Thank-you everyone. I've sometimes wondered if anyone was paying attention, but your response is moving. I'm still getting a feel for it, but the XSi seems to be accurate for color capture. Strangely enough the color seems off to me on the lcd, but looks good on the pc. Some still don't seem perfect (such as 'Swingtown'). I don't know why I thought it would be a miracle device, but the color accuracy does seem better than my Panasonic. However that sounds, I'm not disappointed so far (and yes I have already been pricing lenses (even with $20 to my name)). :) These were taken in the late afternoon (practically evening) with the WB set to sun, but I don't have enough of a feel for it to know if I should have used a different setting. I'll be sure to let you know how my opinion progresses once the excitement has worn off a little. Again, thank-you. Brock P.S. Is the new size alright? I decided to try going to 600 pixels for the maximum dimension, now that I have more pixels to work with. P.P.S. I managed to take 697 photos on the first charge with this new battery. It supposedly lasts 1.5X longer than the XTi's battery. That's almost 700 photos, using live view for alot of them, and while learning the menu setup all on one charge! I can't believe how much fun this is.

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.

The Canon I mentioned above is a small point and shoot, optical zoom of 20x, does video and a little bit of fun stuff but it's primary purpose is to point and shoot. I'm not very good at taking pics, but my sister is, she has the same camera and it takes pictures as beautifully as the ones posted above. My point is, is that regardless of what "popular" brand you choose, if you go with a point and shoot that has optical zoom (as opposed to digital) and it's priced in the 200-300 range you're going to get a camera that will take some really stunning pictures. I think any differences in picture quality would be so subtle that really only a professional or hobbyist would be able to tell. And, while you've been given a lot of great information here, it is confusing or over whelming for those of us who aren't photography buffs. If you have a camera shop in the area, do what I did when I bought my DSLR, stop in to see what they recommend as a good option. They know their products, love talking about cameras, have the cameras there to show you for a visual and can answer questions. The camera shops often do repairs too and know which brands have problems and what the problems are. The one I went to even has a free class you can go to if you want to learn first hand about using all your new camera's options. My only regret is that I didn't go back and purchase that camera from him the way I should have. I made up for it though by purchasing my next camera there and sending my daughter there to buy their GoPro. :c)