I know I've already posted a kind of related thread on this before. I know that I already met with Chip and had a long chat about what I really need vs. what I think I need. I think I've bled the internet dry in my search for truth - now I am after the minds that fuel available data. If you will bear with me, I will try and explain what I would love to hear from many of you. After looking at a variety of cameras, and getting advice from the sages here, I thought I was going to be happy with an superzoom like the S3 or FZ7. Well, after going to Penn Camera for a second time, I've begun to look at the D50 and the K100D. When I tried out the S3, I was looking at a photo that I took zoomed in with the IS on, and the picture was still fairly shaky. I have only futzed around with the FZ7 a little - does anybody with experience with it have an opinion? But then I think about the idea of getting a DSLR. Now, from what I can tell here, Nikon and Canon have the best lenses. Additionally, many here have pointed out that lenses will far outlast the body. My primary interest in the K100 is the IS is built into the body, rather than being related to the lens - meaning that I don't have to worry about paying 700 for a 70-200 VR. But, if down the road I decide that I want a better body, it looks like the K100 is currently the best Pentax makes, while I have plenty of room for expansion with the D50 (i.e. the best Pentax is equivalent to the baseline Nikon - if that continues, how much more is available for me). I've currently got a Canon A70 (3.2MP) that is still pluggin along - great build quality - and I plan on keeping that camera until the day it stops working. I figure I need a camera that travels well, but will capture with high quality. I take a lot of landscape style shots when I travel, but with the impending kid, it also needs to be quick enough to get pictures of "those moments" witht he kid. I've realized that without having a kid, I don't know how much low light shooting I'm going to be doing - I imagine that there will be a lot of "look at the kid sleeping," but I just realized that will be during nap time and such during the day - I plan on sleeping at night. Someone mentioned elsewhere that full frame cameras are coming down in price - and will continue to do so - and they are serveral times better than the non-full frame bodies. So, that makes me wonder if I should go with a P/S for now and then get a DSLR later. But, with about a 2.5 sec startup time, how much will I miss of the kids? But, with the DSLR, how much more crap am I going to be carrying (even if I just make do with a 18-200 or a 18-75 lens for general use)? Its funny how with my bigger purchases (i.e. PB, Lori's ring, my car) I never hesitated, but with this relatively smaller I've put in upwards of 80 hours of research.... If anybody has any opinion regarding my confusion, I would be much obliged.