My wife and I received some money over the holidays and we've decided to spend it on a digital camera. We may have to kick in some of our savings, as well. In response to reader e-mails about how much you like reading about my real world experiences (especially when my personal resources are at risk), I've decided to chronicle my quest for digital camera nirvana.

Bear in mind that I'm not an expert in photography, let alone digital cameras. (Enterprise computing is more my speed.) So, along the way, I'll be learning a lot. Feel free to learn with me, or even teach me what I need to know via e-mail.

You'd think that with all the gadgets that vendors send me to review, I'd have digital cameras coming out of my ears. I don't. So far, only one vendor --- Olympus --- has sent me samples of its cameras. The one that I'm playing with currently is the Camedia C-720 Ultrazoom. According to CNET's Shopper.com, the C-720's list price is $499. But the camera can be had for as little as $375 from BuyDig.

I don't think this is a camera I'd buy for myself--for two reasons. First, I'm inclined not to settle for anything less than a camera that offers tons of special features and effects. (I may never use them, but I want them.) Second, and more importantly, is the fact that this camera disappears into deep thought after I press the "take picture" button (real technical, eh?). When the camera returns from all this thinking, I hear a click, and I am rewarded with a picture of the place where one of my kids just was.

I'm told the pros call these types of photos "grab shots." The failure to get good grab shots has been a chronic problem with various Olympus cameras that I've tried. First, I had assumed this was a problem endemic to all digital cameras. But after perusing many of the user reviews in CNET's special digital photography center, I've learned that some digital cameras are much more adept than others at getting grab shots. Recently, Olympus contacted me about trying out its C-5050. I don't know anything about this camera but said I wasn't interested if it had the same grab shot problem the others had.

Olympus is getting back to me. I admit that there could be some user error and that Olympus' cameras are capable of good grab shots. But, if there is a way to fix the problem, it's not obvious from the camera's user interface (the combination of buttons, displays, etc.) and that is, in itself, a problem. The interface needs to be intuitive. After all, these cameras are computers. They should detect a significant delay between the time I press the "take picture" button and the time the shutter shutters. Then, they should automatically correct the problem, or tell me what I need to do in order to manually correct it.

So, thanks to Olympus, I'm beginning to formulate what I'm looking for.

For starters, the user interface is very important. After I whined about the Olympus user interface to my uncle, he whipped out his Canon PowerShot G2 and talked proudly about how Canon put all the right buttons in the right places. As a result, he didn't have to fiddle much in order to make some fast adjustments to things like image resolution or aperture and shutter settings just before taking a picture. I wasn't able to verify this because I spent all of three minutes with the camera (and it did have a lot of buttons). But in those three minutes, I did get a grab shot. It was like breathing pure oxygen compared to my Olympus experience. The best part was that I didn't have to fiddle with anything to get that grab shot. The camera figured out what it had to do and responded instantly with a realistic shutter sound and an image of my wife about to shovel a fork-load of eggs into her mouth. Talk about an action shot! (Oh boy, I'm gonna pay dearly for this).

I was impressed, but far from convinced.

How many megapixels?
To figure out what my requirements are, I plan to spend some time reading up on all the categories of cameras as well as the treasure trove of reader reviews on CNET. The aforementioned Canon G2, for example, gets a lot of kudos from CNET's readers and, consistent with the lots-of-buttons observation, many of the entries talk about how you have to spend time getting to know the camera and then, once you do, you won't be disappointed.

One of the many things that I'm not sure about is how many megapixels I need. According to CNET's advice, if I plan to print anything 8x10 or larger (which I am), I'll need a minimum of four megapixels. So, if I need a minimum of four, should I step up to the next increment --- five megapixels --- found in the latest wave of digital cameras? Canon is already out with a successor to the G2--the G3. But it, too, is four megapixels, and CNET reviewers were disappointed by this design choice.

Theoretically, the more megapixels a camera can pack into a picture, the closer you approach film-quality images. More megapixels also gives you more fine-grained control when attempting to touch up the images with something like Adobe Photoshop. Many user reviews talk about how much touching up images from the various cameras need. Sometimes the color has to be corrected. Other times the images need to be sharpened. These "post-processing" exercises are apparently not unusual for digital cameras, which is why more pixels might come in handy. But the less post-processing you have to do, the better.

As the number of megapixels goes up, so too does the cost of the camera--and the near photo-quality printer you'll have to buy to take full advantage of all those pixels.

Why can't we be lens?
Another thing my wife and I want out of the camera is some lens flexibility. We want to know that we can adapt the camera with a zoom or wide-angle lens that's better than the built-in lens. The Canon G2 and G3, for example, accept lens converters and adapters, but I haven't fully investigated how these work. If you've had any experience in this department, please send me your thoughts.

The lens issue has become a major discussion point between my wife and I. She's more of a photography enthusiast than I and, over the years, she's made some investments that would be nice to take advantage of with this next purchase. Three of those investments are after-market lenses for her Nikon N70 SLR camera. One of these is a zoom lens that looks like it belongs on the turret of a tank.

We've learned that Nikon makes a digital camera body to which all of her after-market lenses can be attached. There do not seem to be many Digital SLRs (DSLR) like this, so we feel lucky that she already has a Nikon camera and that Nikon is one of the companies offering a DSLR. But the price of the DSLR body is enough to break your teeth after your jaw hits the ground. According to CNET, $1,800 is the lowest price that the Nikon D100 DSLR can be purchased for.

At first blush, the Nikon D100 appears to exceed our budget by at least $1,000. But, upon careful reconsideration, we might be willing to make an exception. The reason for this is that we could derive significantly more enjoyment and value out of my wife's extremely expensive after market lenses if we knew that we could also freely snap away at anything we like. Today, given the cost of film and processing, that's really not an option with her Nikon N70. Given the way we need to spread those costs out over time and the amount of practice required to master the lenses, it could take years for us to figure out how to get the best results. With a digital body, everything changes. In fact, she could use the digital body to freely sample her shots before switching to the film body to take the costlier (but better looking) final output--a trick the pros apparently use.

But to make this exception, we will need to know two things. First, when used with my wife's lenses, will the D100 deliver pictures that are at the very least equal in quality to those of the best digital cameras? Second, will we have to sacrifice many of the special features and conveniences found in some of the higher end digital cameras?

Over the coming weeks, I will be learning as much as I can about the various four and five megapixel cameras, and how they compare to the D100. If you have any thoughts on this issue, let me know.

Beyond that, I'll be taking a close look at photo printers. My in-laws are thrilled with their HP Photosmart 7550, which has a small LCD that displays the image currently being printed. But, based on a picture that they printed out for me and that was in need of serious color correction, I'm not so sure. I need to figure out whether it was the camera that took a bad picture, or the printer that messed up on the output, or a combination of the two. I'm also concerned that I'll have to set aside some funds for photo editing software.

Either way, I hope you'll stick with me as I narrow down my options and make my final choices. Maybe, together, we can reach digital camera nirvana.

Have you had a good or bad digital camera experience that you'd like to share with me and your fellow ZDNet readers? Use TalkBack below or write to me at david.berlind@cnet.com.