Do you normally wear glass? If so, could it be that the dioptric on the camera is set incorrectly? If you look through the viewfinder, on the right, there's a little + and - sign with a small rotating button, try turning that while looking through the viewfinder and see if it gets less blurry one way or the other. For me, it needs to be turned all the way to the " - " side. I'm even thinking I might need to replace the dioptric because I'm so blind :P You can order them at the Canon site under Accessories, though probably somewhere online has them cheaper :) I hope this info helps :) -A P.S. Now, if I could just figure out how to set the 9 dot thing properly when working with depth of field, I might get some photos that don't need to be "Sharpened" in PhotoShop! Here is a link that might be useful: Dioptric

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.

Al!!! I can't believe you said that - because I *do* have cataracts! Oh, no big deal, you might think.....except I'm only **40 years old**!!!!! The opthalmologist told me a few years ago I had the beginning of cataracts (when I was in my 30s), and I had a routine exam this year. I'll tell you - I had a hard enough time dealing with turning 40, but when he told me I have CATARACTS to boot....well, now that made me feel old. Especially when he says the cataracts are progressed enough that the insurance will cover removal - they're at the stage that it is an option to have them removed. I asked him if computer monitors are the reason why, since I spend 8-12 hours a day, 5 days a week in front of a computer at my job, plus a lot of hours of personal time for doing school work, personal stuff. He said there has been no conclusive evidence that the computer monitors are causing an increase in cataracts BUT he has seen a definite rise in the number of younger people with cataracts over the last few years, whereas previously cataracts were limited to the elderly for the most part, and he personally feels there may be a connection between the computers and early cataract development. And yes, I wear sunglasses when I go outside, even on cloudy days up here in Michigan, my ugly "old man" sunglasses - since I know sun exposure is a contributing factor to cataracts - so that's not it. My night vision is getting a little tough - halos around any sort of light.

Jen, I understand how all confusing the numbers are. It took me awhile too. I glanced at the link you posted. You'd probably benefit those info more if you have a digital SLR. Basically, the smaller the number of mm, the wider the angle would be. ie: 28mm is wider than 50mm. You mentioned that you want to take close up. You'd need a camera that has "macro". It allows you to get as close to the object but still be in focus. Pay attention to the number of the macro which means how close you can get to the object. If $400 is your limit (which IMO is alot to spend on a good camera) 2 things I'd suggest: 1) Go to a camera store/department and play around with several model, you'd get a better understanding of the focus point and zoom capability. Get the model number and shop around or online for a better price. 2) If I have $400 to spend, I would bypass a point and shoot camera altogether and would invest in a digital SLR (DSLR). You mentioned Canon and that's among a good brand to go with. With $400, you can easily get a used Canon Rebel XT or Rebel XTI with a nice lens that has a decent macro, zoom range and a wide angle. Most photographers that owns DSLR are serious photographers (either beginners or pros), and we all tend to take care of our equipments. So, getting a used one is not always so bad; although, you may still want to check out the camera as you would with any other used item you'd buy. The Canon Rebel XT & XTI are being replaced to higher end models. It shouldn't be hard to find one inexpensively. You may want to use your local city Craiglist (online listing) and see if someone locally would sell it to you for a good bargain. Sometimes, you'd find someone throw in extras with the kit. I've seen it as low as less than $200. Why a DSLR vs. a point and shoot? A DSLR allows you to shoot instantly, no slow shutter speed, no missing the "kodak moment". You can do continous shooting for action. You can set it on "auto" or you can play with the settings once you grow your knowledge of photography. You can invest on better lenses later on when you have more $$$. If you keep with the Canon brand, those same lenses will fit on your next Canon camera body if you ever chose to upgrade with the latest technology. If you'd be using the camera for macro, a DSLR would allows you to purchase specific lens for better (closer) macro. Or, for less $$$, you can get extender tubes which connect to the lens and let you get so close to the object that you'd be almost touching it. Hope these tips help and good luck on your findings. Natalie