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.

I have a Kodak EasyShare, it's my second one. My first one didn't do closeups very well. My new one is a Kodak EasyShare CX6330, actually lower mega pixels than my first at 3.1 versus 3.2 but exceptional picture quality and very simple to use. Not sure about football field pictures, but otherwise it's a wonderful camera, dead simple to use, and I bought it used on ebay for about $60! There are quite a few comparison and rating articles on the net similar to this one I've linked to - you may find that helps you make a decision on what's best for you. Suzan J Here is a link that might be useful: Digital Camera Comparisons

This is an interesting thread as printers are like razors. The base unit doesn't cost much, but you get raked over the coals to buy replacement cartridges. I've got a couple of people here that swear by HP inkjets both from a standpoint of quality and ink consumption, so I found it highly enlightening that they now seem to have come down in quality. I have had nothing but Canon at home, currently a 4 in 1 that we love, but Canon's also don't last forever, even when using only OEM cartridges, and the cartridges seem to run out quickly, and they cost a fortune. I had told myself to buy HP the next time the printer craps out, but now I'm not so sure. I hope you have a good experience with the Brother. I'm always looking for viable alternatives in this space.

The Canon Rebel XTI is a digital single-lens-reflex camera. It can be left on Auto and used with the lens it comes with, but, frankly, if that's all you do with it, you're wasting your money. Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, and Sony all sell cameras worth considering. Some things to keep in mind: - Image stabilization will let you get a better picture in low light and maybe fix some "user errors". But it won't fix every motion problem. You still can end up with blurry pictures. - Don't buy just megapixels. The way the camera handles the picture after you take it ("image processing") is even more important than the number of pixels. For the size of pictures most people will put in their homes, 6-8 megapixels is enough. Worry more about your options in managing the picture. - Watch the zooms. It sounds really good to have a 10x or 15x zoom, but most zooms get really dark at the far end. In addition, image stabilization will work the same at the wide and tele ends of the zoom even though that, too, may result in some unwanted effects. - It really helps to get your hands on cameras you're thinking of buying. Any given camera may seem too small for one person; too clumsy to handle to someone else; too difficult to operate. Take pictures, but also try some scene modes, formatting a memory card, and try deleting a shot. - If you can, either get return privileges or see if the store will either print some of your pictures or display them on a large screen. The little LCD on the back of the camera is not adequate for judging color, sharpness, contrast, or focus. - If you can, shop at a camera shop. Though it may be hard to believe, camera shops will sell the same cameras at the same prices as discount stores or big-box electronics stores. And you usually get the benefit of a wider range of cameras and accessories and a salesperson who isn't just substituting from Small Appliances. I realize this is a lot to read, but it can help you from spending a lot of money on a camera that doesn't do what you want it to do.