Here it is in a nutshell:

My wife and I are going to SF in mid-October. Currently, she and I use a Canon SD1000 and Canon TX1, respectively. We want to take better pictures on our trip than our PaS cameras can provide.

The struggle we're both having is deciding whether to get a mirrorless model or a standard full-body DSLR.

Here's my thoughts:

• the thing that attracts us most to the micro 4/3rds and the like is the small body, which of course will be a little easier on our trip
• the DSLRs would be more full-featured, and technically take better photos
• we're complete novices to real photography, so we might not ever take advantage of those extra features on a full DSLR
• we'd like to learn more, but there's no guarantee that we'll actually get into this as a real hobby
• we won't be spending more than $600-700 on the initial investment, and I don't see us affording additional lenses for at least a year

In case it isn't apparent, I'm currently leaning towards the micro 4/3rds format due to the size of the camera and a slightly greater focus on hand-holding newbies. The front-runner for me, based on price and reviews, is the Olympus E-PL1. It's not as sturdily built as its Olympus siblings, but it has a great price tag, averaging at most places for about $540.

Better camera won't make you take better pictures

I am not even at amateur level but I would go for the smaller one too just because if you get a big one and don't want to carry it you either get no pictures or end up bringing the point and shoot.

Get a small camera!

That's absolutely true, but the fact is the better camera can take better pictures. We've maxed out on the quality we're able to get on our PaS cameras (should be POS ), so we want to trade up.

Either way we go, we're planning on learning as much as we can in the time we have before our trip, so that we'll be prepared. My best friend is an amateur photographer, and we'll be asking him for a few lessons


Agreed there. As they say, "the best camera is the one that's with you." I just think I'm unlikely to sling those bulky DSLRs with me everywhere...


That's how I'm leaning at the moment! The primary thing that's pushing us is that my wife's SD1000 is occasionally incredibly slow. We were outside a very nice college campus building last week, and she wanted to take a shot of it. Granted, it was twilight, so the camera has to work a little harder, but she literally stood there for 10 seconds with the button pressed all the way down and the camera wouldn't take the shot. Argh!

Add to this that the SD1000 takes pretty crappy low-light photos. This is, of course, one of the biggest difficulties of all these digital cameras, but her's is particularly susceptible to grainy low-light photos. With the SD1000, we have one of the smallest cameras I've ever seen, but that means a small sensor, and the automatic mode occasionally gets in its own way.

Forget 4/3. Forget Olympus. Buy a Canon or a Nikon. Not a Sony, not a Pentax. Nothing else compares and nothing else has the longevity. I realise you said you may not take it any further, but my recommendation stands at either Canon or Nikon. Buy one used if you want, it will be a terrific savings and you'll still have a good camera.

Turn off AiAF and the AF assist light in the settings if you want fast.

Then don't waste your time on the Olympus. Their P&S cameras have very few manual controls. Want a specific shutter speed or aperture? Forget it. Their "P" mode lets your pick white balance, ISO, and spot metering. Whee. Instead, they have "special scenes" settings. On top of that, they also disable features if you aren't using their brand of memory cards.

At the time I got my Olympus, they were the only ones doing a waterproof/shockproof camera, and my primary goal was to have something small to take on the river while whitewater kayaking. Canon is also now making a waterproof/shockproof camera, and although their form factor isn't quite as nice as the Olympus, I'd go that route, if I were making my purchase today.

I suppose it could carry over, but I'm not talking about their P&S cameras...

Better camera won't take better pictures but it will help you. Being able to see actually what you are getting in a picture and look through an actual viewfinder really helps you think about your shots and compose them. I really hate LCD-only digital cameras that you have to compose with the LCD on the back- it's hard to see what's in focus and it encourages you to not look very closely at what you are taking a picture of. This doesn't mean you have to get an SLR- the Electronic Viewfinder (EVF) cameras (Panasonic GHx series) are probably fine and work for a lot of people.

I think it depends on what sort of photography you do. I have a Nikon DSLR with several lenses, and still keep a PaS in the bag for when I don't want to carry the whole thing - usually when I'm biking or some such where I'm doing more casual landscapes. (I readily admit I suck at landscapes - don't know if it's my camera or my color-blind eye, but I'm guessing eye.)

But the PaS just can't take candid portraits like my 80-200 f2.8 zoom on my DSLR. Yes, it's big. It's heavy. And the pictures are great - way beyond what I can get with a PaS. The focus is fast and accurate. The wide open lens keeps the focus on the candids.

I got the best job on my kids' summer swim team using it; no "volunteer" timing or data entry for me! I just have to wander around and catch kids in the act of having fun.

-jk

Get a Canon IXUS camera. I've had one for years and could not be happier with it!

He already has one, the SD1000.

Ah, didn't see the link. The one you're looking at does have all the manual controls.

Well, get another one then!

Frankly there's no reason to! I think it's a really good P&S camera, and we'll still be taking it on our trip just to have such a tiny camera on us at all times (my wife will probably throw it in her purse when we go to dinner and things like that). But it still can't take pictures as well as any DSLR...

I wrote a long-ish document on this very topic last November.

My general advice is to get a Panasonic LX3/LX5 or Canon S90/S95.

I bought an LX3 fairly recently and have been extremely happy with it. There is a lovely tactile feeling when taking photos with it, its great. I did look long and hard at the S90 but in the end chose the Lumix with a wide 24mm Lens rather than the Canon's 28mm. The retractable lens on the Canon to actually allow you to put it in your pocket made it quite a tough decision though.

I just got the new LX5 and also was able to spend some time with an S90. The LX5's new scroll wheel on the back partly fixes the #1 usability bug with the LX3, namely the inscrutable decision of which joystick to use for what.

Comparing the LX5 to the S90, one difference immediately came out: the LX5 has a much better macro feature. The LX5 can happily shoot one inch across, while the S90 can't go much smaller than two inches.