Hi, all- this looks like an impressive forum. :thumbup: I would classify my photography as on the "smalltime hobbyist" level of involvement- I love taking or viewing beautiful photos, and if I had another couple of lives to live, I would probably spend one getting more involved with photography. But I don't, so I probably won't become a photo guru anytime soon. I've gone through a few mid-line point-and-shoot customer models, and right now I'm moderately happy with my Kodak EasyShare LS753. It gets great color and lets me make basic adjustments (exposure levels, white balance, ISO). But if I put it in any awkward lighting, the whole thing turns out like crap. I go to a lot of concerts, and usually I might take away two shots from the show that don't completely suck. There are two things I'm looking for: more manual control, and just higher overall picture quality. I'm considering springing the $500-600 for a Nikon D40 or a Canon Digital Rebel XT or XTi, but since I don't plan on becoming a serious photo hobbyist, I'm wondering if it would really be necessary. Would a high-end point-and-shoot camera be sufficient for what I want? I have a couple of friends who are photography students, and they're all telling me to go with DSLR. I think they may be biased, though, since they do spend a lot of their time taking photos. What do all of you think?