Not far from me in Tomah Wisconsin is a guy who makes some of the finest bows and guitars in the world (he has quite a few patents for vibration-dampening he uses for both). He could hand me either one and I couldn't use it. I know nothing about them.

One of the worse marketing pitches in the past 40 years was "point and shoot." With film, the camera makers hoped the fairly forgiving film and processing would make up for gross exposure errors. It did.

They hoped auto-ISO and other programming in digital cameras would deal with the much less forgiving camera chip. It sort of did.

But the core problem is that the technical side of photography is all about physics. I'll leave the art side to others.

I taught beginners with compact cameras what to do in a classroom for 8 years. They were amazed that it wasn't simple. Their point 'n shoot cameras worked well enough in the average situations they were designed for. But darned if half these folks didn't try to get Sports Illustrated cover shots of their kids playing high-school basketball with a 3X zoom, f/5.6 lens and 4 megapixel camera. And they complained, saying they were told buy the clerk in the big-box store "it was a GOOD camera."

I ended up writing two books to explain basics. Lexar bought the rights to one of them and spent a million dollars on a website explaining basics.

With film or digital you need to learn the physics of exposure and of resolution. You need to understand focus. Then you need to apply what you have learned to the cameras you own so you know their limitations - what they can and cannot do.

This information is out there, free in many cases. Sadly, few full-service camera stores are around where you can ask questions and get help.

But the basics, once understood (and they aren't that hard) will help with any camera you own now and for years to come.

There is a 100% free older version of Photoshop in that list I provided a link to. Perhaps it will play better with your system.

Thanks for the info on the newer Fujis and Sonys...which are the kinds of camera I find interesting, but not buying this week. I do like the my current Fuji with the 2/3" sensor. Sadly I haven't done much printing since my BW darkroom days. Most of my photos (illustrations for articles in Shutterbug) were not printed very large and the camera at the time was 5 MP.

My question implies that, just as was the case when film cameras were used a lot, some photographers found a lens on a quality rangefinder, etc., that they used and never bought an SLR. (There were also considerations of viewfinder black-out, vibration, noise, and mirror-slap.)

I am thinking through the few times I ever need to shoot past 100mm (35mm eqiv) and if that means I am wasting money and weight buying something in the DSLR range, only to set the new lens at 100mm.

The trick is that if you have a favorite focal length, and that favorite length is available in a qualty lens (or simply one you are happy with) in a non-SLR, is the SLR needed? Plenty of street photographers, etc., used Leicas and 35mm lenses.

"I have tried the fixed lens option and found it to be seriously lacking." I'd like to hear what lacked what, thanks!

Very kind of you. A friend just came back from dropping off 2 of his kids at college in Houston. I live in San Antonio and have seen what heavy rain can do there.

I've owned all kinds of SLRs since the screw-mount 70's kits of a 50mm, 28mm and 135mm and a bag to carry them. But at the same time, I also enjoyed "Leica inspired" rangefinders as well as a couple of the real things. Not shooting sports or animals, I usually got by well in the 28mm to lens 105mm range.

Recently I sold off a couple of DSLR bodies and lenses with the idea of getting a smaller "mirrorless" outfit. But I also picked up a refurb Fuji X-10 and a used Powershot G-12. I like them both and am quizzing myself on the pros and cons of being happy with what I have until something really ground-breaking comes along. BTW, video is not a big concern.

I'd be curious to know what focal lengths you use the most and for what.

Depends on how powerful the editing software is and how large the files are. But I've used some of these free ones (http://sillycatvalley.com/6free.htm) on a lot of lower spec PCs.

Gimp is in my list of free editors, mostly for Windows: http://sillycatvalley.com/6free.htm. But I've used Gimp on a Mac and on Linux.

Which one>both?

Before Sakar got sued, they had a "Polaroid" Android-based camera with removable lens. Really sucked bad and I had a chance to try one. Have fun with the touch-screen in bright light.

In an urban area, you can get sounds of dogs howling on the video!

Not crazy. Up and downgrading is only concerned with specifications, not enjoyment and how much you like using the camera.

After years of using all kinds of SLRs, TLRs and even press cameras and rangefinders, I find the most enjoyment with a Leica-inspired digi such as the Fuji X-10. I also enjoy the casual creativity of a fixed focus camera, like some of the old 5MP Kodaks. And my first ever gallery display was shot with a "Papershoot" camera in a cardboard camera body with no electronic screen! I seldom shoot images of wildlife, prefering urban scenes and people.

In whatever format you choose to display, if it looks right to you, it is right. If one camera makes you happy to use, use it. Other peoples' opinions are just that, their opinion. Mine included.

Have a female assistant with you.