I really don't mean to pick on you - I'm serious. I just keep running into your posts that are full of half-truths. I feel the obligation to correct what you are saying so that other people do not turn up with the same bad information that you are spreading.
Fuji and Kodak are second rate cameras. They are specifically designed for ease of use and low price - NOT features. Fuji produces better pictures than Kodak, but there are much better cameras on the market for similar prices. Fuji and Kodak usually lack manual controls - if you are looking for manual controls, Kodak would probably be the last choice of anyone who knows digital cameras. Fuji is better, but you have to spend more with Fuji to get useful manual features.
I've never heard of "Olympic" - last I knew "Olympic" was a paint company. Do you mean "Olympus" - because that is a camera company. Assuming you are talking about "Olympus" and not "Olympic", I have a couple comments about them, too. They do make great cameras, you are right. The only problem with Olympus is that you have to spend a lot to get a lot. They have good features, but the cameras are usually plagued with hardware malfunction. While some of their cameras feature innovative features, I would not recommend most of their cameras because they are not very user-friendly, or feature packed.
If you are looking for features, go for a Nikon, Canon, or a Sony - For around $300, you can get a lot of manual features, excellent color reproduction, and a decent resolution. If you are looking to spend less than $300, I would definitely consider Fuji. While they won't have as many manual control features, they do make great cameras for the price. My sister has a Fuji, and it produces very good images for the price.
Now for the biggest reason I had to respond: "CCD" is not "Digital Light Capturing Circuits". CCD is "Charge-Coupled Device". It isn't a light capturing circuit, it is an array of photocells - when light hits the cells, an electrical charge is produced. I'm not going to explain this entire process -
About your "button-press jitter" comment: Digital cameras operate on the same concept that regular cameras do - shutter speed, and F-ratio. They are actually less susceptable to movement because CCDs require much LESS light than most photographic films (making exposure times far shorter). Even low quality digital cameras are usually sensitive to F-2.8, and there is no film speed to worry about, so images are much less likely to come out poorly. Since digital cameras are able to automatically adjust their f-stop, film speed (ASA), and shutter speed, it makes them much better at capturing light than normal cameras. CCD cameras (digital cameras) are taking over astrophotography because they require much shorter exposure times, capture far more light, and are far more sensitive to low light situations. You have your analysis about the light capturing ability of digital cameras totally backward.
Once again, I do not mean to pick on you. You are saying these things as if you are an authority, but you aren't. Most of the things you have said so far are totally incorrect. Why don't you do some research before making bold statements that onlymake you look bad when you are wrong?