[abirkill]

I had a Sony DSC-F717 (technically a 'bridge' camera, although at the time there were no consumer-priced DSLRs so there was nothing for it to be bridging) and it was superbly good. Got some stunning photos with it, and it had some features that my 350D even now doesn't have (0 lux focusing/framing, spot metering!).

My Mum has a DSC-T9, which is a super-slim point and shoot jobby - does a very good job, with a high-ISO mode and image stabilisation allowing you to get tolerably good non-flash shots in dark environments (restaurants, etc.) Obviously no patch on my 350D with 50mm f/1.8, but equally it's so small and light she always has it with her, which is more than can be said for my 350D!

And finally my Dad has the Sony DSC-H5, another, much newer, bridge camera - he wanted something that would give him the manual control his old film SLR had, but that had a nice large LCD screen for composing shots, and was small and light. Considering the range the lens has it's amazingly compact. Again, the photos from it are pretty damn good, and the lens is nicely matched and gives impressively sharp photos if you pixel-peep. OK, it's no SLR, but considering the price, the zoom capability, and the convenience, it's more what he wanted.

If I was downgrading from a DSLR I might not buy a Sony, but I'd certainly look at their range first. Compared to the Canon non-SLR range they're far superior, in my opinion. There are a lot of things that Sony aren't much good at, but digital still cameras are an exception in my experience.

If I started again now, would I buy an Alpha? Probably not, but it wouldn't be the camera that stopped me, it would be the relatively small number of lenses currently available.