It ~is~ really hard to choose a digital camera, isn't it? I was shopping for one this past fall, and what a nightmare! I didn't even know what the different megapixels were all about. Cena's advice is really good. Play with it in the store, so that you can decide if the zoom and clarity are good enough for your needs. But even though you say that most of your pics will be plants, I think that you'll likely find that you end up taking more and more pics of other things, too - friends, family, outings, sunsets, whatever. I find that I take way more shots of *everything* now, since I can easily delete them. I ended up getting a Canon Powershot A510 (3.2 megapixels). It's a good little camera for the price (somewhere around $250), but I have two problems with it. One, I find that the flash is WAY too bright, even when I set it to the lowest intensity, so that if I take a closeup shot, the people/plants look washed out. This means that unless I have optimal natural lighting, my shots are either dark or super-bright. And two, unless I have it on the "action" setting (for action shots), my shots come out a little fuzzy. Now, I know I'm not *that* spastic, so I clearly chose a camera that was too sensitive. Also, I wish it had a delay so that I could get into some of the family/friends shots that I take. And I would have liked a bigger screen to preview the photos. The pluses are great, though: the price was excellent for the product I got; the camera has a panorama setting, so I can take shots of an entire garden, or group photos of my gigantic extended family; and transfer from camera to computer is quick and almost effortless. For what it's worth, though, I've never heard anything bad about Nikon cameras... I just couldn't afford one. As for fussing around with the photos once they're taken, I've been told that it's much better to use a computer program, rather than do it on your camera. I only have Kodak Imaging on my computer, and I absolutely hate it. I can't do anything - resizing is minimal, I can't really play with colour. Also, with Kodak Imaging, the photo quality is really poor when I look at the shots on my computer (although they print out fine). And finally, I can't modify any shots (not even rotate them!), and then save them again in jpeg. Kodak Imaging is the absolute WORST. I'm getting Photoshop with my next computer, no question. Friends of mine use it, and it's wonderful. But because Kodak Imaging is so horrible, I tried zooming photos on my camera (after I've taken the shot), and they looked rather pixelated. I asked a friend about that, and apparently it's pretty standard. He suggested that I only edit photos on my computer, because even with a crappy program, it's generally better than editing with the camera itself. If you want to take a look at some of the shots I've taken with the Canon Powershot, I'll link to my yahoo photos account. This shot is of my tattoo - it was taken without a flash, and with no zoom. I just held the camera really close, maybe a foot away. Here is a link that might be useful: Canon Powershot close-up shot, with no flash

I've got a Canon S3 IS that I really like. It's got an LCD viewfinder that tilts and rotates, so you can preview your photo with the camera at ground level, without lying on the ground. It's got macro and super-macro without changing lenses. It takes nice videos. Resolution is 6 megapixels, which is more than enough. A full-screen image on a typical computer monitor is around 1 megapixels.

Thanks to an earlier thread on cameras that bobky had here, I bought a new Kodak Z740 which just released this year. It's a 5.0 megapixel with 10x optical zoom (effective range is 38mm - 380mm). I too needed a new camera and wanted a zoom to capture my little hummer visitor from a distance. I also wanted to be able to vary the shutter speed to capture something like a mid-flap (as opposed to a blur of beating wings) and this camera, as well as many of the equivalent digitals allow that (eg., I can set my shutter speed to 1/1000th of a second). The 2 drawbacks that I've seen with this camera however are: 1.) the camera is a bit slow to start up (ie., it going through its "splash screen" when first turned on, IMHO wastes valuable time where I am unable to shoot) and 2.) the zoom is a bit slow to engage using the rocker - with the very furthest part of the zoom being digital it appears, which moves in increments as you press and hold the rocker, further slowing it down). Of course for general picture-taking, the above is actually minor or even moot since the subjects are generally stationary and speed isn't necessarily of the essence. However for those like myself with only a solitary hummer who will only stay to nectar for perhaps 10 - 15 seconds at a time at most and they're gone - getting the camera up and ready quickly, let alone getting the hummer framed and in focus quickly, is a critical thing. Overall, the auto-focus is pretty good on the camera so once the hummer is framed, I can usually get a good focus lock - even at the 300 mm zoom and without the need for a special stabilizer (thanks in part to the ergonomics of the camera). I am still playing around with the various settings (need to work on some of the exposure ones as it will often over-expose the sky in order to capture a normal exposure of my shaded balcony - but that might be a function of a setting that I need to use). But overall, I'm happy with it, particularly since it is easily half the weight of my previous digital - a Kodak 3400 2.0 megapixel 3x zoom. I was able to capture my first clear shot of my little female from almost 25ft away. Ie., I managed to get this from the comfort of my sofa in my livingroom by zooming across my diningroom, through a window, then diagonally across my balcony to the rail where the feeder hangs: Because of the resolution, I could then use a graphics program to cut out a portion of the whole photo to get an even better look without much bluring: From a much closer position from the window, looking about 6ft away, I could capture this: Anyway... Good luck with your camera hunt! :-)

No arguement with PB"s link here. For what is is worth, at work the digital data storage retention is mandated by statute; varying up to indefinite. For years we have been retaining data on traditional commercial name-brand CDs. It is only recently the IT Department has advised a change to "archival" quality CDs. There claim is the "oxide" on the recording surface begins to deteriorate over extended time thus potentially rendering the disk useless. This entire thought goes back to a thread shared here some time ago. The focus was on the retention of data and pictures, and what media to use. A strong conclusion was we as users have no idea how long any storage media will last as the whole process is in the infancy stage. The claims of data availability are based on controlled labratory studies and estimations(guess-tamations). A 25-30 year guarantee on photo paper will not help if it fails in 20 years. Any guarantee on CDs/DVDs will not help if there is a premature failure. Only time will actually tell. DA