I use a Canon Power ShotS50 with a 256MB Flash Card. I love it.

One nice thing is that it's black, instead of silver and that if you put black electrical tape over the writing that identify it as a Canon, so it's not as attractive to thieves. (This is a tip I read somewhere, to cover anything that identifies your camera as a name brand camera, because thieves like to go after name brands and if they don't see a name they recognize then they think it's generic).

so, you're saying the SD550 is better than the S2? What zoom does it have? I saw the SD450 for $269 but it is only3X optical. Any real reason to have 7.1 instead of 5 pixels (I think that's what the S2 has)?

Frankly I'm worried more about losing the camera than having it stolen. I lost a good one (pre digital) at Ephesus. Don't ask how. It wasn't stolen, I set it down and walked away -- long story.

I'm trying to figure a thief getting close enough to my camera to check it out and not being smart enough to either remove the tape or figure out what kind it was.

flygirl, I can't find a Canon SD550 on their website. You don't mean an SD540?

Duh, never mind. I did find it, but it only has a 3X optical zoom. I really do want more than that.

I'd be careful with the zoom. my last camera had more of a zoom (I can't remember the number, maybe 7? possibly 11?) and the higher zooms were usually blurry. more chance of camera shake. you may be better off with less zoom and more megapixels.

others may differ on this view though.

All 4 members of our family have Canon cameras in the Elph series, and I couldn't be happier with them. I like the pictures my 4mp camera takes better than those of my husband's 5mp. His is much smaller, but I can tuck mine into just about any pocket.

I am a huge fan of Canon optics. We also have a Canon printer and a Canon scanner, not to mention my Canon film camera.

The Canon I'm talking about has "Optical Image Stabilizer". The reading I've done suggests it really eliminates the problem you're talking about flygirl, but I think what you say USED to be true.

Meanwhile I know that on my old camera, it seemed I could have left my zoom on full -- I like taking "closeups" from far away.

Another odd question. I just bought a new HP 2575 Printer Scanner Photosmart. Is any camera going to be more of a problem than another using this printer? Someone suggested that if I stick with an HP camera, I may have better printing results and it will be easier. True or not true?

I've been playing with a Panasonic Lumix LX-1...what a fantastic camera.

It has the option of 3 different ratios (image sizes), from wide 16:9 to 3:2. Great resolution at 8+ megapixels, and is extremely compact. It's perfect for traveling light.

Dpreview has a great review of it here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx1/

Neopolitan, I'm not any kind of expert, but it doesn't make sense to me to buy a camera around the printer. I personally replace my printer more often than my camera. So many things go into a good photo, and the camera is a big part of it. Someone I trust said to get a camera made by a company that makes cameras, and I'd have to agree.

I agree with the above post...forget the printer. It's cheaper to have your prints made at someplace like Wal-Mart or Costco. And they won't fade like the ones from a home printer will...and believe me, they will fade.

That's interesting. I'm no expert either and have never had a digital camera. I'm not sure I'll figure out half the stuff of downloading and printing, etc, when I get one.
But just today a guy who knows quite a lot about them said "while most digital cameras are made by camera companies that have had to change their technology to digital, HP is a company that developed its cameras from scratch based totally on digital technology." He doesn't have an HP -- his various cameras are all way high end and he loves Canon. But somehow that seemed to make sense. Maybe not.

I haven't looked at HP cameras, but his comment made me think -- especially if using an HP photosmart camera with an HP photosmart printer will make the whole thing a lot easier for a dummy like me.

Neopolitan, the S2 is 5MP plus the extra little zoom.
Flygirl. the reason you are getting blurry is because of shake or digital zoom. Digital zoom is WORTHLESS.
The downloading of digital pictures is done by the camera's software--a no brainer. You can do a lot more, but it is still a no=brainer.

Neopolitan...I make a good portion of my living shooting travel stock. An HP camera is the LAST model I'd choose.

And to daisy58...3 years is actually a fairly long life for these new digitals. They aren't like film cameras that you kept forever.

Whatever you buy will be obsolete in 6 to 9 months! That doesn't mean you shouldn't use it. But that's how it is, unfortunately.

Neopolitan...upon further thought, an HP camera is probably a re-badged Fuji, Sony or Panasonic model. So it may not be bad. But I'd avoid it all the same...especially when other "name" brands are in the same feature & price range.

OK, good. One less thing to muddy the waters. I'm not even looking at HP.

To be honest, the more I read, there are times when I'm ready to ditch the whole digital idea and just keep my regular old point and shoot which gives me wonderful pictures. I mainly only use a camera for my long trips, usually develop them and put them in an album. I'm not for sharing them a lot, or posting them on the internet or emailing them. And if I still have to take the card to a place and have them printed if I want them to last, then I'm not sure why I need a digital -- especially if it's only going to last me two or three trips. Tell me again, why I should spend several hundred dollars for a new camera and pay even more to develop them than film for my intended use of the thing?

It's not more expensive to have prints made from digital than from film. And you can choose which prints you want to have made. With film, you're stuck with the whole roll, plus you pay developing costs which are rising all the time...mainly because fewer & fewer people are using film.

But, no, there's absolutely nothing wrong with using a film camera. I still use an Olympus Epic right along side my DSLRs.

The advantage -- you can take many shots that are experimental and see which ones come out. The ones that don't you aren't stuck developing. I shot hundreds and will delete quite a few from my last trip. Others I may save on my CD, but not ever print.

I love my Canon A620. It has more bells and whistles than I really need so I still use it as a point and shoot most of the time. But when I take the time to use the many features, I'm amazed at the great pictures I get. Take advantage of the stitch feature. It makes for incredible panoramic pics.

something else I found out which is intriguing - the new Palm Pilots use the SD cards (maybe the old ones do, not sure) and you can pop your SD card (if you use Canon that is) into it, and view your photos right there. the screen is a lot bigger so you can get a better idea of how they look, right there on your trip.

ps. Gretchen - exactly! that is what it was. optical is the way to go. but I still think more megapixels is better, assuming it is a good camera to begin with of course.