A similar thing happened to my Cybershot--it happened about a year and a half after I got it. I took it to a Sony repairshop, where it would have been $225 to get a new video card and shutter since it was out of warranty.

I just got a Canon Powershot Digital Elph and I love it.

No problem. I felt sort of responsible, since I'd posted links to the sites before I learned that they were scams.
As far as personal camera experiences, I got a Canon A95 from a local camera shop and have been generally happy with it. I sometimes lust after higher-end equipment, but this is apparently normal for photographers. :) Although I ended up paying a little more than I would have online, their customer service was great and I like supporting small businesses.

Yeah, I've admired the Panasonic Lumix. IIRC, the lenses are made by Leica, which has an excellent reputation. (Leica's own digital cameras are very pricey.) However, if I upgraded to a higher-end digital camera, I think I'd like an SLR with detachable lenses (e.g., telephoto, wide angle, etc). AFAIK, this isn't an option with the Lumix cameras. So I'd guess that I'd probably end up with a Nikon or Canon if I upgraded.

great insight all!

>>The best time to get a digi camera would be day after Thanksgiving, if you can beat the crowds. You usually get some good rebates/discounts that you can't get the rest of the year.

The sales have begun already though-it's nuts. I'm definitely going to the store to check things out and buying online. The deals are out there. They've got free shipping going on at the places I've been checking out online in addition to extra packages for free like camera cradles and stuff.

I'm also looking for a new digital camera. I currently have The Olympus D-520 ZOOM 2.0 MP Camedia camera. (haha, I don't know what it's called so I just listed everything on the camera).

I got this as a HS graduation gift in '02, and while it was great at the time, it's... not so great right now. It's a bit bulky and only takes pictures when it feels like it. If I'm in very bright light it works great, but in iffy lighting it might not take at all or I'll have to stand there for 30 seconds waiting for it to take. VERY annoying when taking a group pic. It also eats up battery like crazy.

What I'm looking for:

- SMALL size (my friend has a digicam that she stores in an altoids box)

- takes CLEAR pictures in ANY lighting (not just outside in bright light)

- it'd be great if you could turn off the flash, not sure if any digicams let you do that

- not too many settings -- I take a lot of digital pictures but I dont know a ton about photography. However, right now mine only has zoom.

- not too expensive

any suggestions?

I just wanted to comment on the flash comment... most current digital cameras will let you take images without the flash... There is one problem with this... the way that digital cameras work, you will have to hold the camera extremely still... Usually when I do them, I will end up having to take 5 or so images very still to get one that isn't fuzzy (my hands are not steady no matter how much I try)... In addition, many of them will not have the quality without the flash, because of the sensitivity of the chip...

The point of my comment is that if the camera picks up enough light on its own to not use the flash... then that is fine... but otherwise I suggest using the flash...

As for a small camera, I use a Canon Powershot SD-10... It usually runs about $350 and is 3.6 x 1.9 x 0.7 in... it also it 4.0 mega pixels... Its one real limitation is it does not have optical zoom only digital (this can cause quality issues if you are trying to greatly zoom in)... Overall, I love this camera... To give a size comparison, it is about the same size as my ipod mini... Also when I bought it, it came with a leather carrying case...

Have you tried also manipulating the ISO? (Uh, what does that stand for? Shutter speed? Film Speed? Something...) Anyway, I take a lot of pictures in natural light using ISO 400 and no flash, and it works great on my digicam. The pictures usually come out way better than if I had used the flash (which would have washed out the subjects).

On the other hand, if I want to take a picture of something in darkish light, I take the ISO down to 100 or 50 and do it without the flash. I've found that leaning against a pole or wall while taking the shot helps to cut down on the shakiness.

Sorry for the completely non-technical explanations: this is just what I've learned from trial-and-error on my digicam.

I do entirely know what you mean... but the person asking the question said she didn't want many settings to adjust, so for the general sense not using the flash it doesn't work well...

The reason I wanted the option to not use the flash was that when I try to photograph shiny items or some of my paintings I get a glare from the flash. I'd rather have the option to light them with an outside light source and then take the picture without a flash.

However, most of the time I would use a flash.

I don't want an overly complicated camera but could learn to use one with more settings/buttons/whatever than mine does now.

If you really want to shoot in low light without flash, you might want to consider using a tripod. What seems to be happening is that your camera is using a wider aperture and slower shutter speed to compensate for the light. This makes it a lot more sensitive to camera shake.

One possibility might be "scene modes," if the camera has them. There are a number of options that the user can set, like "nighttime", "landscape", etc.