Which is the Best Digital Camera for the Money?

One of my hobbies is photography. Now I'm no professional but I enjoy taking good professional quality photos. I had to weigh up whether to go for a compact digital camera or a Digital SLR. I was fortunate back in the eighties to own a 35mm SLR camera. The picture quality was fantastic. Much better than that of a compact camera. The ability to alter settings and change lenses to pull subjects closer or move them away was far superior to that of the compact 35mm camera.
Fast forward to today and not a lot has changed. The Digital compact cameras quality has gained a great deal on the Digital SLR but is still behind, in my opinion. Both benefit in the fact you can see the result instantly after the shot has been taken but the DLSR is far superior in the ability to change that shot, on the spot and in so many ways. One thing with the compacts is the lack of depth of field. You take the picture and the whole picture will try it's best to be in focus. With DSLR you can have the subject in focus and blur the background which creates very simple but effective results.
I use a DSLR - Canon EOS 400D. I have had this for 18 months so has now been surpassed in the Canon range. It doesn't have 'Live View' which means you have to compose the shot through the view finder. However the newer Canons have this now. It came with a 18mm-55mm standard Canon lens but also in the package was a Tamron 200mm Zoom Lens. I bought a Lowepro Slingshot A100W bag and SanDisk 4GB Compact Flash Card, separately.
Out of the box you can stick it on auto and never leave that setting if you want to. However this defeats the object of having so much power and scope over your shots by using the auto setting. Remember it's digital so you can experiment over and over again with different settings until you get it bang on. If you were to leave it on auto forever you might as well buy a compact camera.
The clarity of the shot has to be seen to be believed. At 10.1MP you have a serious camera that gives you nigh on professional results. Many Professionals that have the top end of the Canon EOS range at £5,000 plus would tell you different. Remember they have to justify the £5000 plus price tag so they will find the tiniest detail different but to you and me the pictures look near enough the same.
I went to Turkey in the summer and the pictures I took with my camera I could never have achieved with a compact camera. The scenery was a photographers dream and I managed to fill the 4GB card with top quality pictures. The ability to capture in RAW is also a bonus fo the semi-serious photographer. With RAW there is no compression like with JPEG and it's as it says the RAW picture. You have the option to change the white balance when your back on the computer. Yes you can bodge it up when it's a JPEG but is no where near as effective as RAW. Give it go yourself.

The darkroom side of it is up to you. I use Adobe Photoshop. It cost approx £500 but is what the pros use. There are loads of magazines out there with tips on how to use Photoshop but I recommend getting a decent book on it. It is a huge piece of software but you can make dreamy portraits and Andy Warhole popart with a little practice and tuition. There is also Photoshop Elements for under £100 but I understand that this is a scaled down version of the Professional version and would be good for the begginer to intermediate.
Your friends and family might scoff at you with your bigger camera and bag and some might say 'what do you want all that for when you can get a camera that fits in your pocket'. Believe me when they see your laptop slideshow through an HDTV they will be green with envy and clambering to copy your photos or even buy them. The hardest decision is which type of camera to go for.
All in all my Canon EOS 400D might be old at 18months old but will be staying with me for some years to come. I can live with shooting through the viewfinder. Maybe your so used to the new cameras that you need to hold the camera out in front of you. The choice is yours.