I'm usually satisfied with my digital camera, but I decided to play the shutterbug last week...
I guess you could say I've got the blues. I've got the upper low end price range point and shoot digital camera blues. Yeah! heh...
Anyhow, anyone else ever wish that their digital camera had a better auto focus. You know, one that wouldn't be fussy and take 3 or more tries to get the green light and the "happy" beeps? And perhaps be about 3 times faster in the process. Sometimes I just give up on getting the green and take the shot. Occasionally I luck out and it's not fuzzy. But you can never tell until you get to it to the 'puter since the camera's display is so small. Just wondering if anyone can relate.
Also this time, I just realized that I would like a wider lens angle at the minimum zoom. Something about events like the auto show I just went to where people like to walk in front. Get far back enough to get the whole subject (in this case, some cool cars) and some shmoe gets in the way.
Other than those gripes I'm mostly satisfied with my camera. If you care to know what it is, it's a Toshiba PDR-M60. At the time I got it (2000?) it was around $300. Comparable models were the Kodak DC series (too few options), HP (eck), and Fuji (setup menus too layered.)
Anyone else ever suffer midrange digital envy? You know, you see one of those nice Sony/Nikon/Canon deals... Let alone the high end stuff - one of those SLR Foveon type deals. But I digress, I don't make a living using the camera or use it all the time so I don't need the nicest one. Also it would really bug me if I got a really nice one and it got broken or stolen. heheh...
Also I learned that NiMH batteries are worth getting. They don't crap out like the alkalines and last much longer than the NiCd ones. The 1800 mAh ones at RadioShack seem decent so far. I should have done this earlier, since so many web sites on digital photography made this obvious - these things are battery hogs.

well I use the oly c4040z, which overall is a good camera that i gave around $700 for in early 2002. I have really enjoyed using it and have taken lots of really nice pics with. The thing is, now I'm wanting to start trying to sell my pictures and cant decide on whether to upgrade to something else. I keep seeing the Cannons and Sonys and wonder if using a higher end pro-sumer camera would be better suited for it or whether to just stick with the Oly till I gain more experience and technique. Decisions, decisions....

Well,I guess I'm one of those photo snobs that everyone loves to hate. I would never buy a camera that didn't have manual capabilities, therefore a digital camera no matter the cost "must" have the ability for manual focus, because as you said auto-focus is a pain in the ass, even on the higher end (not prosumer) models.

I'd like to point out that digi cams tend to especially have problems with autofocusing in low-light, low contrast situations....that's a given...shrug

...no need to bring up the "snop wars," we're all sort of friends here, (every one of us). Manual is a must for creative work. [I just realized, I don't really know how the high-mid-tier digies focus... rangefinder? crappy little LCD screen?] The few times folks have asked me to snap them with their digitals, "Here, just point and press this button," I was never quite sure when the damn thing actually fired. Seemed to be a lot of buzzing and beeping going on, and of course the subjects ended up different from what they were doing when I pressed the button. >enjoyed using it and have taken lots of really nice pics Seems to be the whole point of it, hey? I wish I could focus better, (and expose better, while not shaking...). It be really nice if I could catch the moment that happened right BEFORE I pressed the shutter... Any technology to help in this would also seem to limit the creativity. The "consumer" cameras seem to do a nice job on the type of pictures most consumers want to make. [There is always that problem of not enough features vs. too hard to control the features that are present...] No real point here, other than I agree completely with headcase; manual is more important and any other feature.

The oldsters here know how I feel about my digi, that overall I really like it - but I have to admit that the low-light focus thing is a bit of a bugger. I recently went into a dark-ish area that's not exactly easy-access (understatement), and half of the pictures turned out blurry after looking ok on the screen. Walking in there was fun, taking a decent tripod would have been hell. But, it's gonna have to be done...... In low-light close up's I just manual focus anyways, it's easier... And I'm ignoring Fict, he's just a luddite. (",)

I find the CASIO QV-4000 quite good. Has nice software, much useful and productive in hands, 4 megapixels, perfect focus, canon lens... exposition up to 60 seconds and many settings. It's a semi-pro. 700 euros at the time I bought it, last summer.