I have a Canon Digital Elph 115 that I always have in a pocket. It has a 16Mpxl sensor and a 28-224 equivalent zoom, and it only set me back $79.00. Its image quality is nearly equal to that of my $400 Nikon P7100, at about 1/4 the size and weight. Like any small sensor compact, you don't want to shoot with ISO above 800 unless it is a dire emergency. And, of course, it is pure Point and Shoot, with few manual control choices.

What you should have learned, Dave, is that you shouldn't believe everything you read in internet forums - Wayne is dead wrong about his understanding of how Nikon DSLR exposure compensation works - I have owned and used 4 Nikon DSLRs extensively, and still have the first and last (D70 and D800), and can assure you that Nikons behave exactly as the Canons regarding exposure compensation - whether in Aperture/Shutter priority or P(rogram) modes. That behavior is standard for all cameras that support PASM mode settings.

The D8xx cameras have a bunch of image size options - one of them is to crop down to DX format - it can be set up to do the crop automatically when a DX lens is detected - this cropping is not mandatory, and it wasn't in the D700 either.

One of my favorite DX lenses is the 12-24/f4, which I used extensively (non-cropped) on my D700 and still use on my D800, since it covers the Full FX frame at any aperture down to 18mm, and even wider stopped down.

No!! The camera does not record the image data into any color space. It just records the specified color space as part of the EXIF record, so the RAW decoder will know how to process the RAW data. The user defined camera settings do not affect the RAW image in any way (other than exposure), unless your camera allows for reduced resolution RAW recording, which is a rare thing. Adobe Camera Raw does not do anything permanent to the data until it is transferred to Photoshop. And even if it did, you could still go back to the original RAW file and start over with the correct color space. The RAW file is NEVER modified. Only the image data DERIVED from the RAW file is modified, and none of the modifications "take" until the DERIVED image is passed on/saved.

While I agree that RAW is highly advisable, I also recommend that you set your white balance to daylight - that will make everything look as it really does, especially when you are shooting in "weird" light. It will give you a good starting point when you start working on the images in Post.

You asked for it - all of the high end mirrorless cameras that I would consider owning have an eye level viewfinder that you put up to your head (just like a DSLR), thus giving one the extra level of stabilization you describe (just like a DSLR).

I have a question for both Sheila and the OP - what format are your cameras? APS, FF? That was an important consideration to me when I went to FF from APS. I rarely used my 60mm with APS because of the "crop factor" forcing me to back up too much too often. On the other hand, it is a favorite lens on my FF beast. The preference really boils down to how you use the lens (as a macro) and at what distances for the subjects you shoot most often.

I have the 18, 35, and 60mm lFuji primes, along with the 18-55. Since getting the zoom. it rarely comes off the camera - it is one of the best, most versatile lenses I have. If I want to go longer, I have adaptors for my full range of Nikkor zooms - which cover 12 -350mm. I shoot street, architectural and landscapes - 99% of my photography is done with focal lengths from 18-135mm. If I want real wide, mostly for building interiors, I use my 12-24 Nikkor with an adaptor.

I also use the Logitech Marble, don't understand why everyone doesn't use one, especially for doing fine details in PP. But when I get down to the really critical stuff, or doing a lot of drawing/painting or fine detail selections/cleanup, I go to the pen for my 21" Wacom Cintiq display/tablet - one of the best investments I have ever made for my work. It was expensive, or seemed so at the time, but I have had it for nearly 6 years now and have used it for many thousands of hours (it is my primary display), and I would not want to live without it. I had 4x6 and 12x18 Wacom tablets for a long time before the Cintiq came out, and still use the 4x6 on the road.

If you use Lightroom, your originals are preserved either way, so no real reason to shoot/process RAW unless you just feel the need.

Chris - nice shots, what body are your using? FF or cropped sensor?

Adobe has crippled Camera RAW in PSE 12 - The formerly full-featured Camera Raw was the only reason I used PSElements - I won't be using it anymore, and will not be "subscribing" to the CC. We use several modules of the former Adobe Creative Suite professionally (bought every version up to 6), but are now actively looking for viable substitutes that don't require a "Subscription". In the meantime, will continue with Lightroom updates as long as they are offered subscription-free just to get the latest Camera Raw.

42-450 - your math is a little off at the wide end

Limiting the discussion to pixel dimensions, if two cameras can shoot the same format (such as 3:2 or 4:3) at the same pixel count (as in both having 16Mpxls) prints from both cameras will be the same size when printed at the same ppi (such as 240 or 300)) and will be identical in terms of resolution. This has nothing to do with the relative physical size of the sensors (or the "crop" factor) - it has only to do with the number of light-sensitive photosites (pixels) crammed on the sensors.

I am not sure of what some of you are saying when you are talking about one or the other camera printing "larger" or "smaller". I do know there is a lot of confusion among small sensor camera advocates who think that DX cameras are somehow superior to "Full-Frame" because the "crop factor" results in "larger" images at the same pixel resolution. The only advantage "crop" sensor cameras have is that they are generally (but not necessarily) smaller and lighter and so are the lenses (assuming that the lenses are designed specifically for the smaller sensors).