I definitely won't use the RAW because I don't see myself editing photos afterwards. What about this camera?

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...&modelid=18183

It has an iso of 1600 so will be good when taking pictures at night when we go out to dinner. I can fit it in my purse when going out or my husband can put it in his pocket. I hope the image quality is good. I know it won't be as good as my DSLR, but hoping for something decent. I can get it for around $200.

If you're looking for "snapshot quality" pictures you can make 4x6 prints of or email to friends, just about any cheap digital P&S camera will work fine. But the fact that a camera has "ISO 1600" doesn't mean the pictures won't look like CRAP at ISO 1600. On pretty much ever small P&S digital camera I've seen, pictures at ISO 400 and above are extremely noisy; at ISO 1600 they are borderline terrible.

You can't take really good nighttime shots without a tripod and a professional DSLR. You can take, as I said, average "snapshot" type pictures that will look OK but certainly won't be mistaken for pictures taken by a good camera.

By the way, I too have both a little digital P&S (Canon Elph SD880, which has a wider angle lens than the SD780) and a professional quality DSLR, a Canon 5D. On my trip to Italy and Croatia last fall, I took both. I used the small one on more leisurely strolls in good light, when I didn't feel like lugging around the 5D and my camera bag or when I wanted to take video. (Or self portraits - not very easy with the 5D without a tripod!). I really like having both cameras, but for "good" pictures I almost always used the 5D.

By the way, my 5D has a "RAW + JPEG" setting whereby I can shoot both at the same time and use the JPEG most of the time but the RAW only when I want to touch up a picture. You can always simply delete the RAW files later if you are happy with the JPEG version. I disagree with the idea that you will NEVER want to edit a picture. Undoubtedly there will be some really great picture once in a while that is just a little too dark or something that you'd LOVE to touch up - and having the RAW file to fall back on gives you a much better chance to rescue it.

I also thought I'd never use RAW, so shot JPG the first couple of years I had my DSLR. I am now kicking myself. We were on a trip to Scotland during this time, I've got lots of blown out sky and clouds and lost shadow detail. The extra 4 bits of dynamic range would have salvaged a great deal of that, as I now understand.

Agree with Andrew on ISO 1600 on a small sensor P&S: don't expect quality low-light results, there will be lot's of noise. But if all you are doing is taking it to dinner and so on for snap shots, then you'll be happy with the SD780. I recommended that to a friend of mine who just did a 5-month bicycle trip. His shots were great.

I don't think the 780 has RAW.

Try the Canon G11 for a point and shoot that shoots RAW. I love my G10. Husband has a fancy Nikon professional but doesn't lug it around much. He carries around a big bag full of lenses. It's a pain in the a**. Mine is always in my purse and he's salivated over the great photos I've gotten. He wants one to keep handy for the shots he's missing. So, I'm thinking of getting myself the G11, and giving him my G10. Sweet. It's not the cheapest, though. sigh.

I really don't want to spend over $200, There has to be a good point and shoot that I can get for that price or lower. Thanks for your email though.

Take a look at the Panasonic TZ line.

I think the 780 is a very decent camera - I've played with it (I got the slightly cheaper 1200 for my Mom and have used the 1200 a bit). I like my SD880 (no longer sold) better because it's got a wider-angle lens yet still takes very decent pictures in good light. One knock on the 780 is that it is almost TOO small - the buttons may be hard for some people to deal with comfortably. The 780 is sold everywhere - do play with it for a bit before buying it. If you buy it at Costco, you have 90 days to return it for a full refund if it turns out you don't like it...

I've got an Olympus FE from a few years ago that I take with me for just those kinds of times you're talking about; it's about the size of a credit card, albeit a wee bit thicker. Most of my photos end up on DVD's or online, so this works just fine for me. Granted, it's not the quality of my dSLR, but it's a good thing to have to be able to carry around all the time (not just on trips.)

Are you familiar with the site www.dpreview.com ? It has a ton of info as well as reviews.

I ALWAYS carry two cameras when I travel - a small pocket size as well as my "main" camera. My main camera is sometimes my DSLR (Nikon, I used to have a Canon Rebel but sold it in favor of the Nikon which I like better). But actually for travel my favorite camera is my Panasonic FZ35. It's the third camera I've had in that series, that's how much I love it. It does everything the DSLR does except you can't change lenses and it's slightly slower and has an EVF. At home I do prefer shooting with the Nikon but it's quite a bit heavier and when I travel I carry the camera around with me constantly and I walk many miles a day. So weight matters. Honestly, most of the time I can't tell the difference in photo quality and I have blown up some to 16x20 size prints. And for the range (Wide angle to tele) you'd need at least two lenses.

But I always also carry a small pocket size - for years I've had a Canon, currently I have the SD870. Not only is is great to have in your pocket for pulling out quickly when the larger camera is tucked in the bag, but when you want to be really unobtrusive it's great. Also as back-up. Cameras do break. My current one does not have a viewfinder and it took a while to get used to shooting with the screen, especially since most of the time I am using a viewfinder (on the main camera) but I got used to it. Some of my best shots have turned out to be from the back up camera.

I love absolutely love photography and take hundreds of pictures when traveling. I have a Canon 20D that I love. When we went to Europe in the summer of 2008, I debated and debated whether to take my Canon or to get a smaller camera to fit in my purse. We were traveling for 9 weeks and had only carry-on luggage. After much debate, I left my 20D at home and brought the smaller camera - just to save space. The smaller camera was fine, and I got some great shots, but I really missed not having my SLR. If I had it to do over again, I would probably take both cameras and find a way to easily transport them (i.e. using my camera bag as a purse).

Regarding photography classes, I found a couple online that were inexpensive but very informative. Each week I printed off the lesson plan to review and we were given photography assignments. Then you post your photographs and communicate with the professor online. I learned a lot and I could do it at my own convenience. You might look into something like that before your upcoming trip.

Another source of help with your camera might be a local camera club. Camera club folks are generally a friendly lot. Our club is small but we have a mentor program for those who want some help. I know several other clubs have programs for those who are beginning the digital road. Our local senior center also offered a class for those who wanted help (and you didn't need to be a senior!)

If you live in the northeast go to NECCC.org (New England Camera club Council) and you will find a list of member clubs and their locations.

Re cameras: I like the Canon Powershots. Many of them have a viewfinder and take AA batteries which can be found anywhere. Check dpreview.com