Good point and shoot for under $300 (with details)?

[ffr]

Camera:

I'm looking for the best point and click I can buy for under $300. I've seen the Canon SD850 get good reviews so I am considering that one, but don't know much about this stuff.
Things that are important to me:
1a.) Ability to take shots quickly. My older Sony would take a while between when I actually pushed the button to when the camera would actually take the picture.
1b.) Ability to take multiple pictures quickly. (taking a sports picture I’d like the camera to be able to to back-to-back pictures quickly)
2.) Ease of use while still getting decent quality in a variety of settings. I doubt I'll be changing the settings so the camera will have to do a decent job of adjusting the settings automatically for low light, bright sun, close ups, etc...
3.) Video; the better quality the better. I have a HD Camcorder and appreciate the difference in quality in the HD vs. my old SD camcorder. (I know it’s not going to replace my Camcorder, but the ability to take short clips at okay quality would be nice).

Is the Canon SD850 a good choice or would you suggest other models that you feel would be a better choice in the sub $300 price range?
Specs can be found here:
Canon SD850


Thanks in advance !!!

[Photo-John]

ffr-
The current batch of compact digital cameras likely has much better performance than whatever Sony you've been using. I don't know if you've looked at our pro reviews, but I reviewed the Canon PowerShot SD850 IS last summer and loved it. Shutter-lag is minimal, exposure is excellent, and the image quality is very, very good for a compact digital camera. I liked it so much that I bought the Canon SD950 IS a few weeks ago. Keep your eyes open for a review of that camera. I'm working on that review right now.

The only area I think you need to let go of is 1b, "Ability to take multiple pictures quickly." The little cameras don't have the processing power for that. Some point-and-shoot cameras have an action mode that will capture multiple frames per second at a lower resolution. But most won't do more than 1.5 or 2 FPS (frames-per-second). For better performance you'd need to step up to a digital SLR.

[mn shutterbug]

The only area I think you need to let go of is 1b, "Ability to take multiple pictures quickly." The little cameras don't have the processing power for that. Some point-and-shoot cameras have an action mode that will capture multiple frames per second at a lower resolution. But most won't do more than 1.5 or 2 FPS (frames-per-second). For better performance you'd need to step up to a digital SLR.

Actually, my Panasonic DMC-FZ7 will shoot 3 FPS. It's a great little camera, and I would imagine the FZ8 is even better, for under $300.