The praise was sincere, and you know I've seen some spectacular photos on dpreview, pro quality or better. I have a nice tripod and even got a neutral density filter, but don't think we have any falling water around here except at the kids' zoo :-(. So I've had to put that desire on hold, maybe a spillway on a dam or something around here. Thank you, they are among my best but I think yours have an edge in IQ and technique, doesn't bother me. I think you might have seen the Hillary photo on dpreview. I posted it because they do that when they get a shot of somebody high profile. I tried to keep it neutral and will continue to do so. That owl was the sweetest little guy/gal. They bond to you and grow to trust you, be we aren't allowed to feed them. That one clawed my arm (not bad) setting up that shot. I was down on my stomach to get it, am sure I used the 24-70. I just grew to love those babies, but they soon disappear and you never know if they made it or not. At the link, there is a photo by gazania of her RW monarda. Sure hope mine doesn't get that tall. The reason it has to be monarda is that it is very damp there, over a french drain I had to dig to drain pooled water. The white I got last year, I found out what you mean, it spreads fast, but it's nasty mildew. So I decided to try this, 3 plants from BS, only need one but am going to try it on a problem corner of the garage where I can't get anything to grow and replace the white. I'll just yank what I don't want; it pulls easily enough if the soil is damp. It looked double in the photo at BS so I asked about it on the useful link thread. Some are and some aren't. I'd prefer single actually, and when it comes down to DD coneflower or that thing you posted (good shot), the coneflower wins hands down. Have a lot of time today because it's raining. Got most of the lawn spread with Grubex, so I feel like I've accomplished something, never attempted that before. I ran out before I got everything but hit the worst spots and did the best I could except skipped one terrace and out back. $37.xx at HD, so I really don't want to buy another bag this year. Made do with an inferior spreader that is hard to control and a hand one that doesn't dispense evenly, have to guess. Better than doing nothing, and at least I didn't have to worry about watering it in because of the rain, managed to do it between downpours. Have been worried about that, getting it down and wasting it because no rain. No way can I water it in well with the hose. It's not going to eliminate the JB problem but makes me feel like I've done all I can, and lots fly in from elsewhere, but I'm sure they start looking for a food source closest to where they hatch. Enough of that. Haven't checked dpreview for awhile. Just as well for now. Will get back into it come fall. I thought I'd upgrade but think I'll wait until next year; I'm still doing ok with the 20D for now. Is the metering better on the 30D? It has spot. I always use pattern and exposure comp negative, only positive for snow, amazing. Never really liked center weighted or partial and one is my biggest faults is I get in a hurry and forget to change the settings back to where I like to start. Another talkative post :-( Here is a link that might be useful: gazania's RW monarda in thread, she wasn't the OP

Definitely a plant I love to hate. Someday you'll have a beast like one of these! The blue one was planted as a 2 footer and is 6' tall after 3 seasons. The pink one was 9' until I cut it back in late winter and it put out more and larger blooms...still bounced back to about 7'. Pics defintely don't do the plants justice.

Marylu, I don't know much about the Sony H5-- it came out after I'd already moved on to my Canon camera. But! There's a really active and helpful Sony forum over at DPReview.com. There are lots of "personalities" over there, but more often than not you'll get some great help. Even if you didn't want to get involved in another forum, it would be well worth reading through posts. Every conceivable question gets asked and answered. Thanks wigardenerwannabe. I mostly take photos for my own pleasure, but have used them for my work (graphic design) quite a bit, too. I've sold a few images, but it's not something I actively promote. I'd like to do that someday, but have to get to the point where my portfolio is a lot stronger than it is now. The good news is that I am finally almost to the point where I am pretty consistent at being able to grab the shots I want, but I still have so much more to learn. As far as knowing when things are in focus, it's likely just going to take some practice. I know nothing about Panasonic cameras, but check your manual to see if there is an option to turn on a beep when it's focused. Or some cameras have a blinking "shakey hand" icon which shows up when not in focus. It took me forever to realize that a sort of moire pattern would show up when my Sony was focused. Lisa's settings will likely help you the most. It's cool that it's got a macro/flower setting. One other thing to consider is that camera lenses generally need something contrasty to focus on-- light/dark or hard edges usually work. For a kind of decent tripod at a next-to-nothing price, check out Walmart. I used one of these for a couple of years before moving on up and it did just what I needed it to do. Anne, something you'll need to get used to is that Canon images are generally not sharp right out of the camera. They've done this on purpose, because in the long run it will give you a great deal of flexibility. Do you have Photoshop or some other image editing program? Are you after trying to zoom in for macro shots or are you wanting to zoom into things that are further away? If you are like me you probably want to do both, but I am going to guess that you are wanting to zoom closer to things further away. Heh... you can always do what I was told to do after a friend got tired of my whining-- zoom with your feet. ;-) In all honesty, the best image quality comes from lenses designed for each specific job. Most of us would give a lot to own one lens that does it all (macro, landscape, zoom zoom). There are a few lenses that come close, but they all sacrifice quality. A DSLR owner eventually has to wrap their brains around the idea of switching lens. A lot. I still hate it, but I've finally accepted the notion.... though I still look for and dream about *the* lens. Disclaimer: Lens selection is an extremely personal thing. There are so many choices and so many individual needs. You can read up on these lenses (highly recommended!), but for every pro recommendation, you'll read a con. Photographers are very opinionated and aren't shy about saying what they think... and what they think is often based on limited experience with a particular lens. I guess I am no exception. No matter what I tell you, you still need to make the decision for yourself and you need to know that you won't make me feel bad if you end up doing what you want to do and not what I think you should do. (lol) So here I go, telling you what I think you should do. The Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM is a lens that I actually have on my Maybe Someday list. I've researched it like crazy, because it has a super duper range on it -- great for a walk-around lens. The IS is really attractive for sure. The problem is that it's only F4, which means it's a slower lens-- you can't stop it down any further to let more light in. The IS compensates, which is great.... but you're not going to get the great creamy backgrounds that you'd get with an F2.8 lens. The other thing that concerned me is that I've looked at hundreds and hundreds of images from that lens and have seen only a small handful that I really loved. The color isn't even as good as the kit lens, which strikes me as odd for a Canon brand lens. A couple of lenses you might think about: Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM The 24-70mm is an "L" quality lens, which is about the best quality you can get in a Canon lens. It's just so hard to put into words the differences between L-quality and the rest. Incredible sharpeness, incredible bokeh (background magic), color, brightness, etc. This lens doesn't have the IS, but it's an F2.8 lens, which will let you shoot some really low light shots. The older version of this lens (28-70mm) is my current walk-around and portrait lens and I wouldn't trade it for any amount of money. The biggest drawback is the weight (loads of glass inside there!), but I found I got used to it fairly fast. Having waxed on about the 24-70mm, the lens I would really recommend to you is the Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. Oh man, this has everything, including a great price! Great reach on the long end, plus you can focus this thing at a distance of only 5ft., meaning that you can actually get some decent macro shots. What I am trying to say here is that you won't often miss the 24mm on the wide end.... unless you want wide angle (landscape) shots, but then you'd probably switch to the 18-55mm kit lens. The color is really nice on this lens and it has a decent brightness to it. Even though it's only an F4 lens, you can get good creamy backgrounds by zooming into subjects. On this lens, the IS really does count toward getting those lower-light shots. The really good news is that if it turns out that you don't like your lens, you can sell it without much loss. There's a real market for these lenses-- a great place to sell them is on FredMiranda.com. As for that 18-55mm lens being sharp, hang in there, because for such a cheapy lens, it really is a workhorse. Check out the link at the bottom, then read the EXIF info below the photo. This image was taken at a super low speed at ISO1600, no flash. Just imagine how sharp it might have been with decent light. Nancy Here is a link that might be useful: Miss Em

I can't help but to chuckle at this. I didnÂt even remember who you were until until your last sentence, and then I recalled another thread where someone was hypersensitive and then the name clicked. YouÂre so touchy, Bill. I hope that you are not referring to me, I was in total agreement with you in the last discussion you were part of. No, not everyone is out to get you, or argue with you. You seem to become insulted whenever others state their opinion. I donÂt believe anyone is here to argue. Oh well is rightÂmuch love to you Bill. I believe the SIGMA 70-200 f2.8 was the last lens inquired about. It is a fraction of the cost compared to the canon. . Is 200mm going to limit the op? Maybe, but to a very, very small degree. From what I can tell of her previous shots, she is not in the nose bleed section, nor is she selling her pictures to SI. True, the 400mm would be a lot better, cÂmon - 6.5K? I guess thatÂs why they get paid to be at the game and I pay to watch.