Beautiful flower shot.
So I have a question (and please pardon the hijack, here), I have trouble getting purple subjects, like flowers to come out purple. Seems the purple flowers always come out blue. Any suggestions here?

There are two thoughts as to how and why we are here, neither of which can be fully explained so as to state unequivocally, that it is THE answer, to the exclusion of the other explanation. That leaves a third thought that perhaps the two support each other. Much "science" that is presented as "fact" is only theory, and is no more fact than "creation." The "fact" is, we don't have the answer yet, and may never have it fully. Yet science is valid, and the idea of creation, to be valid, needs to be accepted in faith, since there is really no corroborative evidence to support it, other than having the faith to believe that it is one of the two possibilities that explain our existence on earth.

Not at all. Science is what has gotten us this far in the first place. Stupidity, however, is what keeps us from going forward at a faster pace.

In the final analysis, DNA, cells, the human or animal body are so complex in nature and specific in purpose that it would be ludicrous to assume that life originated accidentally as the result of a chance bolt of lightning into a pool of just the right kind of ooze and now here we all are. For me that just doesn't make any sense. You can draw your own conclusions from that. Each life form is truly unique unto its own self, yet there is a relationship among all life forms. Ask, "Why are there insects?" and the answer seems to be that they provide food for other other creatures, or something a bug does is beneficial to the vegetation. Yet many of the other creatures provide food for humans and other critters. It's a big circle, and how did that come about. The missing link is missing because, IMO, it's not there. I believe each species is unique to itself, and no one individual type came from another, totally different type of life form. Scientists have determined that all DNA is essentially the same, yet there are differences that set apart one species or type of life form from the others. So you have to ask yourself, how did this occur? Did an intelligence greater than our own conceive this? The Bible tells us that the evidence of God is in all His creations around us. So if we can't create any of this, despite all the technology at our hands today, than who did?

I think shooting with a digital camera where everything is electronic and automatic, that it is easy to let the camera do the thinking for the shooter. And for a beginner, the dizzying array of controls can be quite confusing, what with all the in-camera adjustments that can be made with the variety of buttons, wheels and other controls. It takes time and experience to learn how to use the camera. I learned on the venerable Pentax Spotmatic, Yashica TL super and a Canon 35mm cameras. There were just four controls--shutter speed, aperture ring, focus and ISO (then referred to as ASA) setting. Everything was manual, so you had to think, and film, while not as expensive as it is today, still wasn't cheap, and I had to pay for processing. I didn't have a darkroom, so I couldn't fiddle with that, either. the end result was that I had to be careful what and how I shot, so as to make every exposure count as much as possible. I learned on Ektachrome and Kodachrome, and still have hundreds of slides taken in the 60's.

I love the versatility of the digital camera, and the electronic control do the same thing as the manual ones did. I just don't have to match a needle in a bracket to get a good exposure. I'm still learning, as there are terms and functions that still confound me. Bottom line is that there is no substitute for doing the "right stuff" with the camera in the first place. You just can't use PP to turn a bad shot into a good one. Yet you can use PP to make a good shot better.

I always thought that when we lived in Idaho, it would make a great project to explore and photograph old places like that. You gotta wonder what the history behind these old, abandoned homestead is. Thanx for sharing.

My favorite one it the first shot. Absolutely stunning in detail and composition. The bokeh is right on, makes the bird just snap to. Thanks for sharing those.

Good answer, and I agree. A good camera shop, run by pros, not a chain store with part time help that only wants to sell you a camera. They will tell you whatever one you're interested in is the best one. A good pro shop will assist you knowledgeably.

When you ask, ask about the strengths and weaknesses of each, decide which way you lean in photography, and go with the one that fits your needs the best. Then take time to learn the camera. It won't be a quick & easy learning session, either. Takes time and using the camera a lot, until you are thoroughly familiar with it and using it become instinctual.

In the end, this subject has been beaten thoroughly, so you won't get any definitive answers here. Both brands are excellent, but users/fans are polarized, so a subjective answer here may be elusive. You can't go wrong with either. Again, just go to a good camera store and ask questions to help you make up your mind which way to go. Good luck and happy hunting.

Great pix. Thanx for posting. I've lived up here since 1951, and I never tire of looking at our beautiful scenery and amazing wildlife. My wife and I are thinking about going to Seward for a glacier cruise ourselves. That was a good one of the pink salmon jumping. Glad you had a good cruise and your wife's family got to enjoy it in person.

I agree, but I use my IPod for listening to tunes when I ride my motorcycle. It's small and holds a lot of music. But otherwise..................

Here's one. Since I shot it in the auto mode, I don't have the data, but you get the idea.

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h452/GregOlson1/DSC_0003_zps778f7b8e.jpg

It just occurred to me, could it have to do with the AF function, maybe set at the wrong setting? Perhaps using manual focus is a better choice when shooting this type of photo? Keep in mind, this wasn't intended to be a "photo," so much as merely a snapshot. I wanted to see what the result would be.

Thanks for posting that photo. Brings back memories of the many hours I spent flying those wonderful Huey's in Vietnam. I loved flying that old bird. The American flag there is a nice touch.

I have a D90, which is a very nice camera. Works very well. But I seem to have a clarity problem with it. It came with the 18--105mm zoom lens, and it seems that all my scenery shots come out not being sharp and clear. They just look a bit "fuzzy" for some reason. Close up images look fine, but it's the longer distance shots that aren't nice and crisp. Any suggestions, like could it be that the lens itself is the problem? I like the camera, but not the results. Thanks.

That's a good idea. Thanks.

I have the Panasonic Lumix FZ200 and am happy with it. It's easy to use, especially if you just shoot it in IA (Intelligent Auto) mode, and the zoom goes out to 600mm, and stays at f/2.8. While I haven't played around any with any of the semi-auto or manual modes yet, I'm finding that it returns decent images in the IS mode. Yet it's very capable once you have some experience with the camera and start learning the controls. The camera doesn't come with a full owner's manual, but you can download one, and if you have a tablet, you can put the manual on it. Gives you something to read along the way. I think the FZ200 is every bit as good as the Canon SX50.