We have a Canon Powershot SD800IS (IS = Image Stabilization)which is a great little camera. Easy to carry around. You can also do movies on it and it has the telephoto lens built in but has some limitation when fully extended. I've had that one for about 4 years. The other camera which I'm still practicing with as it just has too many bells and whistles is a Canon Rebel EOS XT. We have a telephoto lens on it which I really like for garden shots since I do not have to get into the garden bed to take pictures. The lens has Image Stabilization also which when combined with the weight of the camera and lens it is a great item to have. I do switch between the cameras based on what I'm planning to photograph. I know many people who have the Kodak camera and love it. Here is a resource for info on Cameras and reviews. Good luck with your search. Julia Here is a link that might be useful: Camera Reviews

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"

froufrou...I'd recommend that you go the library & look up digital camera's in "Consumer Report." ...that way you can get the plus & minus' ...price range....and more for your buck! If you have online service to your library, you may be able to look at Consumer Report online. This is my 3rd digital but I take pics everyday (practically)...mostly nature pics. I have a Sony Cyber-shot, Model DSC-H5, 7.2 MP ...had it a few yrs. now & like it alot..has a 12X optical zoom. And I use Microsoft Photo Suite for my software program but that is old now (as my computer)...if you have VISTA or the new Windows 7, my program won't work. Good luck hunting! Jeanne S.

Irish, if you take pictures for a living, I think you can call yourself a photographer. :-) Briefly, you've been using a compact P&S. I think you would do better with a camera that has a wide-angle lens and good low-light capability. I've seen some gorgeous images with the Panasonic LX3 and hear great things about it all the time, but unfortunately the price has been rising. Also, it has no viewfinder (only an LCD screen), but that might not be a problem for you. (It is for me.) Another possibility is one of the super-zooms. One of the best of these is the Panasonic FZ28, soon to be replaced (next month, I think) by the FZ35. This lens starts out as a wide-angle, but has a very long zoom so you can get good results far from your subject. It has an electronic viewfinder, which I like. Another good camera is the new Pentax X70. It's producing some excellent images, but it, too, has no viewfinder. Unfortunately, the super-zooms aren't noted for their low-light performance. But you could try one and see if it does what you need it to do. The price range on the models I mentioned is $300-400. The last time I looked, Amazon was selling the Pentax for $319. If you go up to a DSLR you're going to paying in the $1,000-and-up range, depending on how many lenses you'll need. Hope this helps. Susan