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.

24 photos? W/ flash? Plus using the LCD? Sounds like enough to eat the battery to me. My uncle had (has?) a Sony from a few years ago that uses AAs, and his had about the same performance. He's much happier with the rechargables. My Olympus E-20 can use 4 AA batteries or a Lithium Ion battery. The LiIon is much more powerful (you can tell with how fast the flash 're-sets'), but they're expensive. I have a couple of sets of AA rechargables for the camera and the external flash, and I can get off about 50 shots before I notice the flash start getting weaker. At max resolution, my memory cards only hold 52 shots, so I just take the oportunity to swap the batteries and memory card all at the same time. I think those rehargables are 1600 mAh, but as I've said, I've seen much higher capacities these days... Actually, I don't know how many digital cameras these days take AAs anymore (though I haven't looked, to be honest). Most that I've glanced at seem to come with some type of rechargable battery pack with a seperate charger or a cord/cradle to recharge a non-removable rechargable battery. This is especially true of the smaller ones, that just don't have the room for a couple of AA batteries. Here is a link that might be useful: Energizer 2500mAh AA 4-pk w/ Charger

Just from my own real life experience as the mother two toddlers, I can tell you I own over $3000 worth of DSLR body and lenses. My best shots of my kids actually come from my Nikon Coolpix S8100 (under $200). I'll give you the lag time is more than my fancy DLSR. And yes, when I have time to pull the DLSR out I can get a much better photograph, but I can stick my Coolpix in any bag I am taking anywhere and it is always with me. So I get all the candids. My DLSR is bulky (and my kids come with enough baggage already. I love my DSLR, don't get me wrong, I have it for many other reasons, but if she is looking for great shots of her child, a fairly easy point and shoot is way more practical. Kalindi

Search in the Photography forum and you'll get plenty of answers. In the mean time, I'll try to give you my 2 cents worth. Cameras are like cars. There's a maker for each person's individuality. 1st, You'd need to determine what is his level of photography knowledge? In any brand, there's intermediate, medium and professional level cameras. If he's a pro, you may just want to ask him what he'd like. A pro knows what he wants and mostly will not settle with just anything. If he's not, most intermediate and medium level cameras has both features: auto focus and manual focus. They're made for those that want to grow and learn about photography beyond autofocus features. 2nd, Does he owns any previous 35mm camera lens? Would these lens capable to be mounted on the new DSLR body? Such brand as Canon has been a favorite for many because of its interchangeable lens. Meaning, we can invest into the more expensive lens knowing that if we ever upgrade the camera, the old lens would still work with the new camera body as well. I have a few that I owned from the mid 80's and still work very well with the new DSLR. 3rd, The camera body and weight must feel comfortable in one's hand. It makes a different with the result of a photo. If all possible, take him to a camera store and let him play around, ask questions and make a choice of the Digital SLR (DSLR). Then, go online and purchase from one of the reputable online store. Normally, their prices are less expensive. Watch out for import (gray market) vs. US warranty cameras (price varies). Personally, I've always owned Canon. I had several Canon 35mm cameras and had since upgraded to digital: from the Canon Rebel XT to currently the Canon 40D (had it for a little over a month). As mentioned, I have a few lens from the 35mm cameras that works well with both DSLRs. I've upgraded to the Canon 40D because it has some image stabilizer built into the camera. Although, Canon also makes some lens with Image Stabilizer (IS). The lens kit of the Canon 40D camera comes with a 28-135mm lens that has the IS feature (mainly in the US). I don't plan to upgrade the camera body for a long while. I'm quite satisfied with the Canon 40D. Instead, I'm investing on better lens. And, that's what I'd recommend for you to do. If money is not an object, buy a medium price range camera but invest the rest on a good lens with low aperture capability such as f/2.8 or less. Good lens give the flexibility to take crispy clear photos in low light situation. I strongly recommend to read reviews from the 2 websites that Susan posted above. They also has forums in categories of camera brands. You may find some useful information from the users. Good Luck! Natalie