I do like nikon. However, the MP argument, although off topic, does pertain to Bob's question. MP's do matter...to an extent. The problem is, especially on most consumer P&S cameras, manufacturers use the MP number as a marketing tool. What I mean is, they will often take the same sensor from pervious models (that were lower MP) and just up the MP. What you get with increased MP is increased noise (especially on a sensor designed for say a 5-6mp camera). More pixels means less photons captured per pixel, which generates "noise" or grain in your photograph. Sure it allows you to blow images up and make large crops, but generally most "PRO's" realize the MP is more or less the least deciding factor when choosing a camera, and advise for you to compose the picture in the viewfinder when you take the picture, rather than cropping later on. They know that really a GOOD camera starts with good GLASS. The lens is the heart and soul of IQ (image quality). Nikon generally has a bit "sharper" IQ with their glass, whereas Canon generally has a much smoother even tone to it's images. Canon lenses also tend to be a bit faster (especially the pro L lenses, but that's for DSLR's so we won't go into that).

Now what does this have to do with Bob's post? The MP craze is just that...a craze. What's nice is that it makes "older" cameras in the production line drop in price. For instance, I shoot an Canon A610 which can be had for the price close to this Nikon that bob's asking about. Even though my A610 is only 5mp, it's on a sensor sized for the camera, has a rotating LCD, Digic II, FULL manual controls (plus several program modes, aperture priority, shutter priority, etc, solid zoom, and takes AMAZING pictures). Plus the A620 (7mp version) and other deviations are available all close to this cameras price point. I would look at a few reviews of "older" cameras, perhaps 1 year old in the Nikon and Canon line. You may end up saving some decent money and even gaining a camera that can produce even better IQ. Just my $.02.