RTz

That shot is... well... um... DAMN!

. .

Mike, Yes, they are addressing that problem, albeit a little expensively (and slowly). Google Nikor 12-24 and 18-200. Expensive but impressive.

Hi Dave, Probably irrelevant at this stage but I thought I'd mention it. I see some difference in our habits. I'm lazy. You're probably more of a perfectionist. I don't like fuss. I own a tripod, but hate using it... too much trouble. I don't use a camera bag... never found one that didn't require 'energy'. My camera is dusty. I don't mind, it still works well I own only two lenses... a fair, versatile zoom for everyday use and a long lens for that 'special' occasion. That said, my 'appropriate' lens is always mounted. See what I mean? I'm lazy. On the other hand, my camera is always 'ready to go'. My habits, however unimpressive they may be, allow me to have fun, focus on the moment, and quickly release the shutter

Well said. Again, well said. I typically get 500 to 600 pictures per charge... its convenient to say the least. If we're taliking about the casual user, one or two, carefully chosen lenses will cover it. Agreed. Just consider, if you use it with any regularity at all, there are some features that are worth their weight in gold. i.e., with kids, you never get any warning of what they're going to do or when. Frequently those moments are gone within 2 or 3 seconds... Some P&S's take that long just to turn on.

Maybe you guy's can help me out with something. First, for clarification, Agyandaredhead titled this "really nice digital camera". Also, I'm getting the impression that maybe he can afford somthing in the $1000 range. Here's where I need help... I've used a number of P&S's from three different manufacters (probably totaling 12-15). Every one of them had a long turn on time, eats batteries, slow focus, slow shot to shot, and lackluster metering. These are ALL things that are important to the casual user (or should be, ESPECIALLY with kids). Admittedly, I have intimate experience with only one DSLR. However, I can say without hesitation that it does a fine job in all these areas. Most DSLR's probably do. I'm not much of a photographer, but I have captured many shots with my DSLR that I could NEVER get out of a P&S. And furthur, its EAISER to use than any P&S. The ONLY advantage to a P&S is compactness and price, but thats IT. I fail to see any other reason to own one. I don't think you have to be a good photographer to appreciate a DSLR. On the contrary, I think it makes you look BETTER than you are

What about Top Gun?

Mike, Thanks for the informative post. I agree with the pixel count sentiment. With my last purchase I even went 'backwards'... going from Olympus's top line P&S (at the time C8080) with 8 MP, to the Nikon D70 with 6MP. Image quality is SO much better that you'd swear the Nikon had the MP edge. Its more than just MP. Here's where I'm going to have to dissagree with 'conventional' thinking... 90% of my pictures are taken in fully automatic. The D70 is flat out the easiest P&S camera I've ever used. The only drawback is its bulk (compared to the typical P&S). I thought this was going to bother me and that is partly what delayed my interest in a DSLR for so long. To tell you the truth, its such a delight to use, I rarely notice its larger size.

I haven't seen Roger Moore's version (I'll fix that), but Daniel Craig's is probably the best Bond movie in MANY years. Still ridiculous in many ways... even still, its a huge improvement. EFI or Carbs?

Cheers

MILF. F1 or NASCAR

Dave, Between Braap and I, we have a few of those. Here's a couple to 'feed the need'... My wife and I ran accross this unbelievably restored Piper Cub on our flight to Hood River. We talked to the owner a bit... terrific guy. He actually trained, solo'd, took his check-ride in it, and then had the humble-ness to show interest in the the Cessna we flew in! . . Braap took this one last year while we were exposing a co-worker to flight... . .

Thank You Dave, If it matters, its a Grumman Goose w/turbine conversion... taken 150 yards from my front door. Here's a shot of same plane... . I *DIG* your dragon shot. The best dragon shot I've got to date (taken with an Olympus P&S)... .

I just ordered 62 kits! Thanks for the heads-up!,

Mike, Thanks for the reality check!... I, for one, need it from time to time.

These pictures were taken by a non-professional, with a D80, no special lighting (or post processing),... and a $150 lens, (Compliments Anders Sterner) . . . .

Old news I'm sure, beginning of "Vanilla Sky", a jaw dropping, black Ferrari GTO replica, based on a Z.

PBY?

Hi cyg, In general, I agree with you, particularly on the importance of glass... BUT in my experience, Nice Nikon lenses have typically been more affordable than Cannon. Nikon's are generally considered 'easier' to use. Not necessarily important to the proffessional that shoots everyday. But, VERY important to the casual shooter. I have tried several of the point and shoots... they are all 'difficult' (to me). Don't get me wrong, I've seen some stunning pictures taken with P&S's, but it certainly takes more skill. We can argue all day about which camera is better, but here is a fact... I can take better pictures, with less fuss, and more consistency with my D70 than ANY other camera I've yet used... and I don't have anywhere near $1000 in glass.

I love my D70s... I'd buy another in a heartbeat. The newly available D80 also looks like a gem. Here are a few examples out of my D70s... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EXACTLY.

Yes. Nikon or Cannon?

Dang, I had to look up "vapid" However... well said.

Kenny, They are ALL tools, but I'm jealous, nonetheless!