Andrea, I shoot RAW exclusively now for the reasons you stated except occasionally flip it over to sports because it goes auto to burst (I think), and does only .jpg. I love Photoshop, has a very steep learning curve, waited years until I got a $299 upgrade with Elements to CS2. I don't just use it for my photographs, and I agree with you about some of the software that comes with cameras, read about Nikon's, refused to get in the camera wars, was really torn between Canon and Nikon, at the time I thought Canons had better noise reduction at the expense of IQ, understood that going in. I started just doing graphics learning all I could with PSP (quit upgrading at 5 because I didn't like some things), then bought Photo Impact (fun for awhile but a waste of money), but when I saw the power of PS, I was sold. I don't use all the features, no, don't jump on the upgrade bandwagon (lightbox is really cool, can't afford it), but I love their USM and ACR white balance corrections and several others such as highlight/shadows tool (because of the limited dynamic range with all digital cameras, may be better with the more expensive, super-high resolution ones), when I want to make them pop more. And a lot of it is strictly a matter of taste. There are some incredibly talented with PS; I'm not one of them. The actual conversion process doesn't take more than 30 seconds, and when I can, I batch convert using scripts. I know everything you said is true, especially you can use Nikon pics right out of the cam, sharp as a tack, same with some good P&S cameras. Have to watch oversharpening, too. For web viewing, people probably can't tell the difference about sharpening. I can see it, very occasionally I don't bother with it, depending, but do like to do my own cropping and straightening, can't stand really crooked photos unless for creative effect. Other software does that just as well. I highly respect your opinion, and it sounds like you are some kind of pro. I don't presume to know everything. Blowing blows more dust in than I get out sometimes, always do that first regardless, a couple tries, then test, but I have used the wet method only once, got it better, but just let the dustbunnies I missed be for now and try to be careful changing my lenses. The only people I'd really trust to clean my sensor filter, not the sensor on Canon, but extremely delicate, is Canon. Nobody on the Canon dslr forum I've read yet on dpreview for almost 5 years now sends theirs anywhere for sensor filter cleaning; they all clean them themselves, most very confidently (not me!) many, many use a wet method usually Copperhill or a pen. I used extra pure alcohol and qtips I got at the medical supply center, just a drop w/eyedropper. I first try the dry method with Walgreen's brand q-tips very gently. The camera store person told me some use plastic knives from McDonald's! Not for me! I don't really trust my local camera store or Best Buy technicians. With the camera store, last time I was in was tempted to butt in and tell the customer something I happened to know, while the salesman didn't seem to, held my peace. Had some photos and a painting scanned I wanted to retouch, state-of-the art, awful, ended up using my camera and tripod. The camera store wasn't set up to cater to dslr users, maybe they're more with it now. I hate cloning out dustbunnies once a bad one gets in there, most don't show at the sizes and resolution I use, but do clone quite a bit for other reasons and like the healing tool. Once a piece of fiber got in there, it drove me nuts, that I got out by blowing, need a better blower, the Hurricane one. Sorry for taking up so much "airtime". Sooner or later most dslr owners are going to have to choose how to deal with it. Then if I screw up, I screw up, and will pay the consequences. You HAVE to clean your lenses, even on P&S cameras, which I do as little as possible. I know Nikon has fine cameras and lenses; that is why the choice was so hard, and sometimes I still look back, but now I'm invested heavily in a few lenses not as many as some have, don't need them, but very expensive and wouldn't get near what I paid for them if I sold them, even though they are all in mint condition.

nah, dont have an IS yet...I SHOULD have waited on the XSI this april. It comes with one...but two extra megapixels and a couple of other bells and whistles didnt make up the price difference for me, Plus at $899 its gonna be outta my price range. Cant get anything THAT expensive til I slap a ring on my girls finger...:) I may order an IS lens, but 99.9% of the time I have my tripod handy. Gotta recover from throwin the dollars at this one first....I think for the price I got a good start anyhow! :) Thus far I have had a blast with it.....there are tons of pics that I got with my h7 that I'm looking forward to reshooting with this one. If I can just get as good as Joan with it, Ill be content! :) A

oh,I'm still learning with my xti. It's been great, everytime I learn something new. So I started taking baby steps following directions in the XTi 400D Manual. I found photoworkshop.com/canon to be very helpful. Also, XTisite.com is another. However, makes sure you check out that some of these sites cost money. But, most of the time, they will let you read a few things. It's been interesting. Now that big long lens you spoke of. I too went through the same thing of not realizing it was supposed to be an IS lense to help me with the photograph, unless you have a tripod. Recently, a man I met on a photography forum was speaking about how he was getting rid of most of his long range IS lenses. His reason was, he enjoys and gets as much satisfaction out of the Macros. I have yet to enjoy this anomoly. However, it would be nice to try one of them macros he speaks of. May want to try. Seems to me, smaller lenses have been mostly the cheaper ones. Starr

The Canons that I'm familar with have two focusing modes: continous and only at exposure time. In the continous mode, the focus mechansiam is active all the time and is using up battery charge. It is constantly trying to keep the scene in focus as y u move the camera around. Many users turn this off to conserve power. In the other mode, the autofocus become active only when the shutter button is pressed half way down to its first detent. In this mode, the shooter must allow enough time for the camera to focus before pressing the shutter all teh way down to record the shot. In good light, those Canons do focus fairly fast, usually in the time it take the user to compose the scene. But focusing takes more time for low light and at long zooms. The farther the zoom, the longer it may take. I think that on onme of your deer shots, the camera was not fullt focused when the shot was recorded. In another matter, I have been able to hand hold shots up to 2 and maybe 3 times zoom in good light where the shutter speed is fast. Once you approach 5X zoom and beyond, you'll need someting to steady the camera or very fast shutter speed. Your shots of the deer appear to be at least 5X zoom.