Well at least for me. It was just introduced yesterday. The Canon IXUS 980. It's tiny, it focuses close, it's 14.7 megapixel, it has a Canon UW case, it's not a Sony, it's not folded optics and most importantly manual exposure control. The last has been a deal breaker for me. My Sony has it and I can not deal with not having it.

This allows you to force the lens to stop down for better depth of field in macro mode. If your camera is automatic I will bet that all your picture are wide open. It also makes for dark backgrounds with lighted foregrounds, nice effect.

The only downside to the above Canon is not a great lens 36mm in wide and only 3.7x zoom. Wider with more zoom would be perfect.

Add RAW to the wish list.

It is interesting that the 870 has a 28mm equivalent widest angle and 4x zoom with the same aperture range. 'Curiouser and curiouser'.

Lots of movie time is interesting. These are the new 'combicams'. 'And then there will be HD'.

What wonders we already have! Not your father's Nikonos!!!

I don't see the price in any google search or when it will be for sale

Cecil's link is to one of the 'early announcements' for the big Photokina camera show in Germany next week. 'More information to follow.'

You can follow Photokina at http://www.dpreview.com/articles/photokina2008/ .

Glen RAW would be nice but I doubt I would ever use it. The files are just to big and the wait to write times would kill me. I also do not see the big deal, oh you can tweak the white balance and this is different then adjusting the colors how?

Yeah it looks like they put the better lens on the cheaper model.

Cecil, I have to agree with Glen. I didn't use RAW for years for the same reasons you cite (larger file size, longer write times), but after starting to use RAW, I could kick myself for waiting so long. Adjusting exposure and white balance are WAY different from just adjusting color. Photos that are shot in RAW but under/over exposed by a couple (or even several) stops can be made to look very acceptable. If all of your photos are already perfectly exposed, then you don't need RAW. If (like most of us) you sometimes miscalculate exposure, then adjustments in RAW can salvage lots of pictures that would otherwise get deleted.

May be so John, but I still doubt I will ever try it. There's no getting around my desire for a tiny camera and they are the least likely cameras to ever get RAW.

On the exposure side, it has never been a big issue with me. I generally shoot underexposed a little bit and that seems to work. I almost never lose a shot to missed exposure. Focus and motion blur are the big losers.

The other side is no flash shots when lousy white balance rears it's ugly head. These shots always disappoint me and I hardly ever shoot them. Maybe this will change with something other than a Sony.

When my daughters were young and declined to try new food I always annoyed them by pointing out that if they hadn't tried ice cream they still wouldn't know if they liked it. ;–))

I understand the tiny camera preference. I guess RAW isn't a selling point at the price point of these cameras. It begins to be available at about the next price point up.

(Message edited by glenr on September 19, 2008)

wow, after reading this I know I really need help. im headed to bonaire 3rd week in october. I purchased a sealife DC800 Maxx and it didn't come with a photographer. I figured 2 flashes would be better so paid the extra money. my pics show every particles in the water and the image im shooting has too much flash. can someone tell me the best settings and how to adjust the flashes. Do the flash units need to be out to the side and if something is over 6 feet away how do I get the best shot without all the scatter? I know im asking a lot but I was hoping to bring some beautiful underwater images home.

Sheila, I'm not a believer in external flashes but I think the trick is to not light the water between you and the subject. You do this by aiming the flash off to one side so only the subject gets the light, not the water column.

The other thing that jumped out is you mentioned 6 ft from your subject. If it's not a whale shark that is way, way, way to far away. You should be thinking inches not feet. For instance, I have found the proper distance for a moray eel shots is slightly more than where he get pissed (about 10 inches for most).