An instruction manual will only give you the technicalities. You will need tips and mentoring for settings and techniques for getting good photos, go to where the pro's and experienced amateurs hang out, think I'm not supposed to mention another website. That's where I learned everything. People there helped me a little at a time. It took about two years to really start to get a good grip on it, and I have a ways to go. Before that, all I did was set on auto, had no clues what those numbers and other settings on the camera meant, my dad got me a film one like that once, but I didn't understand any of it so just set on auto.

Some of the point and shoots get pretty good closeups. The Canon S2-S5 IS series is good, but I tried the S2 and found it lacking. IS is image stabilization which is almost a must now in certain situations.

If you really want to get serious about it, you will want to get a dslr and a few lenses, Nikon or Canon. An entry level dslr and one good, versatile lens will get you started, there are auto settings where you can use it like a point and shoot until you learn more. There are others but those are the big two. I went with Canon because they had deals back then and a better lens lineup. My pro friend shoots with a Fuji dslr (best skin tones). That is compatible with Nikon lenses but not Canon.

For birds, the only way I can get a good shot is with my Canon 20D and my 100-400mm lens which is heavy and expensive. For serious birders, you will need an extension for that or the 600mm lens which is about $6000, so I don't see that in my future. It is so heavy you have to use it on a tripod.

If you are just trying to catch them on a feeder, you can probably get a nice shot with a point and shoot with a good zoom by waiting quietly for a chance.

I was hoping those Canons with the 12x zoom would save me having to buy that expensive lens, but I didn't like it. I recommended to my son the Sony DSC-H5 (now up to H9 which may be better), I think, then once I saw some of the photos, I didn't like it. There was a Nikon dslr sitting next to it on the display, he has the money, but didn't want it.

I haven't really looked at the specs and sample photos for the newer point and shoot cameras lately. The Olympus, Sony and Panasonic zooms might be pretty good now, I didn't like what I was seeing a couple years ago compared to dslr's, and they aren't perfect either. There is a photo forum here, haven't been there lately, but there were only a few I considered really good photographers with high-quality photos.

I debated 2 years before I moved up to mine from the underrated Olympus C4000Z. There was a trick someone taught me where I could get good macros with that without using the super macro setting where you have to use some kind of a tripod for that close or you get camera shake and blurry photos. But not for birds, no way.

I always manage to confuse people when I start talking cameras. Over on the winter sowing forum, one person has the Canon 40D and got a splendid photo of some Geum buds (some of that poster's others were taken with Panasonic, the red clematis, didn't check them all), thread is titled something ideas for red perennials. I made some camera comments there. Sometimes I can read from a photo what people took it with at at what settings with an add-on that works on the IE menu. Firefox has a way to do that, too. The info has to be there, and sometimes it didn't get preserved.

The other photos there are very nice, but the camera blows reds (mine does, too, if I don't compensate for it). That bright red poppy and series was shot with a Panasonic DMC-LZ2 on some auto setting.

I still consider it luck when I get a really good bird shot. For every good one, I get about 5-10 not-so-good. I have won money on a few of my photos. My white pelican below was in a new Iowa magazine, made the first cut in a contest, but didn't win the category. I took that with the 100-400 lens. It was pretty far out, and I had to crop it pretty tightly. That's where the 600mm would have done a better job. I've got bird shots I think are better and sharper, but this one was in flight.

{{gwi:291207}}

Here is a link that might be useful: Please name your red perennial bloomers.

Aliska,
Thanks for the information - I am going to spend some time at the photography forum and see what I can learn. Then get a book probably. I don't want to win any contests, just take a decent picture of the insects and birds that are around my home. I can tell this is going to take some time to figure this out. I appreciate your sharing that thread - lovely photos. Great pelican picture! Gean

alisande has a camera that accepts a really awesome close-up filter, and hers is a point and shoot, I think. Try contacting her for some more information.

That said, I agree with alsiska on getting a good entry-level dslr and taking a community education photography class or two. Well worth your time, even if you shoot with a point-and-shoot.

duchesse, what you want is macro and telephoto. the macro lets you focus up close, and the telephoto would bring it up and narrow the field. Most cameras now have the macro, so the telephoto is probably more of what you want, i would guess your current camera must not have that. I would stop by a store and check out the different cameras with built in telephoto lenses, there are probably different sizes, to find one that is acceptable to you. I hope this has made sense.

duchesse, you're welcome. I'm not in it for contests but one thing let to another and people encouraged me, also couldn't handle the stress of going pro, have been offered a couple paid shoots, no, am not that good and have sense enough to realize it :-)

Good luck with whatever you decide is right for you. The others gave you good advice, too. It is a very tough choice.

Did I hear my name mentioned? :-)

I use a Panasonic Lumix FZ5 with a Raynox DCR-250 macro lens. The FZ5 was purchased in 2005; the latest model has a different number . . . I'm guessing FZ8. Raynox makes a DCR-150 as well, which is a little easier to use. The high degree of magnification produced by these lenses results in very limited depth of field, so there's a learning curve involved. I still delete far more shots than I keep, although my odds are steadily improving.

This gear costs a lot less than a DSLR. I get a lot of pleasure out of closeup photography, and I'm mostly happy with the results. But I've seen others with the same equipment whose photos absolutely blow mine away. They take the time to set up lighting and use a tripod, whereas I grab the camera, snap on the lens, and hope for the best.

I took these yesterday. The focus on the first one could be improved (depth of field again), but how often do you see a bug hanging on a bee's wing? The bee looks like he's trying to push him off. These guys were so small that I had no idea what I was photographing until I got the picture up on my screen. The rose, BTW, is Lady Elsie May.

{{gwi:291210}}

Fly on a daisy:
{{gwi:291213}}

Thank you for all the comments and advice. Alisande, I appreciate the pictures and the comments as well. I loved the bug and bee pic! I've been following Jim's thread on the rose forum about digital pictures too, and enjoyed it immensely. I'm hoping I'm a camera geek underneath and can take some good pictures to satisfy my bug love. Thanks so much, all of you.

Gean

Gean, when I was looking for a new camera, I read reviews of cameras within the price point that I was willing to spend with particular attention to the ones that were good for entry level/amateur photographers. There are several websites where you can do side by side comparisons of cameras. Then I went to stores that sold the cameras I was interested in and actually held them in my hands to see which ones were the most comfortable and easiest for me to handle. I ended up with an Olympus Evolt DSLR but you may find another that suits your needs and pocketbook. Reading about them is good, but don't forget to actually put your hands on them!

Good luck.
Carol

I'll add my opinion, for what its worth. For Christmas I got a SONY Cybershot DSC-H7 (with a Carl Zeiss lens). Its been super, although very addictive! You can't hardly goof up pics. with this camera.

I got it for free (don't hate me) my credit card had it available on the bonus points and I saved them up for a while, otherwise I could never have afforded it. I think its pretty pricey. You might check into it. Most CC have pretty good digital cameras available on the bonus points.
sorry these pics are big...I haven't learned how to make them smaller yet.
Good luck!
Michelle

Queen Elizabeth
{{gwi:291215}}

{{gwi:277803}}

Pink Peony
{{gwi:291218}}

Great photos almost looks like they are in 3-D!

Foghorn

Thnks for the hands-on advice, Carol. I would be apt just to decide and then order it online without trying it out first, so thanks.

I agree FH, those are great pictures Michelle took!

Michelle I use my credit card bonus points to order books from Amazon - I guess I need a different credit card! Those are wonderful pictures! Thanks for posting them and for the camera recommendation.

Gean

alisande, I have a dslr and a macro lens, think not quite as powerful as yours. If I'm too close, and I didn't try to find exactly how close I can get, I have to use my external fill flash which I made a diffuser for. Otherwise sometimes shadows get in the way.

But the big thing is that it also has an extremely shallow DOF so I have to use it on a monopod and I shoot in aperture priority mostly anyway but have to stop the lens way down to like f9-f14. Maybe that would help.

Your photos are pretty good anyway; the bugs are nice and sharp. If you have a popup flash, you could try one of those small cups like for ketchup over it. Direct flash would be too harsh I think.

The other samples posted are really nice, especially that QE rose.

I like my canon rebel body with seperate canon 70x300mm lens with stabilizer. The tamaron or sigma lens is also not bad just no stabilizrer and rrun about $179. I like these lenses because they give a decent macro shot or bring subjects at a distance within reach. Better to have a good processing program like adobe photoshop to work with pictures that arent just up to your liking or could use a boost. You can get an older version on ebay or potoshop elements and they will do just fine.
shot of dragon fly on a lotus about 10 feet away
{{gwi:291220}}

Joe, you're an artist. Thanks. Gean

Bamabutterfly, that's a gorgeous shot of QE!

Thanks, Aliska. I'll try your recommendations in my never-ending macro experiment. Usually the miniscule DOF is a pain, but sometimes it works to our advantage. I'm thinking of some of my "art shots," including those involving dew drops. The crystal clarity of one section, combined with the focus fade-out, is quite effective.

Aliska, PS: We mention other websites all the time on these forums. I'm sure some of us would love to know which one you're referring to.

Over the years I've learned a lot on the forums at DPReview, for one.

One alternative to he macro lens is the screw on "close-up" filters that can be mounted on an existing lens. I had a set of the close-up filters that I used with my old 35mm SLR and bought an inexpensive adapter for my Olympus DSLR. Works fine for me and much than the macro lens.

The point and shoot I've used for a couple of years is a Fujifilm S5000 - it got great reviews in 20003! How many generations of cameras ago is that??

It does not do close ups well that I've been able to figure out. I finally decided it's not just me, it is the camera. I'd like to know better what all the controls are so I buy something I understand. For now, I'm keeping the S5000 and adding a Raynox DCR-250 as Alisande pointed me to and see if I can learn what I'm doing without spending a whole lot of money.

After I actually figure things out, I'd like to get a new camera, and boy there are sure a lot of them. I spent some time yesterday on a few sites talking about cameras and got a book from the library. Well, it's a start. Thanks for the help and encouragement, and I hope to post better pictures at some point. Gean

Great shot of the dragonfly Joe. It looks like a watercolor painting.

I have a Pentax K10. It takes good close-ups -- not as good as a macro, but still good. On the Pentax forums I see people taking about a $200 Tamron lens that is very good that they use in addition to the kit lens. The Pentax is a very good affordable DSLR, lots of bells and whistles, not as user friendly as some (from what I've read -- all I do is focus and click) which is probably why it's cheaper. I have also seen excellent pictures with the K100, which is a little more than half the price of a K10.

I know what you mean about shopping for cameras -- it's overwhelming. I put it off and put it off until Pentax came out with a DSLR -- I have a fondness for Pentax because I've always had one. When we went to the camera store and looked at the Canons and Nikons and were told the price we said "Thank you. Do you have anything else?" lol and the salesman brought out the Pentax. It was love at first sight.

{{gwi:291221}}

{{gwi:291222}}

{{gwi:271145}}

alisande, the link in your Jul 3 10:34 post is the site I was referring to. They are the best one imo. One time I don't think I even posted a link but mentioned a discussion group system that is not a website, the better newservers carry those groups. I got an email from admin here warning me not to do it again, that it wasn't allowed, the implication being that I could have my posting privileges suspended. Then I saw others mentioning even competitive sites, but not the groups I mentioned, and nothing seems to happen about it; if it does, they don't say. That is why I was afraid to post another camera forum when there is one here. I still don't fully understand what I did that was so wrong; it was a garden group, not anything offbeat. The only thing is that those groups mostly are unmoderated, and some exercise their freedom of speech with language far worse than I'm sure would be allowed here. The garden group was one of the tamer ones.

Good luck with your lens. It is a trial and error process no matter what camera you are using. I'm not big on stacking glass on glass because that sometimes does affect image quality, but people who really know what they are doing use it to good effect. I did buy a Sigma 105mm which was quite a bit cheaper than the Canon equivalent, normally I like to stick to Canon lenses, but to really do serious bug photography you need the equivalent of 150mm (if there is such a thing) or 180mm. Your magnification seems quite a bit higher than my Sigma lens will do I've seen photos others have posted where they got in really close with the one I have. It's kind of a nuisance to have to mount my flash and dig out the monopod, so I don't use that lens very often and when I do, don't bother with the flash but always use the monopod.

Thanks, Aliska. Yes, it's a great site. Sorry you had the problem about posting a link. I hope it doesn't happen again . . . to any of us.

I should have mentioned that the Raynox lens is made in Japan (not China) and costs under $50. A bargain!

Alicia, I'll bet you had a K-1000 at one point. That was my second (and favorite) SLR. Completely manual, and wonderful, dependable results.

I like your bee! I agree that depending on the desired image, macro lenses aren't always necessary. I took the photo below of a sphinx moth (hummingbird moth) in flight with my first digital camera, a 3.2 megapixel Olympus. Seeing it now makes me think I really should get that camera out again and use it.

{{gwi:271197}}

Some stunning photos here. So you can see my camera and lenses are not the be all end all. Other cameras are good, too. And Canon makes even more expensive cameras the pros buy!

I buy most of my camera equipment online with authorized, reputable dealers, do my homework, after first going to the camera store for the camera way back when, they were way higher. I did buy my tripod from them, and it has a screw that won't go in all the way no matter how well I try to line it up, did take it back once and the guy got it going for me, but it started again. It's a Bogen tripod which is supposed to be high quality. I can still use it fine but annoying when you pay that much.

I always look for the best deals, wait for the Canon rebates before I buy new lenses, don't need any more I feel for the kind of photos I take, would like the very best if younger so if a shot can be taken, I have the equipment to do it, but this is now. But I bought my granddaughter a Canon 40D for her college graduation, she had to work full-time all those years in school and got over a 3.5 pt GPA so I felt she deserved it. It was a big chunk for me and I delay, delayed, but finally bought one online, couldn't find a good deal, wouldn't price match where I like to do business but finally found a substantial discount at amazon one day with free shipping. Her camera only cost about $50 more than my 20D when I bought it at a good deal back in May 2005. Then a day or so later, the price went back up again at amazon (didn't want to buy a camera there because it's hard to even find any number to call if there is a problem, so I don't think they have good customer service, but they are an authorized Canon dealer). She waited a long time for it, had her heart set on that one because wants to try to go pro on the side, and I knew if I bought a cheaper one, she wouldn't be happy with it for long.

When you buy expensive cameras or equipment online, most of us don't have to pay sales tax in addition to the other savings which makes a huge difference. But that will undoubtedly change before much longer.

Alisande said: I agree that depending on the desired image, macro lenses aren't always necessary. I took the photo below of a sphinx moth (hummingbird moth) in flight with my first digital camera, a 3.2 megapixel Olympus.

Really nice picture of the sphinx moth - if I could do that with my 3.1 megapixal Fuji, I would feel as though I knew something about what I am doing. So am going to try with what I have. I figure if I can learn the adjustments on my little Fuji, I'll know better what kind of camera I really want.

Alicia, those are really nice pictures; hope one day to do as well as all of you do.

Hamp, I always look forward to seeing your pictures of your beautiful roses. Thanks for the comment.

Aliska, thanks for the advice about looking for sales online and for your help and interest.

Here are a few tips:

If you can, go to a bookstore and peruse through some photo books - not the purely technical ones, but the ones that focus on presenting, and perhaps also discussing, actual photos, e.g. macro, nature/flowers, landscape, cityscape, portrait, sport, reportage etc and see what you attracts you most in terms of the object (e.g. flowers/macro) to get some inspiration.

Look at the styles in which they're taken: composition, telephoto or wide angle or macro, light, colors/b&w, depth of field (designates how much or little is in and out of focus-sharp/blur). Photographers' styles vary widely even with the same kind of object. Most of these pictures will not be taken with digicams but with with either (digital) SLRs or in the case of landscape and studio photography (portrait and stills) even with (digital) medium format cameras. Often these books also contain some info on the cameras and equipment used as well as some of the technical info (exif data) on the picture.

You can of course also look at the various photo storage websites, www.pbase.com for instance is a good one. But obviously printed photo books will generally have a much higher yield of good images.

Now, if photos with higher technical refinement, e.g. with really shallow depth of field in portrait or flower photography, or low noise (grain) low light or night photography, or fast sports photography or simply top image quality as well as flexibility and quality of lenses appeal to you, you should probably look at getting a digital SLR. The entry level ones are actually fairly affordable. If this is not so important to you, then a smaller digicam will do. These are usually a lot smaller and lighter, all have a macro mode, and most of them have a zoom too, so you don't have to worry about being stuck with too limited options. This is obviously also a budget decision.

As to digicams, they represent the largest market share of digital cameras, and you can get good cameras from any of the top makers. I prefer Canon for their good image quality, but for other people extreme zooms are more important, as offered for instance by Panasonic's Lumix range. Fuji and Sony also make good digicams. Nikon is good too, but the image quality of their digicams is imo not as good as Canon's for instance, but again, this goes only for digicams! I have a Canon A650 IS (with image stabilization), 12 megapixels and 6 times zoom and a flip-out screen, and I'm quite happy with it. I mainly use it for snapshots or on the go where my SLR is too bulky.

Now, if it comes to digital SLRs, it's Nikon and Canon. They produce the best cameras, hands down. However, Nikon currently owns the game pretty much across the spectrum from entry level to professional in terms of image quality, features and ergonomics, except for not yet offering a camera with extremely high resolution (24 megapixels) which is currently made by Canon only. Nikon will probably come out with such a camera in August for the Olympics. Anyway, for affordable entry level cameras, look at Nikon's D60, and on Canon's side at the Digital Rebel, which is the camera Lebrea here uses for instance (great shot, btw!). For their middle and semi-pro class, it would be Nikon's D200 (my cam) or its successor D300 or Canon's 40D. It's a good idea to try out these cameras on a store before you buy, make sure you're comfortable (or think you can get comfortable) with the camera's ergonomics, organization of buttons as well as of its menus for setting the modes etc. The feel matters a lot, and it's a very personal thing.

In order to make your decision, it may also be helpful to read and learn a bit about the technology and the latest cameras on photo review sites:

www.dcresource.com is particularly great for digicam reviews - very well written and understandable also for non-techies.

www.dpreview.com is the gold standard for digital photography reviews and also hosts discussion forums for every major brand, plus computer and printer forums. But the reviews are a lot more technical (and much longer). Both sites of course feature sample pictures - it's very important to look at those and see what you like.

Spending some time on these websites will teach you a lot about the technical aspects of digital photography and hopefully facilitate your decision.

Enjoy!
Andrea

Here is a link that might be useful: dcresource.com

Andrea, thank you so much for that introduction to digital photography. I appreciate your advice and taking the time to answer my question so thoroughly.
I've bookmarked the sites mentioned by several of you and am saving the thread.

Thanks again for all of your help and interest. Gean

Gean, you may already know this, but cameras differ as to their focus capability. It isn't the megapixels that determine how close you can focus on your subject. If you can't take good closeups with your Fuji, the problem may not be your skill. It's possible that the camera was not designed for closeups.

With the newer models, at least, you could go on a site like B & H Photo and quickly scroll through the specs on a given camera to see how far down you can focus. But as you pointed out, camera models change every year. I don't know where to suggest that you go to check out your camera's specs. Perhaps they're in the manual.

But don't blame yourself . . . yet. :-)

I like B&H or Adorama they have sales quite often and somtimes stock refurbs at cheaper prices. I've bought 2nd hand lenses at Adorama though they aren't that common. They are reliable companies

I use a Canon EOS 40d digital SLR with a general purpose lens; it takes really nice macro photos with a screw-on close-up lens attached, although I really need to purchase a real macro lens to get to 1:1 or closer. The EOS 40d is about 21 oz, so it is rather heavy. A friend just bought the Canon EOS Rebel Xsi digital SLR which she loves. She does a lot of macro photography and loves the fact that the camera is lighter at 16 oz and fits her hands better.

I would suggest going to a camera store and trying out various cameras that feel ergonomically good in your hands, does not feel overly heavy for you, and that allows you to maximize your creativity.

If you are serious about macro photography, a really good macro lens is essential. Each camera manufacturer (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc.) has a line of macro lenses for their digital SLR's that will allow you to focus very closely on your subjects. You may have to consider buying a digital SLR instead of a digital point and shoot; dSLR's do cost more, although their prices are falling like rocks right now and you can get good deals online or in-store. Make sure to stick to reputable sellers online such as B & H and Adorama, and avoid some of the smaller online stores that seem to offer great deals, but which are mostly scams.

Jeff

Thanks, everyone. I bought "Complete Digital Photography" by Ben Long and am working my way through it. I must be serious if I spent $ at a bookstore rather than used and on line. I really appreciate everyone telling me the kinds of cameras you use - there is such a variety. Thanks for the tips on places to buy as well.

Jeff, I don't know yet how serious I am about macro photography - In the meantime, I am enjoying the book. Thanks again, Gean

I just upgraded to a digital SLR. I bought the Nikon D60. I like to take a lot of pictures, but I'm not that great of a photographer, so this is an 'entry' digital SLR. I did get two lenses, a 15-55 mm 'regular' lens and a telephoto. I haven't really tried many close ups, but I think I may need a special lens to get real close ups. My old digital camera (Fuji Fine PIx) took really good macro pics, but it was very slow for anything else and did not have good color reproduction.

The Nikon is 10.2 megapixles (wow) and is very fast processing, so I can take pictures in bursts and don't miss a lot of action.

If you can, try to borrow people's cameras and see how they work. It's hard to tell from book and websites.

I have to kind of chuckle, and some really good input here. Ergonomics (other than basic controls), especially feel in my hands, was the least of my worries but they say that is important. I read, read, read user experiences and as many reviews as I could stomach, compared, and didn't jump into it for a long time. I never held that camera in my hands until DHL in that case delivered it to my doorstep. Now I'm so used to it, even though it was such a big change in size, weight, features and operation compared to my older one that isn't really a pocket camera, but I could stuff it into my jacket or sweatshirt pocket, keeping the neckstrap on usually for protection. Now mine feels like an extension of my hands when I am handling the camera itself, and I love the feel of it, guess I adjusted to it.

I have three good photography books (Understanding Exposure, Learning to see Creatively and a legal handbook for photographers), but my concentration since I've gotten older and was hit bad with something is poor except for about a screen (or a page or two) of info at a time so I've only skimmed through them looking for what I want immediately. I was once a voracious reader but now with all the manuals and other endless reading on multiple subjects, try the voluminous Medicare one sometime, I once a straight A student, just too much like my mother would say "a Philadephia lawyer wouldn't understand it") it gets overwhelming and no fun any more, just don't enjoy it like I used to for some reason, but was usually into just one special interest at a time. Same with rose books, at one time I would have read bunches of them. Now it's the manual for my tiller, my new furnace a/c, 70 pages to take the test of driver's license manual because I let my license expire, the remote for my tv, the tv, the VCR, the fridge, my new water heater, on and on.

I get more now out of live feedback from people and their opinions and store of knowledge and experience, especially on the internet. I know there is nothing like a good book but they, too, only take you so far and some people get annoyed if you ask a question and refer you back to the manual which I did look that much up before I asked the question.

As to software, I read as little as possible, just too much to take in. Normally, if it isn't intuitive (like Photoshop, oh my, but I've learned what I need to know to do what I want now without looking it up but seldom), took an online course in it and did so poorly on the final I felt ashamed of myself, but she liked my work and passed me with flying colors), I don't do it. Surprising how much you can figure out on your own if sufficiently motivated, often I google for the specific answer I need at the moment or ask on a forum if I run into serious trouble.

Maybe the only thing I will say in my superfluous ramble here that might be worthwhile to someone, I'm still very uncomfortable, scared, having to clean the sensor filter (even lenses) on my dslr, one slip and a very expensive mistake. The 40D now has a self-cleaning sensor which I've heard is much better but may have to manually clean it occasionally. Some people don't get so uptight about it, so that is one down side to a lot of dslr's. Had to read how to do that, too, multiple methods, manual doesn't cover it and Canon won't be responsible unless you send it to them for cleaning. No way.

I also took out a separate ins policy on my camera and all my equipment which gives me an added layer of protection but not total, they will fight me on some of it if I have to make a claim no doubt, but homeowner's doesn't necessarily cover all theft unless I photograph every expensive thing in my house ahead of time and let them know, for example while you're out or accidental dropping, etc.

What kind of post processing software you choose will in part depend on the kind and make of camera and if you'll shoot RAW or just jpegs.

Jpegs especially out of a digicam don't necessarily need postprocessing, unless you'd like to get creative or finetune the image. The software they come with is often good enough for starters. Canon's digicam software for instance is pretty good. Generally jpegs are made for immediate use while sacrificing a bit of quality and a lot of flexibility in postprocessing.

RAWs (or NEFs for Nikon) of course deliver by far the best image quality and flexibility (you can correct for instance a botched white balance), are mostly a feature of SLRs, and absolutely need postprocessing. They're also much larger files. As to postprocessing programs, well, I have to say that I can't stand Photoshop. It's not made for photographers but for graphic designers, it's an extremely unelegant, counterintuitive and slow program that eats up a ton of your computers' resources (e.g. memory) and at least as much of your time.

A couple of years ago Nikon brought out something much better: Nikon Capture NX, very intuitive and simple with brilliant editing tools. It's so easy to use and eats up much fewer computer resources (memory) and your time, although it still doesn't have the fastest batch editing yet. It works like the digital equivalent of a darkroom, very much unlike Photoshop. That's why I like it so much. It's also a RAW converter for Nikon (only) cameras, i.e. you can edit your Nikon RAW/NEF, and the quality it produces stands head and shoulders above Photoshop and any other RAW converter, hands down. It also processes jpegs (but not RAWs) of any other major brand. However, it's not meant to do much funky graphic designer/image manipulation stuff, so if you want that you (also) need Photoshop.

As to lenses, both Nikon and Canon offer absolutely top glass. Canon has a bit more focus on long and fast teles, and Nikon has a bit more of a tradition in fast wide angles.

While these subtle differences will probably not matter to you or most of us, it may be worth noting one key policy difference between these two camera makers regarding their lenses and SLR bodies: Nikon tends to deliver a lot more bang for the buck in their entry to medium level bodies and lenses than Canon does, i.e. you usually have to pay more for Canon glass and bodies to match Nikon's. Canon has especially a thing with dumbing down its cheaper SLR bodies by a whole lot, going so far as to crippling some parts of their software to "justify" the lower price. Nikon doesn't tend to do that. That being said, you can't go wrong with either brand, they both make superb SLRs and lenses.

As to sensor cleaning in SLRs, please only use a little air blower, don't touch that sensor with anything. Also, many programs now are able to remove the dust bunnies from the images in postprocessing, and yes, the newer cams often come with an internal dust removal system. If none of this is good enough, take your camera in for a professional clean. Your sensor will thank you for it.

Happy reading and choosing!

Andrea

Andrea, I shoot RAW exclusively now for the reasons you stated except occasionally flip it over to sports because it goes auto to burst (I think), and does only .jpg.

I love Photoshop, has a very steep learning curve, waited years until I got a $299 upgrade with Elements to CS2. I don't just use it for my photographs, and I agree with you about some of the software that comes with cameras, read about Nikon's, refused to get in the camera wars, was really torn between Canon and Nikon, at the time I thought Canons had better noise reduction at the expense of IQ, understood that going in.

I started just doing graphics learning all I could with PSP (quit upgrading at 5 because I didn't like some things), then bought Photo Impact (fun for awhile but a waste of money), but when I saw the power of PS, I was sold. I don't use all the features, no, don't jump on the upgrade bandwagon (lightbox is really cool, can't afford it), but I love their USM and ACR white balance corrections and several others such as highlight/shadows tool (because of the limited dynamic range with all digital cameras, may be better with the more expensive, super-high resolution ones), when I want to make them pop more. And a lot of it is strictly a matter of taste. There are some incredibly talented with PS; I'm not one of them. The actual conversion process doesn't take more than 30 seconds, and when I can, I batch convert using scripts. I know everything you said is true, especially you can use Nikon pics right out of the cam, sharp as a tack, same with some good P&S cameras. Have to watch oversharpening, too. For web viewing, people probably can't tell the difference about sharpening. I can see it, very occasionally I don't bother with it, depending, but do like to do my own cropping and straightening, can't stand really crooked photos unless for creative effect. Other software does that just as well.

I highly respect your opinion, and it sounds like you are some kind of pro. I don't presume to know everything.

Blowing blows more dust in than I get out sometimes, always do that first regardless, a couple tries, then test, but I have used the wet method only once, got it better, but just let the dustbunnies I missed be for now and try to be careful changing my lenses. The only people I'd really trust to clean my sensor filter, not the sensor on Canon, but extremely delicate, is Canon. Nobody on the Canon dslr forum I've read yet on dpreview for almost 5 years now sends theirs anywhere for sensor filter cleaning; they all clean them themselves, most very confidently (not me!) many, many use a wet method usually Copperhill or a pen. I used extra pure alcohol and qtips I got at the medical supply center, just a drop w/eyedropper. I first try the dry method with Walgreen's brand q-tips very gently. The camera store person told me some use plastic knives from McDonald's! Not for me!

I don't really trust my local camera store or Best Buy technicians. With the camera store, last time I was in was tempted to butt in and tell the customer something I happened to know, while the salesman didn't seem to, held my peace. Had some photos and a painting scanned I wanted to retouch, state-of-the art, awful, ended up using my camera and tripod. The camera store wasn't set up to cater to dslr users, maybe they're more with it now.

I hate cloning out dustbunnies once a bad one gets in there, most don't show at the sizes and resolution I use, but do clone quite a bit for other reasons and like the healing tool. Once a piece of fiber got in there, it drove me nuts, that I got out by blowing, need a better blower, the Hurricane one.

Sorry for taking up so much "airtime". Sooner or later most dslr owners are going to have to choose how to deal with it.

Then if I screw up, I screw up, and will pay the consequences. You HAVE to clean your lenses, even on P&S cameras, which I do as little as possible.

I know Nikon has fine cameras and lenses; that is why the choice was so hard, and sometimes I still look back, but now I'm invested heavily in a few lenses not as many as some have, don't need them, but very expensive and wouldn't get near what I paid for them if I sold them, even though they are all in mint condition.

As I've made it to chapter 4 in that book, I actually understand the conversation and terms you all are using. Thanks so much for the input! I'm glad to know you all shoot RAW - the book makes it sound as though that is far better than conversion to jpeg.

Andrea, how long have you been a photographer, if you don't mind my asking? Aliska, thanks again for your comments.

Buford, which finepix do you have? I hadn't thought about borrowing other people's cameras to try out - good idea. Thank you.

duchess, I had the Fuji Fine Pix 600. BUt it's about 5 years old. It is very easy to use, but as I said, slow to take pictures of moving objects. It was impossible to take pictures of my cats because they would move before the shutter would close.

I haven't tried doing the RAW conversion on my new Nikon. I very rarely do post editing (beyond cropping which I can now do right on the camera!) so I'll probably only do that for special projects..

Duchess, I worked as a photographer in the 1990s, all film back then. Am an academic in Cambridge (UK) now, but still do photography, all digital. Miss the wet darkroom though, it had a very special magic. Digital however gives you many more options and allows you to learn much faster with the instant results it offers. It really is a fabulous thing.

Hey Aliska, whatever works for you is fine of course! PS certainly has its place, especially for creative image manipulation.

Buford, try shooting RAW, and check out Nikon Capture NX, it has these fabulous fabulous control points you can set anywhere in the image to selectively change light, contrast, saturation and even selectively apply Unsharp Mask, Noise Reduction and D-Lighting if needed. It works like an advanced dodging and burning in the darkroom. Takes only seconds to apply. Sorry for harping on this again, but unlike Adobe's clunky product with its complicated and time consuming layers and masks, this is really intelligent programming aimed at photographers. And again, the image quality it produces leaves other RAW converters, incl. Photoshop, in the dust. If you also want creative image manipulation, the best thing is to edit the photo in NX and then manipulate it in PS. You can download a free 60-day trial of NX from Nikon's website, they just came out with Nikon Capture NX2:

http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Imaging-Software/25385/Capture-NX-2.html

http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=61

Happy playing!

Andrea