I have used Olympus cameras since I was 18 years old, so the E-500 was an easy choice for me.
For me, it's all about the glass.
Olympus is always marked down for its menus, but I can deal with that, for the good optics.

I do flower closeups, but with a change of lens and mode, I can shoot good action images.

Nikon is a step up -- but a BIG step up in price.
For info on the Olympus E-500, see link.

Jeri

Here is a link that might be useful: Olympus E-500 Review

Nicole,

Any Nikon or Canon DSLR you buy it will be a good one.
Technically, both Nikon and Canon are very good.
Personally, I prefer Nikon since it is more intuitive.

To take good pictures of flowers, you need a SLR and a standard zoom.
The next step would be to buy a trypod and a macro lens and a tele lens.
With a trypod you get stable pictures, and with the macro lens, you can focus very close.

With $800 in the badget, you can afford Nikon SLR, D40 and D60.

At amazon.com, I see that you can buy Nikon D40 with a sharp standard lens 18-55mm for $409
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000KJQ1DG/ref=ord_cart_shr?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

A tiny step up, is Nikon D60 with the lens 18-55mm (with vibration stabilizer) for $530.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0012OGF6Q/ref=ord_cart_shr?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

You may add a pretty good tele lens, Nikon 55-200mm, f/4-5.6G for $215.
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-200mm-4-5-6G-AF-S-Nikkor/dp/B000O161X0/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1233776119&sr=8-1

The cheapest macro lens, a good one, is Tamron, 90/2.8 for $379.
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-90mm-2-8-Macro-International/dp/B001FB6PKC/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1233775899&sr=8-2
However, you will need to focus manually with that lens on D40 and D60 (what I do with my macro lens anyway).

Thank you Jeri and RoseMarek - As it happens I was at Walmart today looking for birdseed and got into a conversation with this gentleman who happened to be a wildlife photographer, so I was asking him and he suggested Canon and the 40D or it's replacement 50D,,,I checked and it's over my budget. He gave me a card for a local photo shop so I guess I should pick these up in my hands and really test them out. I did read the Nikon D60 brochure on line. I did look at a Nikon when I was thinking about one of those 18X zoom 'almost' dslr's at Ritz Camera.
Oh I wish my husband had not thrown out my Consumer Reports article all about this! I was saving it knowing I would be buying one eventually and he just looks at the date and says, it's old, trash it!!!! Maybe I'll try the library and see if they carry that issue.
Maybe I should educate myself about SLRs so I can figure out all these things and narrow it down to 3-4 things I think are important. I should be glad my rose prep is done and I can study up while I watch them bud out....
Thanks for your thoughts! Keep'em coming.

Nicole,

"one of those 18X zoom 'almost' dslr's"

I think you have listen too much to salesmen. Those cameras are SERIOUS CAPABLE DSLRs.
Those 18X zoom 'almost' DLSR's are able to take equally great pictures
as 4 times more expensive cameras. Do not believe the salesman telling that twice
as much expensive camera takes better pictures. The difference between those
cameras is very, very, very small.

You may check the following webpage: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

I have a Nikon D200 camera with 18-200 lens (I paid $2,500 for it), and my wife
has D40 with this 18X zoom (she bought them refurbished for $380).
Guess what? In many situations she is able to take better pictures than me.

When I travel I take her camera, because is lighter.

When I take Wedding pictures, then I take my D200 because it has a lot of buttons,
and it is easier to customize it. I can do the same customization with D40, but I need
to go to the menus.

Also take in consideration that whatever camera you buy, it will cost a half the price
in three years, and a quarter of the original price in 5 years. Then it is not worth to pay
a lot of money, especially in your situation, when you want to try SLR to see if it will
be something you would like.

Also there is a lot of to learn about the camera, lenses, digital processing.
You may need money for a better computer, a program to improve the pictures,
maybe a good photo printer, a tripod, macro lenses, more memory, photo books, etc.

The camera is only the tip of the iceberg.

BTW, I've just been to Costco, they have D60 with two lenses 18-55, and 55-200 VR for $697.

Here is a link that might be useful: Recommended cameras

RoseMarek - It's not the salesmen, it's me,,I have a point n shoot and just need more (zoom, crisper pictures,,faster to catch action etc.) Believe me, I've almost grabbed that Nikon D60 pkg. every time I'm in Costco and I live less than a 1/2 mile away. They've extended the manuf rebate til March something, so I've got a little time. I almost ran out to Circuit City to purchase the D60 with only 1 Vr lens (18-55mm) for $479 but then found out that buying that extra 55-200 VR lens would bring me to $699 anyway so the 20% going out of business was moot. I'm a picture taker kind of person and while the Panasonic Lumix (husband bought it for me for Xmas) had this 18x Zoom I just knew I wanted a DSLR so I didn't even open the box to try it out since there was a better lumix out there as well. I just wanted that flexiblity to take it further that having interchangeable lenses would give me. I'm sure they take great pictures. I've had my pentax digital for 2 yrs and am glad to have a pocket size,,,just taking the next step.
QUESTION: Each company has their strong points,,what company has a better track record of least repairs needed, best quality build, good lenses etc.? I've got to narrow it down some how. I'm thinking Nikon D60 with the 2 VR lenses but for zoom close ups, vacation scenery shots, fast action stuff like kid learning to surf etc. I need it to do those things well on it's own until I learn the tips and tricks. (I don't want to miss a vacation frustrated with the camera and don't want to miss awesome stuff trying to figure it out) We're supposed to be taking a trip to Italy in the summer so I want to have it before hand to get used to it. Sorry,,I ramble on.

I don't have any recommendations for any particular camera, but the one that would get my vote would be one that would take the truest reds of roses.
Everything else would be secondary imo.

Nocole, sorry, I thought you referred to those cheap DSLRs. All DSLR, even the cheapest, are serious machines.

I think you are doing good focusing on VR lenses. VR helps if you do not have a tripod.

Which company has better track of records? I believe both Canon and Nikon are the best.
Canon is best in compact cameras, and it used to be best in digital SLRs,
but Nikon has passed them in the last new years, but not very far. Also Canon's
cameras used to be best in lower light, but not any more.
I like Nikon because theirs cameras are easier to use - they have a more intuitive layout of the buttons, for example.

With those two VR lenses (18-55 and 55-200) you will cover about 90% of your
all photographic needs. It will be costly to expand that area. In every directions
you would like to go, you would pay at least $400. For example:

1. To go wider than 18mm (to take pictures of big buildings and wide objects): $400 - $900

2. To go longer than 200mm (to take pictures of birds and other wild animals): $900 - $5,000

3. To have a real macro lens (to take pictures of small flowers): $400 - $900

4. To have a faster lenses, e.g. 17-50 f/2.8 (to photograph in lower light): $600-$1300
However, there is a cheap way to go faster with the excellent Nikon 50mm f/1.8 for $100.

5. To buy a superzoom 18-200 or 18-270 (good for travel): $500-$700

Hi
I am a Canon user, so I'm obviously partial to them. I haven't read all the replies you've got , but I wanted just to tell you that if you're serious about learning photography just think a PS with a 20x zoom, the quality ( and responsiveness ) of the camera will suffer.

If you get an SlR (DSLR nowadays) they still have the Green mode until you learn to use the settings. SLRs also take time in postprocessing sometimes, with the PS the camera does it for you ( sometimes it's not what you want)

With an SLR you will need to invest in lenses, that's the idea, you have specific lenses for specific needs. And good ones are expensive.

A 40D would be awesome, but you could start with the Rebel series. An EF-s 60mm macro is one of the sharpest most beautiful little lenses created for Macro. And you could get it cheap, expecially if you're willing to shop SECONDHAND (used lenses)

One last suggestion.If SLRs are too much or too expensive for now, I would recommend a quality PS, which is like a little hybrid SLR ( no lenses to buy) A G10 is about $400 and it's an amazing little machine, with ok ISO performance, good focus, very fast, and overall a great PS. It also lets you change a lot of the settings, and learn a little more about photography.
Hope this helps,
Adi

I've also got a D200 and a D40 and I agree that the D40 would be your best choice.
It's in your budget and is a whale of a camera for your application.
You can even afford a decent zoom lens and be set for almost any situation.
Have fun with your new toy.