Not a DSLR

Author's Rating:

Pros: OK Image quality Great Lens Solid build

Cons: Noise above iso 200 Poor focusing in poor light Focusing slow for fast moving objects

The Bottom Line: 
I no longer recommend this camera because DSLR's are much better and cost only a little more.

Author's Review
I have been a serious amateur photographer since I bought my first SLR in 1969. My review is based on almost 7 months of use and 4000 pictures. Well made with great handling. Lot's of manual controls. It's build quality is about equal to the Nikon D50 and feels better than the Canon XT350. In good light at iso 80 the photo quality is almost as good as a DSLR when viewed 100% on screen. At normal screen sizes or in an 8x10 print the quality is equal to any of the 35mm SLR's I've owned or any of the results I've seen from DSLR's. This holds up to iso 400. Above iso 400 the DSLR will be much better. In good light the focusing is fast but is not so good in dim light. Under dim light I sometimes find it necessary to aim at a high contrast area, press the shutter half way to pre focus and reframe to take the picture. The ability to use AA rechargeables is a plus. I get about 300 shots per charge. This camera is NOT a point and shoot. You must be willing to practice and try the various controls to get the best out of it. The people who claim not to get good results, I believe, did not really know how to use it. I get great results. For samples of my images go to the following link.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

UPDATE.....

After 2 years I upgraded to a DSLR. DSLR's are much faster and flexible and have better image quality. The price of DSLR's has fallen to the point that I can no longer recommend this product

Summary

It's a good camera but anyone serious about photography should get a DSLR.