It sounds like a familiar argument, but I'd rather have the smaller camera and have it with me, than the better, more versatile camera, which is usually left at home...

I can relate to that, but I'm on the other side of the analogy. Every shot I take may be used in a future story so I have to shoot everything with publication in mind. Each trip of the shutter saves a raw image and the best quality jpeg image the camera can record to the memory card. I just stick the camera case in the car, truck or boat when I go out.

If I were going to get a smaller "rangefinder" camera it would be either the latest of the G-series Canons (the Powershot G11, I think) like Mark and Joe have or its Nikon Coolpix P7000 counterpart. I can't see the images on the little LCD screens on the back of the little cameras when outdoors so I need an optical viewfinder (and enough detail for publication) so that pretty much limits me to those two models. Also, I've been shooting pictures for a long time and I want something that feels more like a camera than a credit card in my hands - I want to be able to concentrate on getting the shot I need rather than having to split my attention to operate a type of camera I'm not familiar with (sound familiar? ). After reading reviews on the two cameras I lean toward the Nikon because it has a 28-200 lens while the Canon has 28-140, but then I lean toward the Canon because most of the reviewers said it felt solid while the Nikon felt cheesy. Then I look at both cameras and wonder if the reduction in size is really worth spending $400-$500 for and I end up just carrying one of my D200s, usually with a 24-120 zoom lens.