Computer tools are more capable, the image is larger and the keyboard and mouse allow easier navigation.

I wouldn't want a camera manufacturer to do anything with my photos other than to allow me to take the best photo I can with their equipment.

I prefer to process on the computer. Basic setting on the camera are OK. I'd like to see a pro-sumer SLR optimized (and simplified) for manual control.

I prefer doing red-eye reduction in software. Faster shooting without it. I shoot with a Nikon D70.

Separate flexible more extensive software will always beat any fixed in camera solution for quality and total cost.

I am trying to teach myself to use the camera and make adjustments then but sometimes you just can't so in that case I do use the programs.

Except in studio conditions, we would end up spending more time setting options than taking pictures. It's difficult to ask the animal, clouds or light to wait.

There may be a particular instance when in-camera would be of use but generally one would want to spend the time taking pictures as opportunities present themselves, not fidling around with processing.

I mostly shoot raw so proessing in the camera makes no sense for me.

I'd much rather see manufacturers use bigger sensors to improved dynamic range and noise. Cameras have limited processing power, limited memory and small screens. As a result, a camera will not be able to do as good a job in processing the image as a full computer. In-camera image manipulation may sell more cameras to casual users, but for the rest of us, improving image quality is more important.

The quality of the viewing screen on any camera will not match that of my computer monitor. The larger size enables seeing the full effect of any changes.

I want total control! I do not want the camera or computer to decide how the image should look.

I only process those that need it and would never allow a camera that luxury. My wife on the other hand loves the sepia and b/w settings.

When I'm shooting, I want to concentrate on making the best image possible. I don't want to divert my attention to image processing, much less on a screen so small you really can't see what you are doing.

It is far easier to do the work on the computer, because I don't want to be bothered by doing editing when I shooting. I would rather shoot, shoot than edit, edit.

Software like CS2 will always do a better job with post image processing than inside the camera. I will always want one untainted RAW negative from the camera.

I sometimes use the camera settings to enhance the saturation and sharpness.

I have yet to see an on camera display that allows me to make other than very gross decisions regarding image qualities. I can't see in-camera adjustments being of much use when you can't visually make decisions about what is happening. Of course, the trend will continue, as camera companies seem to seek the lowest common denominator, rather than the highest possible quality.

Unless you can get CS2 to run in-camera, I'll wait!

As a nature photographer I find time in the field is better spent on getting the best shot I can and retouching later when more time is available.

I wear glasses and I know I can't see detail in-camera well enough to be able to edit there, I would still take all my photos to the computer to post process.

I prefer to get the image as close to right as I can in the camera, to reduce processing time.

I'm more concerned about the scene composition, lighting and capture capabilities of my cameras. Image processing is a post-capture activity best accomplished with software designed to manipulate the images.

I think that use of this feature would be rare. I would prefer my image processing at home.

A computer monitor is much better than a small on-board LCD screen. Plus software like Photoshop is much more powerful.

Maybe I am weird but the satisfaction is not making my pictures perfect, but taking the perfect picture.

Unless the camera also has a pointer or mouse for me to be precise which point to retouch! The images on the LCD or monitor just give me confidence that I got the pictures I wanted to and then move for other shots. They're unnecessary features.

It is my opinion to get a great shot, then use Photoshop to do final touchup.

Sometimes new features and technologies are great and save lots of time and effort - but for some things I still want total control over processes. That's why we have RAW.

Extra efficiency is always good to have. But hopefully, it will not hinder the real creative and technical growth of the photographer.