To further fan the flames, just because a photographer can produce a technically accomplished image, the image they want to produce, doesn't mean their photographs are any good.

There's plenty of accomplished photographers producing landscapes, macros of flowers, piers jutting into ghostly water, photographs of the moon, well lit portraits of their children, etc. that simply don't stand out from the tens of thousands of other photographers doing the exact same thing.

I think this then goes back a little to the professional determination for a lot of photographers. The photographers producing technically accomplished photographs of children could stand to make a career out of photographing other people's children for money. The intended audience of those pictures will only be that family's relatives and friends. Surely this sets these photographers and their technically accomplished images apart from the photographers who will have a photobook published by a top photographic agency?

The reality is that photography is so diverse it becomes very hard to set out a general judgement on what is and isn't the "skill level of a photographer" or even answering "what is photography?" To judge a photographer and their photography you have to have some idea of the purpose of their photography. The photography world is host to such an array of purposes that comparing a commission based portrait photographer, to a fine art sales based photographer, to an arts body funded documentary photographer is often a losing battle.

I currently have a fixed lens Fugi finepix S4830 (? don't have it in front of me). All I have is the camera and shoulder bag. I've been using it for two years. I have been doing some part time jobs and saving for an upgrade. So, what should I buy? I have about $700 and looking at camera bundles (usually body, two lenses, tripod, cleaning equipment, bag, etc...). I need some recommendations for the next step. I'm sending a few of my favorite shots from the past year. I live along a river and love dawn and sunsets.

I am new to the digital world, trying to figure it all out still. I am shooting with a D3200 Nikon in manual mode, I am not using a flash, and my lens is a 105 Lester A. Dines macro. I have tons of experience with a film camera, but that was 30 years ago. My old instincts tell me to go with a very low ISO, and I have my camera solidly mounted, I use the timer to reduce vibration with a slow shutter speed, my lens is closed down to F11, give or take, I have plenty of light. Where is a good starting point to experiment with the ISO to get the highest quality results based on your experiences? My range goes from 1EV to Hi1 (ISO 100 to 6400)
Thank you
Norman

Ron, welcome to the Hog.
If you don't have to have new, you can always get more bang for your buck if you can consider something used.
At the Canon website you can also get a refurbished kit. Those units have full warranties but have been returned in like new condition. It's how I buy most of my gear.
For used, look at the classified here. Some are new members and just selling, others are long time members that are somewhat well known and trustworthy, just ask.
Personally I prefer Canons, but all cameras are good.
Also look at the kits at places like Costco.
Good luck