Some things to think about: - There really are no cr@ppy DSLRs being sold anymore. Even the new low-end cameras offer the latest in image-processing software and lens technologies. - Even the low-end cameras also offer more than enough resolution (megapixels) for anything short of poster-sized prints. Don't get caught up in the megapixel race. It's like deciding between a car with 300 hp and one with 400 hp. Either will get the job done; your camera choice should be based on more than just raw power. - You really should handle the camera you plan to buy. Some people find some cameras too large to handle comfortably. - The camera you buy should allow you to output pictures in RAW format. This format contains more picture information so you can manipulate it digitally later without losing picture quality. - It's a fact that most people buying SLRs these days never use more than the lenses that come in the box with the camera. Unfortunately, these "kit lenses" typically are not the best the camera manufacturer offers. Check out what other lenses the manufacturer offers and consider lenses sold by third-party manufacturers as well. You may find your pictures are noticeably better with a lens other than a kit lens -- especially one designed for the kinds of images you want to take (macro, telephoto, etc.) - Some manufacturers offer image stabilization. This can be useful in getting pictures in low-light or fast-moving situations. The two types of IS are in-lens and in-camera. In-lens is better, but it means you're paying for IS with every lens you buy. Hard to say if one choice is better than the other. :-P - Keep in mind that DSLR technology is still evolving some. Back when film SLRs were popular, it made sense to spend a good chunk of money on a camera you'd be growing into for 10-15 years. Given how quickly improvements still are being made, it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend well into four figures for a DSLR while you learn to take better pictures. Most DSLRs just aren't going to have that long a practical life. Good luck!

Can't say much about Nikon's camera since I never owned one. I do however, once owned the Canon XT and now the Canon 40D. Both are Digital SLR cameras (DSLR). The reason I stick with Canon is not only for its quality but also for its interchangeable lens. Lens can be expensive to invest. With Canon, I don't mind investing in their lens knowing that when I upgrade the camera body, the same lens would fit. I have an old EF zoom lens that I purchased in the mid 80's and it still work well with the Canon XT and 40D. As for DSLR a "must have", well, it depends what you're shooting at. If you have kids and/or shoot for sports, you should consider a DSLR. Once you press the shutter button, it's an instant shot. You won't lose that "kodak moment" when your child make that funny face as you would with the slow shutter lag (delay) of a point and shoot digital camera (digicam). DSLR also has continous shooting for sport events or quick actions. The only cons about a DSLR is they're big and bulky which may be an inconvenient for traveling. Then again, once you use it, you seem not to mind dragging it everywhere you go. Also, it doesn't do video clip. Though, I have an inexpensive point-n-shoot to do just that. If you're a serious photographer that want to learn further about photography, then, I strongly recommend purchasing a DSLR. Have fun with your purchase! Natalie

Hi. I'm so glad to find this thread and hear your good experiences with the Canon Powershot SD1100. That is one of the ones I'm thinking about. The other considerations are the canon powershot sd880, and the sony cybershot dsc-w300. There might be a panasonic linux or Olumpus I'd consider as well. Here are the things I'm hoping to find: - very small and portable - 7 ounces or less, can fit in a pocket (even if snuggly) - very very good picture quality. I sometimes sell on ebay and craigslist and a good photo can make a huge difference in whether you make the sale - and what price you can get. most of those items are still, relatively small items (2 feet diameter to a couple of square inches) - being photographed indoors. - pictures of my daughter and family and friends - more indoors than outdoors. I don't like what my 5 yo olympus does to skin tone and other items used indoors with flash - I want either a flash that doesn't wash out and overexpose - or a camera that doesn't blur if i try to hold it still for an indoor shot without flash. This is very important to me. - I'd prefer a viewfinder - but might be willing to give this up for other features. - a zoom of at least 3x (if there's a reason I should have more, please let meknow) - maybe the ability to change settings or do a little manual adjustments - I don't know how to do this now, but I'm hoping to have this camera for a few years and I might be interested in learning a little more soon - here's what I think I can't have everything - occasionally get an action shot of my daughter - dancing, playing, etc - ability to take reasonable quality video - I'd probably use wide angle if I had it, but I haven't had that feature on a camera in over a decade. Price - under $400. under $300 is better, but I'd pay a bit more if there were such a thing as having it all. From what I've read of the samsung l210 and casio exilin card ex-s10, they seem to only have good image quality.. And now for a separate question. My camera is a 5 mp, olympus camedia c-50 zoom. I believe it's 5 years old (maybe 6). Will I gain a noticeable improvement in quality and features that would make it worth my while to upgrade from this camera. It used to seem to me I could get decent pictures on this, but now when I take pictures of my daughter or items to sell, I dislike more than half of them - they're either too blurry, or not lit well. I do have more handshake than I used to - so image stabilization might be very worth my while. Thanks. Lynn. PS - I started really seeing what crisp clear pictures could be like from the kitchen and cooking forums here.

I lived there one year. The weather there is really not any different from the weather here. Maybe a few degrees difference, a few fewer days of growing season--literally less than a week difference. The entire month of September is terrific tomato weather from about NYC all the way down the East Coast. The last two years, we haven't gotten frost until the very end of October or, last year, until well into November. There's a reason why NJ has a reputation for being a great place to grow tomatoes. It's not just NJ--it just happens that NJ is one of the most heavily agricultural states in a region that is basically considered ideal for growing tomatoes and one of the few regions where one can grow late varieties like Brandywine because we have a long enough growing season but not one in which we have to contend with many days of extreme heat that shuts down production or damages plants. When I was younger and growing up in NJ, July, August, and September were prime tomato month. That's when they were in the full flush of production and abundant at markets. Back then, home gardeners didn't push season extension so much, and it was considered bragging rights to have any ripe tomatoes by the 4th of July--and those were the early varieties. Getting tomatoes like Brandywine by late July or early August was completely normal. Do what you consider best, and this is my last word on this, but I just don't want you to lose production making unnecessary interventions with your plants because you underestimate the growing season.