I got one of these not too long ago and I am greatly impressed. I haven't tried any prints, large or small, as yet but your experience is certainly encouraging. This little camera seems to do it all! The viewfinder is pretty small, but that it has one at all was a significant selling point for me.

Most of my slides were scanned with a borrowed high quality Nikon rig, but when some more turned up I found that our library had one for loan, not as "nice" but OK. See if your library has such an item. Ours was a dedicated film (and slide) scanner from Kodak (probably pretty old).

Nice shots! Some decades ago I worked at a state park in southern Missouri and captured (not on film, unfortunately) a pigmy rattle snake, very beautiful and only about 12 or so" long. I brought it to the park naturalist, who gave that striking distance comment you make and put a finger about 8" from the critter (now in a cage and very pissed off). He felt the air move, the strike was so close, and allowed that an angry, small snake might have just a bit more striking distance...

Last time in the local camera shop I learned that they are seeing (maybe encouraging?) renewed interest in film. Maybe some of the same kind of thinking that brings vinyl back to the music scene...in any event there is a, probably niche but still, market for film cameras, with an increasing availability of film and processing. What kind of pricing this supports is of course another question, maybe tricky to answer (outside of the auction possibilities online).

This reminds me of the time a pal and I were finding fossils (and a few bits of arrowhead tossed in) all over the place and his maybe 6-year-old came to us with a bland looking rock, for which he got due praise. For no good reason, I banged it on another rock to reveal a perfect shell fossil, best find of the day.

I was thinking of saying something almost exactly like this.

I still recall now many years ago when I told my dad that I liked "pictures" because everything out in the distance was clear and sharp. Even as a physician (but not an eye doc) he didn't pick up on the subtext there, only realizing around the time I was tested for a driver's license that I had a serious (in one eye) and moderate (in the other) problem (nearsighted). So I really liked my camera! I have been an off-and-on "serious amateur," whatever that might mean, since.

What I nowadays like to do with my images is find interesting, at least to me, patterns, colors, points of view in 'natural' settings, like rivers when canoeing or even just in the yard. Sometimes that is just a more or less point-and-shoot an interesting landscape, but I am happier to find something interesting in simple shots of flowers, leaves, garden scenes and the like.

I am a big fan of reflections...nicely done!

Ya, but I can still see the point

As a long-time but purely amateur photographer I was leaning in the direction of this advice. There are other worthy cameras in this category and you will have a far more nuanced appreciation of the direction you need to go when you spend the bigger bucks. As you have seen there is a lot to learn, and much of that 'book-learning' is of great value as you learn the basics and beyond. Good luck!

I am not a wedding photographer, so this is only hearsay on one point of your "problem" shoot, the beach.

For a while I offered services as an officiant and once got to talking with the photographer, who had been asked to do some of the staged photos at the nearby beach. He agreed to do that, and his experience in difficult contrasty settings led him to only use a film camera there, suggesting that film is more forgiving in those settings. I don't recall what film he used, and this is at least 15 years ago (some film is no longer available, digital has had some years to advance). I can't vouch for the advice, and the film of course slows down the process of getting the photos ready.

I will be interested to see what some of the experienced folks think of this idea...

I looked at the Panasonic too...and it does compare well. According to a question/reply at B&H the Sony does have a closeup setting (I expect very much like my WX-350). The Pan has a perhaps updated but in any event 20 MP sensor compared to 18.2 for Sony. Also I read in one review, not a confirmed spec, that the Panasonic has a far faster max shutter speed, which could offer some flexibility in very bright conditions.

Between these I still lean Sony, in part because I already have the extra battery, am comfortable with the Sony handling/layout from my current cameras, finding image quality on my similar (sensor) WX-350 satisfactory and like the noticeably smaller size. And I know my local camera shop sells Sony (maybe Pan, too, but not certain at this point). BUT, they don't have one of these in stock and available to mess with, as of a few weeks back when last checked.

I have read some posts here about this camera. I have the DSC-WX-350, purchased along with a Sony 'bridge' camera, as the one to put in my pocket. As it happens, the little WX-350 is the one that tends to be along thus making it the 'best' camera I have (meaning, the one I have on hand).

The 350 has some serious limitations, though, around flexibility and control. I think the 99 will alleviate some of those issues but would like to hear from users of the camera. Is the control ring on the lens as useful as the descriptions from Sony imply? Is the little viewfinder practical (the 99 only has the screen, which can be problematic for me in very bright settings, which I run into often out in the boat). I have found some ways to 'trick' the 350 into giving me some aperture or speed control but I expect it of the 99. True?

I would expect similar image quality since I believe they have the same size and model sensor, but my little camera is several years old so I may hope for some modest tech upgrades in the meantime.

Make sure to get out of tourist-town for at least some of your time. Lots of great country nearby. Look at state parks (I was super at Roaring River some decades ago, great countryside though a bit of a drive through the Ozarks). Northern Arkansas has options, too. Not sure if Eureka Springs is within an easy drive, but an intersting town (touristy in its own unique way from Branson).

Try to get some extra practice in with the camera, especially to get useful action. Mess around with panning (even a car driving by) and try out "action" settings on the camera to see how shutter speed is handled.

It depends a bit on what you hope to accomplish. If you need a little bit of additional stability at relatively quick shutter speed for stationary subjects and have little expectation of needing more than that in the future you might get away with relatively low cost (still, do your research). I had a cheap tripod for years, and it served the kind of images described above reasonably well. When I decided I wanted some evening shots of various moon phases, it failed pretty miserably. I have little need for a stable tripod other than that (at least right now) but if I want to pursue those images I will have to invest in it. There have been lots of discussions on this forum about low end tripods almost all coming down with a consensus that you need more than you think, and have to pay for it. Turns out to be pretty much on point, in my somewhat limited experience.