Jitz wrote:
I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and
I've never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega
pixel, I always use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and
shoot." The colors seem OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.

I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and
mostly take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering
cameras such as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.

My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is
the picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up
to a digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd
rather not spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus
the manual options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is
that much better, it's a fai trade-off.

Thanks in advance.

Jeff

In short: You don't need a SLR. There is nothing you listed that you
want that requires a SLR. In fact, I suspect, you would not be happy with
an SLR. While I have one and I believe it is best for me, I am not you, our
needs, willingness to put a lot of work into a photo and skills are
different.

First make sure you are doing the best with what you have. Find someone
who can evaluate your results and see if they can spot places where you may
be able to improve results with your current camera. You might also try
visiting your local camera shop and try the non-SLR camera of your-their
choice and see what kind of results you can get.

I don't know what your acceptable quality threshold is, but I would
guess you may find that with a little help you may find you can do a good
job with what you have.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math