The canon g10 seems believeable as something I would want. Can you please explain to me the difference with manual controls vs point and shoot vs. SLR (which I don't know what it means)? I feel that I want more than a simple point and shoot but I don't really know anything about cameras yet.
Every camera on the market today (with perhaps a very high end exception or two) has the ability to take pictures automatically, with no user input (other than, well, pointing and shooting...). The camera controls the length of time the shutter is open, the "aperture" (size of the opening for light), etc. For many basic point-and-shoots, automatic is the
only option -- the user has no control other than to point the camera at something and click it.
But there are a lot of ways that you could take any given picture -- and most photographers want to choose how they do it, rather than letting the camera choose. A camera with manual controls lets you do that -- it will typically have "Aperture Priority" (the ability to control aperture, while letting the camera choose the appropriate shutter time to match), "Shutter Priority" (same deal, but you control the shutter), and full manual (you control everything).
So here's what's in the market:
1. Basic point-and-shoots. No user control, and image quality is so-so -- but very light and very cheap. I keep one of these in my jacket for snapshots and pictures of friends. One step up from a cameraphone, basically.
2. Advanced point-and-shoots / bridge cameras (e.g. the G10). Manual user control, and better image quality, while still fairly portable. Many will still fit in your pocket. However, the small sensor and small lenses mean that these cameras have "good but not great" image quality (compared to an SLR) and have less flexibility and much less "depth of field" (the ability to blur backgrounds). A compromise between portability and usability.
3. Digital SLRs. Relatively big -- no chance of putting it in your pocket (I use a messenger bag) -- and (relatively) expensive.
As others have noted, there are used or last-generation D-SLR options that are less expensive, and will do well -- even if you just use the basic "kit lens" that often comes with the camera. However, a D-SLR isn't just a camera, but part of a camera
system, and that can get expensive
. D-SLR's have interchangeable lenses and flashes, so if you wanted to you could always buy a better lens, or another flash, etc....a D-SLR doesn't have to be an expensive hobby, but it can be.
However, D-SLR's have the best image quality, by far (until you start talking about medium format and other super-expensive options). The flexibility of the systems and creative control blow all the other options out of the water -- they're what professional sports photographers and wedding photographers use. (Though they use fairly high-end ones, of course.) They're (in my opinion) the absolute best choice for people who want to learn to take great pictures.
But...like I said, it's not going to fit in your pocket -- not even remotely. If you're the type who wants to always have his camera with him, but doesn't want to carry a bag to do it, a D-SLR might not be right for you. Otherwise, they really are the best option for photography.