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

My weather station is the one that Franktank posted that run with Cumulus software but it would be it would be an arkward match for your needs. If you want to track minimum and maximum only then most the ones at places like Walmart should work but you would have to track the data manually. Now if you have a bunch of spare coin them Davis makes a $500+ unit that you can buy extra probed for.

24 photos? W/ flash? Plus using the LCD? Sounds like enough to eat the battery to me. My uncle had (has?) a Sony from a few years ago that uses AAs, and his had about the same performance. He's much happier with the rechargables. My Olympus E-20 can use 4 AA batteries or a Lithium Ion battery. The LiIon is much more powerful (you can tell with how fast the flash 're-sets'), but they're expensive. I have a couple of sets of AA rechargables for the camera and the external flash, and I can get off about 50 shots before I notice the flash start getting weaker. At max resolution, my memory cards only hold 52 shots, so I just take the oportunity to swap the batteries and memory card all at the same time. I think those rehargables are 1600 mAh, but as I've said, I've seen much higher capacities these days... Actually, I don't know how many digital cameras these days take AAs anymore (though I haven't looked, to be honest). Most that I've glanced at seem to come with some type of rechargable battery pack with a seperate charger or a cord/cradle to recharge a non-removable rechargable battery. This is especially true of the smaller ones, that just don't have the room for a couple of AA batteries. Here is a link that might be useful: Energizer 2500mAh AA 4-pk w/ Charger

catherinet, I'm sorry the Polaroid did not work out. Is it possible to set the ISO ("film speed") on that camera? What you report sounds like the ISO was set too low (number was too small) for the conditions. You will find more and more point-and-shoot digital cameras disposing with the viewfinder in favor of just the LCD screen. It's difficult to economically produce a bright, usable viewfinder and most digital-camera users I see use the LCD screen anyway (cause and effect?), so many manufacturers are eliminating them entirely. If you do find one with a viewfinder, try it out first if you can.