This is the camera I have. I love it. The manual options are limited to "film speed" [100, 200, 400, 800 etc], white balance and a few other things, but otherwise it is amazingly good, and the size of a pack of cards. The 3" LCD screen is boss.

If you're looking for something that has more manual options and is still digital, you probably want a digital SLR, but those are probably out of your price range...

I was looking at a Kodak camera in Dixons the other day (no way am I buying from Dixons, but they love to show you stuff in there) and it looked pretty businesslike, with a big lens on it, lots of options to change things manually or automatically. I forgot to get the details of it but it was about £300. I don't want a camera that looks like a little metal box, I want one that looks like a camera.

Oh, ok. I wasn't sure on that. Thanks for the clarification. I cannae offer nae more help though.

Thanks, scirius. It's looking at the pics weretable took at the azalea festival that's made me want to take something more than snapshots, although it'll take me a lot of practice to get to anything like his quality of picture.

That's the beauty of digital cameras, though, because I won't have to spend money on developing pictures, so I'm more likely to keep practising.

Probably any one of these will be the type of thing I'll choose, but I'd like to know which ones people would recommend, and why.

I like the label 'prosumer', that seems to sum up what I'm after.

Firstly get a camera with optical zoom (ignore digital zoom, it's a con). You'll find you're much more likely to get the results you want when you can use a zoom.

My camera is a Canon A80. I'm in no way a camera geek but I think the results I get are pretty good. If you want to get more technical with that camera you can - if you want to just point and shoot, you can do that too. The downside is it's a bit bulky and has a face only a mother could love. If you want small and pretty then maybe try Canon's Ixus range (but you pays extra for pretty).

See, I need help, I have no idea what the difference is between optical or digital zoom. The picture you took of the chain on the deck of the Cutty Sark, dodge, is fab and is miles and miles away from the photos I took at Greenwich a few weeks ago, which looked like they'd been taken by my old Kodak Instamatic 126. When I went for the 'artistic' shot, it looked like crap.

There are so many good cameras out there right now I wouldn't sweat it too much. If you are looking for a somewhat larger/more robust "prosumer" camera like the ones you linked to, you might look at the PowerShot S2 IS. I have the earlier model, the S1 IS, and love it to death. I has a huge zoom, optical stabilization, and takes really excellent movies, comparable to a decent camcorder. The controls are very intuitive and it uses SD media, cheap and interchangeable with a lot of devices. My earlier model is still available and might be quite cheap by now.

Before you decide, check out the customer reviews for the models you are looking at on Amazon.com.

Thanks jan. This is why I think a zoom lens makes such a difference, you can really get in close for the details.

A quick googling turns up this on digital vs optical zoom

Also, I found dpreview very useful as they have very thorough reviews.

It sounds like you want something with an SLR-like layout (as opposed to the compact boxes), a beefy featureset, and lots of manual controls. The main issue as I see it is what sort of lens you want on it: cameras with good macros tend to use longish lenses to accomplish that, while landscapes demand more from the wide end of the scale. The more you try to shoot for both, the more compromises you'll wind up making. When you're shooting landscapes, do you find the wide side on most cameras to not be wide enough? Can you be more specific about what sorts of items you'll be taking macros of? (For example, flowers don't require very powerful macro magnification to shoot.)

I do have a few recommendations right off the bat, in order of my own personal preferences:

1) Panasonic FZ-7: Great all-around, fast handling, big zoom range with image stabilization, and aggressively priced for its feature set. Main downside: as with most Panasonic cameras these days, images are a bit noisy if you crank up the ISO and also print large, but this is not an issue in smaller prints or web displays. (Also, older version: FZ-5)

2) Canon S2: One of the best macro performances in a non-DSLR camera, with an image stabilized lens as well. A very popular model, probably the hottest one in this market segment. Main downside: focus speed is a bit slower than the FZ-7. (Also, newer version: S3)

3) Fuji S9000: Wide 28mm lens, 9 megapixels to help hold more details than the competition, and raw mode to enhance post-processing makes this one a solid choice for landscapes. Main downsides: no image stabilization, slow focus, a little pricey.

Let me know if you're looking for something different: more compact, cheaper, etc.

nthing Canon. I have a PowerShot A95 and really, really like it. I've had a Kodak and a Sony and they didn't even compare.

Incidentally, Canon also makes the best inkjet printers that I've tried.

Thanks DaShiv. The three cameras I'd bookmarked from the website I was looking at were the Canon, the Fuji (S9500) and the Panasonic!

I want to take good pictures of the area where I live, to start with. I live in a forest, full of fabulous plants and animals, so will want to be able to zoom in on the pheasant 50 yards away, if that's feasible.

I visited Kew Gardens recently and this is probably the best picture I took, with the limitations of my camera, but it wasn't how I wanted it to look, I wanted more detail, to get right into the centre of the fern. It was taken from a gantry about 30ft above the fern. (Sorry about the adverts, ImageShack is screwed tonight so using some crappy uploader)

I think you've nailed it, DaShiv, I want something that looks like an SLR but isn't, and with big features for an 'automatic'.

You guys are great, you really are. There's a couple of camera stores not too far away, both long-established, which is usually a good sign. I think I'll have a trip down there this weekend and see what feels right. I have tiny hands, so size/weight might also be a factor. I'll probably pay a little more at a small store but would rather give the business to them and probably get much better service than a chain retailer.

I have a Panasonic FZ-5, and I'm amazed at how nice the photos it takes just in "simple mode" are. It also lets you fiddle with all the manual settings, too.

I recently got an Olympus SP500UZ, and I've been very satisfied with it. You can get pretty much full manual control if you want - focus, shutter speed, aperature, etc. - or use it like a point and click. You can also control ISO and other digital-specific functions, and save in RAW as well as compressed formats. It's got a nice 10x optical zoom lens, it looks like a camera, and it fits very nicely into one's hand. It's also relatively cheap - mine cost somewhere around $350ish, although that may have been on sale. My only complaint: no image stabilization. This isn't much of a problem for me, since whenever possible I use a tripod or something similar for anything at very large zooms or exposure times, but depending on what you want to do, this may be more of a problem. Beyond that, though, I've been very happy.

I can point you towards some of the pictures I've taken if you want to see the kind of results I've been getting, although this is the first 'serious' camera I've had and I'm still learning.

I'm a little metal box camera person but I can definitely second the recommendations for the Canons. I've tried some of the other makes and am just not satisfied with them at all.

My next camera will the SD700 IS, the first image stabilized Elph model. It also shoots video at 60 fps.

The new S3 looks pretty darned sweet too.

The only reason I'd change from the Elph/SD line is for a better optical zoom. Its the one failing of the mini-cams.