How about a simple DSLR or rangefinder (Leica) camera thats shoots RAW only. Then do the processing in a processing program. Use the camera as a camera not a mini computer.

I can't imagine that it is possible to manipulate an image effectively in the camera.

I would rather do my own processing, I don't think you can see the image good enough to see how it will look.

As soon as I have a DSLR with a high resolution 17" or larger monitor I'll maybe possibly consider doing in camera editing. Until then I'll do my processing after the shoot on a PC.

Realistically it is very difficult to do any post processing on your camera as the LCD does not give you a realistic representation of your actual image. I shoot in primarily RAW format and there are many times where the image on the LCD looks blown out or dark but sometimes the opposite is true once you look at it on a calibrated monitor in a controlled environment. In camera post processing is a bad idea.

I've heard rave reviews about the convenience of having in camera options but have never been in a situation myself where said options justify learning to use them.

I actually prefer to shoot RAW with some specific processing (e.g. filtration, saturation) done in-camera. Keeping the original RAW file also allows fine-tuning to be done externally.

I don't like the in camera processing, you might as well shoot everything in auto mode with your eyes closed.

Having been an avid photographer for almost 50 years, as well as having some years as an astronomer taking and processing plates, I have the idea that you take the best photo you can in the camera (or telescope) and process it in the darkroom. Having been a programmer for 44 years, I'm not unfamiliar with the computer processing, but I still find I am most pleased when I only enhance slightly my camera images.

I shoot a lot of RAW and work to correct white balance in Canon's DPP with a grey card shot.

You have more control doing the work on your own as the camera will use presets to do this type of editing. As well, you should always keep an unedited copy of your photo as you may never know how many different ways you may want to edit it yourself for printing.

Since I use RAW files and shoot in differing conditions, I prefer doing the image processing myself.

Lets keep the camera just that, and do all corrections with our software.

Touch-up needs to be done with the proper software.

I would do photo retouching on the computer with Photoshop as I think its easier viewing the image.

For the most part I would prefer to process the image with an image processing program on a display that is much bigger than the camera's display so that I can see the quality of the results. Each image capture scene is different and so I would rather not waste my time adjusting the camera settings and risk losing out on taking the picture because the time has passed or the subject as moved on.

For those who wish to have control over their work out side the camera is better; a course those with least amount of experience would benifit from inside the camera processing! But with such an Item how much more is the camera price rise? I think this camera war is gone on to far, such as who can build the most into the camera wins for a while, what happened to days of building solid camera's?

I would prefer to see the image larger (computer screen) before making any changes.

I orefer to be in control of these creative decisions.

Editing of your shots is best done at your computer.

These cameras have to many gadgets on them as it is to remember.

For me, the in camera processing is not practical. The image is too small to get an accurate look.

Less is often more....

It takes too long to process in the camera. I rather take the next image and work on photoshop.

When I'm shooting, I don't have time to mess around with processing images. So in-camera processing is a non-starter for me. I'd rather they used the RAM and CPU time for faster storage.

The camera LCD is far too small to use to do any accurate image processing in the camera. In camera processing, to me, seems like a useless marketing gimmick that wil create yet another menu to contend with.

I don't have time to do it on the camera. Also, the screen is to small to do editing.

My computer screen is far better to see touchups. Plus, the keyboard and the mouse are easier to use!

No camera "in processing" can compete with Photoshop, in fact the in camera processing might degrade the image if you then follow-up with using Photoshop.

I've used Canon's in camera sharpening but after attending a seminar by Epson this past weekend I've turned that off now too.