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.

Most are powered only by an AC adapter, but I've heard there are a few that also have battery power,. Check the specs on any frame you are interested in: many of them can handle 100-240V AC input, which means you would not need to buy a special transformer to make it work in England, just a couple dollar adapter plug to allow the U.S.-style plug to mate with a British receptacle. (See the link below for a kit with several adapters; this would handle whatever you encountered in England.) The most important thing to me is the screen resolution: some of the less expensive ones have pretty low resolution and the pictures look grainy. If it were me, I'd pick one with the best resolution I could afford, and just get a plug adapter. Here is a link that might be useful: Plug adapter kit

There's an app for sharing calendars. It's a standard feature of the Google calender thing. So you could display both your phone calenders on a tablet or something (as well as each other's phones). Since it's web based, it isn't limited to the Android platform. And Google already knows everything you're doing anyway....=P Actually there's a lot of sharing stuff in the google things. The spouse and I do have a shared Christmas shopping list on Google Drive and we share stuff with our architect the same way. We could tack a tablet to the fridge and keep lists that are updatable and readable via phone or laptop Our grocery shopping list is paper stuck to the fridge, though. I have to admit, I like turning things OFF. I don't want electronics pulling power all the time, no matter how small. Anyhoo, if Pra could put things together in a nice neat easy-to-display package, I think a lot of people would find it useful.

Clam Digger, OK, this one isn't cropped (from a P&S Sony with an amazing flare resistant lens). The point of the cropped photos was to show the level of quality available from a viewfinder camera. Sorry about the dig with the pelican photo but you asked for it when you patronized my cat. I understand that you have a long lens on an SLR and that's a capability that few viewfinder cameras possess. And if you want to shoot wildlife then an SLR is the way to go. Long lenses is the biggest reason for an SLR. People are different. The most important lens for me on a 35mm camera is a 28mm and I must have a 24mm as well. Using a lens longer than an 80mm is an occasional experience for me and I could do without it. Different cameras for different people. As for stubborn denial, I prefer to think of it as stubborn assertion. I assert this and I'm right about it: It is fair to say that the much more expensive DSLRs as a group are more capable cameras than the cheaper consumer oriented viewfinder cameras. But there are enough exceptions in both groups that the groups overlap at the edges. A novice like Jean may be very happy with a camera like Susan's 5 megapixel Lumix... And when did someone say something bad about Tokina? I said digital sensors and film have different requirements and lenses designed specifically for digital maximize the performance of the digital sensor. Tokina knows that, that's why they're making a series of lenses for DLSRs. That doesn't mean older lenses are useless, it's not a B&W world. Back to the original point of this post. Jean is shopping for a camera and buying a DSLR isn't the only or necessarily best option for her. Joe, you're a nice guy trying hard to keep the peace. You and Susan are right it's about the photos first. Clam Digger, that's a nice shot of the water bird, what is it? is it some species of tern? Joe