[f5fstop]

I love his waterfall on the front page; great colors, and thanks for the compliments.

To add to cameras:
They are like the old Ford versus Chevy versus Dodge; everyone will like something in a brand that another person does not like.
If a person decides to go with an DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) or SLR (Single Lens Reflect-film), make sure that if you plan on working your way up the DSLR (or SLR) line, to make sure this is the line you want.
The biggest investment in any DSLR or SLR is the lenses, they really are what make the photo; other than your eye. Canon makes great products, but their lenses have always been too soft for me. So, back in the 70s, I sold my Canon equipment and went with Nikon.
Since all my film cameras (F5/F100) are Nikon, it only made sense to jump into the Nikon digital line, since the lenses are all interchangeable between bodies.
However, the reliability of any of the brand name SLRs or DSLRs such as Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta are excellent, and probably on even keel.
In addition, you don't have to purchase the manufacturers lenses. In this day-and-age, some aftermarket companies make excellent lenses such as Tamron, Sigma and especially Tokina (I like Tokina because of their strong build, and their sharpness, which is similar to Nikon lenses, and I guess this makes sense, since Tokina was started by six or eight Nikon engineers a few decades ago.
So, if you prefer a Canon over a Nikon or a Nikon over a Pentax, etc., then look at the aftermarket lenses too.
As for ease of control, that is something you will get used to with the same camera line. Again for me, the major controls (not the menus, trash can, etc., but the controls common from a DSLR to an SLR) on the Nikon digitals were more convenient. But if you have learned on another brand, then it makes sense to stay with that brand.
Nikon was slow to get into the semi- or pro-DSLR market, but they continue to use the CCD sensors in their entry level cameras. Their high-end use expensive CMOS sensors as Canon does in their high-end bodies.
Just figure out what you want to do.
Ipedog is correct, point and shoots are not the best for kids or fast moving objects. The photo lag in these will drive you nuts. You may not notice it right away, but if you have ever shot with a decent SLR with good lenses, a point and shoot will not make it.
I have a decent point and shoot (somewhere), and it was great for static images, but trying to grab photos of my dog was impossible, by the time the shutter fired, the dog was on the other side of the yard. So, for those photos, the DSLR comes out of the bag.
I'm still not totally sold on DSLRs versus film, but with the release of the new D200, I can get my 12 x 18 inch photos, and continue to obtain a good color space and dynamic range. (A Fuji Velvia slide, scanned in at 4000x4000 is the equivalent to a 23 megapixal file.)
Another great DSLR not mentioned, but can be found on eBay for pretty good prices is the Fuji S2. It takes Nikon lenses, since it is a Nikon body with Fuji innards.
Another thing to consider if jumping to a DSLR is memory cards. When any manufacturer advertises X-number of frames per second, you will see the footnote states with XXXXX memory card. Compact and SD cards have different speed ratings, and the faster the card, the more expensive. So, if you are shooting kids in sports, you will require a fast card, if shooting static object such as landscapes, like I do, then speed of a card is not that important.