarnation of this camera also had a twin re-skinned and sold by Leica, who also makes the lens.

I've never had any experience with Panasonic cameras before. Has anyone? What's your impression?

As much as I loved my Sony, it died on me, telescoping lens stopped opening 2 months after warranty went out. Thank goodness for Amex double warranty, otherwise I'd be out $330.

So I'm looking again, 10 mp is damn exciting, although $500 is a touch much (we already have a Canon EOS, need a pocket backup). I want to blow up my best shots poster size now and again, and 10mp is getting there (although maybe not quite there yet).

Take my word for it, from my recent research. When it comes to blowing up a photo to print. there is NOT a discernible difference between eight and twelve megapixels. I read this over and OVER recently, in photo sites galore.

If you are going for an all-in-one package, what is your budget? And what are your desires? I have a new understanding of lenses, especially ones that let light in with low light.

Your needs may vary. Are you indoorsy or outdoorsy? Close or far?

Lots of questions!

at 1200 iso, the image will be too grainy...esp in low light situations.

eta for tana: 18-200mm is ridiculous. considering that there is focal length magnifier is above 1.xx, the wide angle is virutally useless for you in dslr..unless of course, your nikon comes without a focal length magnifier. the general rule, in my book only, that is, is that anything over 3x wideangle for it's zoom will result in inferior quality images. the image stabiliser or whatever it is that it is called for nikon helps..but only in AF mode. i cannot believe you bailed on canon!!! bleh to nikon!!

can you exchange your 18-200 for a couple of primes. it sucks that you changed to nikon as all of your canon lenses will be incompatible. seriously tho'..good luck.

Thanks for the questions!

Not really a budget, but a target, of around $350 or less. Could afford more, but I look at it as a short shelf life, in 3 years, something else will just blow it away.

When I talk about blowing up, I'm talking poster size. 2 feet by 3 feet. Surprised that 8 mp does the trick.
The desire is travel pictures, so the ability to zoom is important, and there are often wider angle shots. But portraits too. Close up, like food shots, is the least important.

Portability is key. I loved the shape of my Sony, it was sort of oblong and fit into my pants pocket like a cell phone. It was better than a thinner but wider/longer camera for "pocketing".

Are there any sites that discuss the reliability of the moving parts? VERY DISAPPOINTED in my Sony giving up the ghost after 15 months of use. It didn't get that much use.

Thanks again for the help; the research I did 18months ago is like last millenium's info now.

I wouldn't buy a digital camera without checking the reviews on dPreview.
In addition to extensive reviews, there are forums for discussion by users of all the popular cameras. You can get a very good idea of any potential problems as well as strengths of various camera models. It helps narrow your choices considerably.

My currnt pocket camera goes up to 400, and is extremely sensitive to hand movement (I couldn't be arsed to do table tripod -and it wouldn't fit in my itty bitty evening bag so there. ) With lots of doctoring I get images like these..



This one has gone through lots and lots of Photoshop doctoring to get here. The original image was just too dark to see hardly anything. This shot was taken at Roellinger in Bretagne, a moderately well lit restaurant by US standards.

Here's another one.


The shot is from the Fat Duck, a brilliantly lit dining room by US standard. It also went through a bit of Photoshop to increase the brightness, it's still a little yellow I know, but this was done before I learned what White Balance is )

These two images were taken with my Sony DSC T1, with a tiny Zeiss lens -not a particularly good camera, nor lens, in low light situation. I'm trying to find a new one that will at least give me more in the raw images that I could work on with Photoshop later. I thought that the higher ISO, like at 800, and with some stabilizing help from the camera (which the Panasonic I am eyeing claims to do) I could get the raw images to have a bit more details, and at 10mp, even if they came out grainy I could likely reduce the size to 400-500 px wide and get better images for the blog than I currently could with my Sony.

Yes? No?

I care less about what the camera will cost, am more interested in finding the best (and smallest) one for the job.

What say you Your Souless One? (And other experts please feel free to jump in.)