so..uh... Nikon wins.. hands down.

I think its hard to find a camera that takes bad pictures, you don't need an expensive SLR, I've seen brillant night shots even from point-and-shoot cameras.

Here's some cool pics I took during my Ireland trip a couple weeks ago on a point-and-shoot Canon.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7366949@N06/sets/72157604324814573/

Although its near impossible to mess up shots like these.

Hope this isn't a thread hijack, but since DigitalDud mentioned it, is there any consensus on a good low to mid end point and shoot camera? I'll be travelling this summer and would like to take some pictures. Preferably under $250 or so.

The new Sony A350 is getting good reviews, for an entry-level SLR.

http://www.anandtech.com/digitalcameras/showdoc.aspx?i=3274

Nikon's are great stuff...

Nikon CoolPix P5000

http://www.flickr.com/photos/obiwantoby/2306353501/in/set-72157604029861924/

seeing as thread got brought back up... do i still like the nikon?

yes

its harder - but more... perfect

a friend got the new canon - and it is impressive

i dont even think it matters anymore

if you have a canon, nikon or pentax - so long as its slr (focus) these days... = fine

edit: ..i make a point of using the defaults on things... the nikon has been good 

jamie wrote:

edit: ..i make a point of using the defaults on things... the nikon has been good 

That's unfortunate.  You can't get the most out of any SLR (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, whoever) if you keep the camera on the defaults all the time.  If you're going to do that, get a point-and-shoot.

Yeah defaults on SLRs = bad...

the % of time you actually need to switch shutter speeds (ie ata race or at night..) is so minimal

what is important  - is can you turn on the camera and get a fast pic - with depth of focus

all the new slrs will do this

maybe all are no muss no fuss

but the nikon is good (so long as you can focus)

edit: slr/autofocus/IS =couch potato photographers... with quality! you cant stop them ha

This is from my $150 SLR wanna-be taken 5 minutes ago in zero light on about 6x zoom.

Not bad, or can you really tell it's a $150 camera?

well ya you can.. its just the focus

basically all small cameras take pics of things ...flat

SLR just means... depth /  burred BG but focus on object...

* sometimes you wish you could get flat on them though

jamie wrote:

* sometimes you wish you could get flat on them though

You can.  Reduce the aperture (to a larger f-number).  That's why you can't get the most out of an SLR when just using the defaults.

I keep my D40 in aperture-priority mode most of the time (the A on the mode dial).  This means that I have control of aperture (essentially giving me control of depth-of-field) while the camera still meters and adjusts shutter speed to make sure the image is properly exposed.  A larger f-number gives you a larger depth of field (it flattens the image out so what's in the background isn't as blurry).

(Never thought I'd be teaching Jamie about DSLR use )

..i think we should ask Della..

 

OK, How about this cameras pictures?

SHould I really be thinking of upgrading to a better camera, will I be able to see a big difference in picture quality? This was taken with a Kodak Z712 IS

 

its up to you (if that isnt SLR)

you either go flat - pocket/quick .. or SLR = bigger / lenses ..

but with slr you get depth of field - way better results - and - with a 300mm lens - can zoom way way way in

Ok, thanks.

Not sure if I understand exactly, but the premise is that a nice SLR will give me noticably better pictures... ?

urmmm... YES

Great!

And here are some from my Canon SLR