Hello "ole sarge". Nice to meet a GI. I was a T/Sgt once -- a lifetime ago. You never know where these posts will lead do you.

Markomarx, I'll bet you also considered trading your wife in for 2 twenties when she reached 40. Does she think like you ? Watch out. Hey, somebody has to be a wise guy. Why not me.

Wow. Ugly Jake's posting statement brought back memories. Yep, bright sunlight is tough to shoot in. And you haven't seen really BRIGHT until you shoot in North Africa ! The lead camera man with a commercial movie company out of Detroit landed in Tripoli, Libya to do a film, looked at his meter and about went nuts. He was sure it had failed because it read so much higher than he had ever seen before. Desert light at midday is unbelievably bright. Excellent sunglasses are an absolute necessity unless you want to be troubled by brightness the rest of your life. A fascinating place, but vicious to shoot in. It is nearly impossible to get anything more than a just-barely-acceptable contrast.

Well 'Bama Mahma, you've got a great subject. Keep workin' them, as they say with your cropping done after the shoot at maybe a maximum of half of your lens extension. Bet you were near or know of a great restaurant for huge bowls of popcorn shrimp about 35 or 40 miles south and just a tad west down from Mobile on a small road fairly near the water along the eastern edge of the coast.

For dedicated soccer match shoots I take 2 zoom teles (one a 70-200 zoom) and a short zoom, plus a 600. For street walking I like Rollie because people don't realize I'm shooting and so stay relaxed and natural. I also pack a 100-400 zoom for unexpected long shots, and of course a wide angle under 35mm for tight spots. The largest aperture is the best because you never know if you'll have much available light. If you like to shoot flash you can carry electronics, but I like to shoot strictly available light. It is enough work for me to work with camera and lenses (and my Seconic incident light reader for those critical shots that make you work and worry -- or where the subject is too far off to read reflected light well) without having to fuss with flash. I have enough to carry and mesh without adding artificial light. Natural light results in an exposure more pleasing to me too - just personal preference after years of film work.

I think larryc90 is correct. I believe I read somewhere in Cannon literature that they design and test to achieve shutter life of 100,000 sequences at the very minimum.

Yes, GA. As was noted by someone just after my note, we all love color and so she wouldn't shoot it in black and white. She's correct, but you will learn additional things by shooting it in B&W, such as balancing and what playing with filters can do. Yes, the result won't be so captivating because color appeals to our senses. But playing with B&W once in a while will ultimately make you a more versatile "shooter." Obviously you are good, so why stop learning. B&W will expose you to new limitations that you will learn to overcome. Try a little sample : get a Dollar dark blue or purple color disc; they are about i/4 inch thick. Look at your chosen subject thru it and you will see a different resolution of the problems and opportunities. It shows you that shooting in B&W (monochrome - just as looking thru your blue disc) no longer can hide the balance in the shot that lovely colors draws our minds away from. Your color work will benefit from what you learn about composing in B&W. It's not a huge deal -- just a way to clarify and learn, and then inherently use in your color work. Just play with it at times and you'll see what I mean. I've about 10,000 B&W negatives and I can assure you you will learn some things that you will then automatically apply to your color work that will enable tiny improvements in composition. Too, you'll discover that the occasional subject can have a greater impact in B&W than in color. Honestly. People still love and learn from Ansel Adams' old old B&Ws. His true COMPOSITIONS of Western landscapes are masterpieces studied still by those who are now the "best in the business."

Oh, just saw your Chickadee shot. That's a charmer too ! Just for kicks, as a first step toward refining your composition work thru playing with B&W, look at the Chickadee shot thru a deep blue inch or inch and a half disc. Then see how you might change your angle or distance (or tele lens) just a tad to get a better shot simply by refining the balance. Incidentally, as you can imagine, you have to close or hold your off hand over the other (non-control) eye when you use those colored discs to momentarily compose in what is essentially B&W.

You have good advice already, so let me add my 2-bits worth. If you watch the television sport shows what do you see 90 % of the pro's using? Yep, you see the white barreled Cannons. You may not need or want the best (fanciest) body money can buy, but you can rest assured that a bit lesser camera by the same manufacturer will also be good quality for the money. If you are willing to sped up to $600 on a good body with interchangeable lens the Cannon EOS Rebel T3 competes in product for the dollar with ANYTHING on the market. For less you might consider a Pentax model. So when you go to your local shop to look the possibilities over, check them out.

Another tip. The people at B&H in New york are very big (their 2-story store covers a block, they are as reputable as you can find anywhere, their prices are hard to beat, and their sales people are as or more knowledgeable than any in the industry and will talk to you as long as you have questions, without ever pushing you in any direction, and especially not to buy. They are consummate professionals. Once you get a peek and feel of the one or two or three rigs you might consider, I'd suggest you call them -- their Photography line is 800 / 947-7785. I won't buy anywhere else, and I've spent a fair bit of money there. And other places before I found them. They will also send you their quarterly half-inch thick catalog if you ask so you can really study the capabilities side by side. My eldest son and his wife (who live in Connecticut) are darned independent and a bit choosey, and she shopped around and then went to B&H and bought from them a Rebel T3i. I have about 10,000 color slides and about the same number of negatives from Europe and N. Africa and the Near East; I have to get a good scanner with which to convert them to electronic storage, and I've spotted about 3 possibilities from their current catalog, and you know where I'll be calling for advice, counsel and pricing.

What you buy will likely last for as long as you want to use it if you buy something good -- so I suggest you do, and take your time. And then have fun with it ! Good Luck with your analysis. Yes, I'm a degreed engineer -- can never stop analyzing. Such is life, and my curse.

As Commodore-Don says, it's all in the verticals. If you're using a Cannon, use a Tilt-Shift lens, which gives you a bit of the flexibility of the 4X5 view camera, ala Linhof with its tilt, shift, drops, rises, side-shift, etc. Cannon has the TS-E 17mm f/4l, TS-E24mm f/3.5L 11, TS-E 45mm f/2.8, and the TS-E 90mm f/2.8
You can stand on the ground and shoot up 2 to 3 stories and the vertical structure lines will remain vertical. If you get either the 24 or the 45 mm you will be able to shoot good shots both inside and ouside a house, assuming you will use a good solid tripod, which will also allow you to set up and view the shots very carefully. They work.

Yep, you got that hummer perfectly. Since it's doubtful you can improve on that color shot, here's your next challenge : do it in black and white. Color always pleases the human eye, so B+W is more difficult because you don't have the color crutch. One way to accent is to use a yellow, or better yet, a red filter. Your hummer or whatever will stand out because the background (sky) will deepen to black, making the subject really pop out at the viewer. You might try shooting maybe 5 shots, each a shade different in f-stop or exposure time to get the optimum exposure.

Super ! We can bearly look away. Keep 'em comin'.

The prior responders pretty much have it. I would only add that you are limited somewhat with your tele because of its maximum aperture. And you mentioned portraiture of coming grandchild. You might want to consider an 85 mm (the perfect lens length for 35 mm portraiture, and get it in the largest lens diameter you can afford in a good lens -- as a 1.8, or at least a 2.0 or 2.8 (you don't have to get a Cannon EFL f 1.0) so that you will have the capability of shooting in low light -- where you are somewhat limited now, whether it be landscape work, or kids around the house shooting with natural light for the softer lighting without going nuts with an array of lights , filters, reflectors and such. Too, the larger lens will be very useful in extending your capability to shoot in the fading light of the sports work I think you mentioned -- and you can't postpone the match or game, you've got to be able to shoot it in whatever light is available, cloudy or later in the day. You can always up the speed or close down the lens, but you can only open it up to its maximum f-stop, whatever that is. For that reason I always buy each lens in the widest aperture possible, except for the variables, and you have one of those that will cover most of the world you want to capture. After an 85 mm you might want to go to a 14 or 20 mm (and you'll really be able to get super depth of field nature shots) in the widest aperture available -- also usable for landscape work. Then your 4th lens might be a big piece of glass in 400 or 500 (maybe f-4) for sports again if you really want to do that much of it. I use two identical bodies, one with a 70 - 200 and a 500 or 600 on the other, mounted on a good monopod with a short top-mounted bar on the top. With that rig I can sit at a corner of the soccer field and shoot at either end, and everywhere in between. And my fellow photogs don't complain about me having two or three monopods or a couple of tripods sprawled around in everyone's way. Like the other folks said, you just have to work your way into expanding your equipment according to how you are led to use it. Never-the-less, you can't go wrong with the widest aperture available in the lens of your choice. Too, I believe it best to have 2 or 3 excellent lenses rather than 4 or 5 mediocre ones. Amazingly lenses improve with age (improving in lessening chromatic or spherical aberration), but you probably won't notice it without some special testing. So just buy the best you can initially afford. You'll likely be happier with fewer but better and lower f-stop lenses than a bunch of limited lenses.
And if you don't want to splurge, perhaps you could secure a job shooting a local team or league for some offsetting bucks. I shot the Chicago Fire with the contract holder one year. Also shot a Mexican 73-team soccer league, and the majority of the players wanted shots of themselves in action. Although its not my sport, you could probably do that with a baseball league too.
You can also set up with the organizers of tournaments too to shoot team play all day long, especially if you have someone to help you process and collect for the photos buyers select. I've shot horse races in Germany, Italian and Arab motorcycle races in Tripoli, Libya, and rodeo bull, bronco, and pony riders on the national circuit and a bunch of people always want action shots of themselves. Go to a local Rod and Gun club and you'll find people who will want shots of themselves on the firing line or in the clubhouse with the trophies in the background. Again, if you have big glass you won't have to fool with a bunch of lighting paraphernalia. Everybody shoots landscapes, and it's interesting, but how many will you be competing against in sports photo work? Few, if you decide you want to do much of it. Catch your local high school or college football and soccer and bizball matches, and maybe do track meets. The only photog you'll see out there will be someone shooting strictly for the local newspaper, or some friend or parent with a point and shoot. Volleyball and basketball are possibilities too, but you probably have the lighting to worry about again with the relatively low light coupled with fast movement. Infinite interesting and challenging possibilities out there. Pick one or two and give it a whirl and pay for some additional "big glass" as you evolve your direction and your equipment. Have fun !

Drive way out in the boondocks, into the country that is, and set up on a good solid tripod with a remote or cable release so that you won't jiggle the camera as you start its probable relatively long exposure time.
I have been a technical writer for a Fortune 100 construction equipment manufacturer for over 2 decades, but I won't enter into the fray of discussion re your english, be it spelling, grammar, syntax, punctuation, etc. I will agree and confirm to you that while mathematics is the necessary base for engineering, "English" (American style that is) is the absolutely necessary ingredient for communicating, regardless of the type of business world you hope to gain employment in. And OJT won't cut it. Get your thinking cap on now, "padner". It's all free for you right now. All you have to do is open your mind and learn. Good luck with photography and school.

James, me boy, I think someone hit on the possible problem : try cutting your lens aperture down as far as you reasonably can so long as you still can gather enough light for a proper exposure. It appears to me that your close in objects, like the bench on the right in the first photo, may be appreciably more sharply in focus than the distant trees and building. Take your lens setting down to something like f-11 or 16, and then notice on your lens barrel what should be in reasonable focus as you set the closest item at the shortest distance shown on your barrel. When you do this, if you then look at the furthest distance shown at that focusing point, you will probably see all will be in focus all the way to infinity. That range of focus will likely be achieved by actually focusing at something like maybe 30 to 40 feet. Conversely, if you want to shoot something at 15 feet in front of you, you can open the lens way up and use a
short shutter time to get the right exposure, focus directly on the subject, and most everything else will be out of focus -- bingo, you've used another way to accent only your subject proper. Play around with it -- experimenting will make you more capable of doing what you want with your subjects by varying the f-stop and setting the shutter time accordingly -- or
reversing the two by using the shutter time as the lock point and varying the lens opening as the needed variable to achieve the effect you seek. Example -- shoot wide open (lens) with whatever (high) speed is required, and then focus on a friend's partially turned face, and focus on her nearest eye, then notice how her ear will be a bit out of focus ! Do this with a telephoto lens and the result will be even more extreme because the depth of focus (okay - depth of field) will be even more shallow.
Don't always shoot on "auto". If you use either "shutter" or "exposure" time as the set and the other as the variable, if you then use a separate light meter you can quickly see the range of possibilities from the meter. For years I used a Norwood Director, but then it crashed so I had to go to the same type, a Sekonic. Both read available light from your shooting position -- much better that reading reflected light. Using other than your camera "Auto" will lead you to a being a much more flexible photographer. Good luck and have fun as you experiment.