You express your needs very well. The key issue with digital cameras, is the mega-pixel value. The higher the mega-pixel value, the better quality picture you will get for the most part. But, the important determining factor most people use, is whether or not they plan on having prints made and what SIZE. The size of your prints AND their quality is largely dictated by the mega-pixel value. In short, if you only require prints no bigger than wallet-sized or slightly larger, a good 5 mega-pixel camera will suit your needs very well. If you intend to make prints of a size of 8 by 5 and larger, I would recommend a higher megapixel value than 5mp. The reason for this, is that with, let's say, a 3mp camera, and you have 8 by 5 prints made, the prints will come out sort of blurry and lack the crisp & clear details you need. The term for this defusion is pixelation. What that means, is that the lower mp camera cannot "capture" the large amount of detail & crispness that you may want for larger prints. A lower mp camera may take pictures into the camera at a size of 900kilobytes, which does not translate well onto a larger print. Of course I am speaking of generalities here. Many of the folks here in the forum probably learned the hard way by buying a cheaper camera & then regreting it later. The quality of many/most of the pictures here are for the most part excellent! Prices on digital cameras have fallen dramatically in the last few years, so you should be able to obtain a good camera for your needs. Another issue that is sometimes completely overlooked, is what program to use to adjust your pictures to their best appearance AND SIZE. A quality program makes this task a great deal easier. This can be seen by the time your have some super shots in your camera, and then after being reworked, they look really bad. A reasonably good program can be found from several companies. Myself, I have been using Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0. It can be obtained for a reduced price and has filled my needs very well for processing pistures of coins which I take through a stereo microscope! Stunning pix can be obtained with a rather easy learning curve. If you want the Cadillac of photo editors, Adobe Photoshop is one of, if not the best of the many offered. But quality comes with a price, So don't waste money on a secondrate editing program, or you will not realize the results you desire! Another issue that many overlook, is the "size" of the picture when it is taken into the camera. For example, my primary digital camera is a 5.0mp Kodak. The "raw" piture inside the camera is over 12 megabytes! Much too large to email easily for all parties! Unless you have a special reason to distribute the pictures in their original size, it is redundant to a degree. My own formula for resizing pictures out of the camera, is to touch up anything like focus, brightnesss & contrast AND reduce them down to a much more managable size of 400 - 450 kilobytes. The reason for this reduction, is to make them more managable for emailing and storage in your computer. If someone sends you a picture, which do you appreciate the most, one or more that just take a few moments to download into your email at a smaller size like 400kb, OR a piture that has not be reworked at all and takes 10 minutes just to downlaod into your computer...in short, downloading a 12mb picture on a dialup, 56k, computer can take considerable time waiting for it to download. Large pix of 12mp for example usually take up the full screen and sometimes even more. The bottom line for this is that you should rework the original pictures from the camera to obtain the best appearance AND reduce them to a size that are easily managable. I am sure others here can recommend a couple of excellent cameras at your price range and advise you on the minimum mp value you have to buy to maitain your standards of quality. This interaction/cooperation of forum members is invaluable and can save you money! best wishes & good luck! I hope I answered some of your questions. And thank you to all of you who post such beautiful roses! : ) Sincerly, "Smitty"

In America it's known as the Olympus SP-550 UZ - price $500 (US):- - 4.68 84.24mm (28  504mm equivalent in 35mm photography) - Dual Image Stabilization eliminates blur (so you can photograph even when panicing) - The world's most powerful ultra zoom (at present) - 7.1 megapixel (so your UFO pix will make the FULL front page) - high-speed sequential shooting (get those shots of everybody running from the UFO) - shoot in low light without a flash (UFOs usually appear at night) And further propaganda:- - FULL MANUAL EXPOSURE CONTROL - ISO 5000 - "The SP-550 UZ offers the highest ISO sensitivity of any ultra zoom for superior low-light and fast-action photography" - With a burst rate of up to 15fps, you can freeze moments in time to get the shot you want. - macro (as close as 1cm) - wow!! gotta have one. -30 Shooting Modes including Movie with sound (HEAR the panicked screams) -Maximum Aperture f2.8  f4.5 - Shutter Speed 1/2000 sec.  15 sec., Bulb -ISO Auto, High ISO Auto, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200*, 5000* (*approx. 3MP) - now you can photograph the famous "black cat in a coal mine". - Adjustment Resolutions 3,072 x 2,304, RAW / SHQ / HQ 3,072 x 2,048, 3:2 / SHQ / HQ 2,560 x 1,920, SQ1 High, Normal 2,304 x 1,728, SQ1 High, Normal 2,048 x 1,536, SQ1 High, Normal 1,600 x 1,200, SQ2 High, Normal 1,280 x 960, SQ2 High, Normal 1,024 x 768, SQ2 High, Normal 640 x 480, SQ2 High, Normal - 30 Shooting Modes: Auto, Program Auto, Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, Manual, My Modes, GUIDE, Scene Presets (Portrait, Landscape, Landscape & Portrait, Night Scene, Night & Portrait, Sport, Indoor, Candle, Self-Portrait, Available Light Portrait, Sunset, Fireworks, Cuisine, Documents, Auction, Shoot & Select1, Shoot & Select2, Beach, Snow, Underwater Wide1, Underwater Wide2, Underwater Macro), Movie - Panorama Modes Up to 10 frames automatically stitchable with OLYMPUS Master Software when using Olympus brand xD-Picture Card - Sequential Shooting Hi-Speed2: 15 frames per second for 20 frames (1.2MP) Hi-Speed1: 7 frames per second for 15 frames (3MP) Normal Speed: 1.2 frames per second for 7 frames (7MP) - Bracket: Exposure bracketing up to 5 frames - Interval Shooting - Shooting Assist Functions - Histogram, Frame Assist - Noise Reduction - Set automatically at shutter speeds of 0.5 second or longer - Flash Working Range Wide: 14.8 ft. (4.5m), Tele: 9.2 ft. (2.8m) at ISO 200 Wide: 42.3 ft. (12.9m), Tele: 26.2 ft. (8.0m) at ISO 1600 - Date/Time Calendar Automatically recorded with each image (up to 2099) (after 2099 it goes into "Millenium melt-down" - remember that contrived scare-?) - Removable Media Card xD-Picture Card (16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512MB, 1GB or 2GB) - Operating Environment Operation: 32°  104°F (0°  40°C), (Oh bother - that means no more desert trips, then); - 30%  90% humidity - So, why wouldn't you want one? Now I can get rid of my 35mm (Canon) and medium format film cameras, and give my back a rest - and even though the Panasonic (with Leica lens) has served me well, it's showing it's age.

Hi Erika, First, I love your design ideas and layout. The mix of surfaces is great (definitely not too many) and very similar to what I'd like to do. I do think your sink should be centered under the window, especially if you are concerned about it now you will not be happy when it is installed. We obsessed about this in the design phase of our new kitchen so much that we added a third window to that wall to be able to center our clean-up sink under it. My layout is similar to your's with the long island, although my sink (centered under my 3 windows) would swap places with your range. I have a lowered baking center in the same place as your butcher block area. So instead of moving the placement of your large sink - For your prep sink, have you considered putting it at the other end of your island? It might be nice to have a sink down at that end of your kitchen, for entertaining, serving drinks. I think it would look great down near your hutch as kind of a "bar" sink. I don't see where your fridge is but it's always nice to have a sink close by. And a sink at that end would be great for use as a "prep" sink for washing veggies etc for that extra person (guest or not). That extra person would then not be bumping into anyone near the clean-up or cooking center. Your larger sink (I call mine the clean-up sink) seems close enough to your baking center (which I also have in the exact location) and easy enough to turn around to get that measuring cup of water you need for your recipe or to pop a batter bowl into the sink for washing. At least that is my thinking for what would work for me. And did you also say you have a chef's sink close to the range. Sounds like a lot of sinks in that end of the kitchen, it would be nice to put one at the other end. Just my thought anyway, you need to do what works for you and the way you cook, prep, and entertain. On the mix of surfaces - I loooove it. So many KD and "cabinet people" I talked to told me similar things like "it looks like you couldn't afford it all at once" etc. I told them the point is to make it look like I did not get this brand spanking new kitchen all at once. I want it to look like it has evolved over time. I know that doesn't work for everyone but you need to do what you want, not someone else. I am mixing cabinet colors (painted periphery cabinets, stained cherry island) and also mixing door styles as well. My take is if the island is different (i.e. stained cherry) it might have been from a different time period than my wall and base cabinets around the kitchen periphery. I have seen kitchens like these and they are truly beautiful and very period looking. Hope this is helpful to you. Everyone needs to do what works for them. I can't wait to see your finished photos.

You will have only one opportunity in your life to buy that house so if owning a spectacular vintage home is your dream, buy it. Owning an old house is a lifestyle, not an investment. If it is worth substantially more after your updates, that's great but don't include that value in your financial planning for retirement. However fantastic the house is, I would not buy it if you couldn't live in it with the room types and sizes as it was built. Obviously the mechanicals have to be in good working order but an outdated kitchen can wait until you have spent enough time to learn about the quirks and qualities of this house. Decisions made after you live there will be different than those made after just walking through. Our previous home looked much like the one directly above and we owned it for 26 years. We moved in when I was pregnant with my oldest, moved out when youngest graduated from college. Buying a more modest house would have been a better overall deal financially because midrange houses in our community appreciated much more than ones at the top of the range. When we did sell, the net was 25% higher than we had paid. However we had the pleasure (and occasional pain!) of living in an architect designed house with tons of natural light, top quality construction and fittings, in a desirable neighborhood. Unlike many owners might have done, we did not update the house. We did have to redo the flat roof section, then added a few more electrical outlets and converted the coal room into a wine cellar and pantry. The mid 70s steam boiler was a cast iron monster that never failed. In particularly bad heat waves, we used a couple window AC units but solid masonry house and an attic fan handled most of the summer weather. We raised two kids in an old house with only one bathroom and no central air. We had coat hooks in a hallway, not a mudroom. We had basement laundry and a clothesline for good weather. Of course we would have enjoyed a big kitchen and a master suite but that wasn't how the house was built. My personal view is that if you want the features of a new house, buy or build one. If you love the beautiful house, be gentle and err on the side of doing less, not more