recommend a good computer and digital camera?

Gunbei,

"Not to judge PC users in genenral, but if one were new to computers and read this thread, he or she might conclude..."

"Mac people = fun, creative and helpful"

"PC people = snobby, superior, grumpy, jealous, stiff and repressed."

- You'd "JUDGED" us (Mac and PC people)!!!

"That's cool and all, but what does this have to with taking, editing and posting pictures on the web? "
- ...You'd said it yourself!!!

Huh? I don't understand. I don't speak Vinamese. Maybe I need one of them Wintel Googlator Translators, LOL.

For your computer, check out www.abspc.com . Great reliability, great choice re: configuration and great service. Also, at a great price. With your computer, you can probably get a good deal on a digicam to go with it. Maybe check out something along the lines of the Canon A70 or A80, for your 400. Very reliable, the great lens makes the difference in resolution a more-than-welcome tradeoff, and while they have various features for you to mess around with (ie. shutter priority, aperture priority, fully manual, autofocus modes, manual focus distance), here is also an automatic mode that can take more than passable photos at the click of a button.

Maybe think about doing this:

Look for a used iMac with a lots of RAM. Check out eBay for a complete used digital camera outfit with lots of memory storage devices, extra batteries, etc. Add-ons can cost an arm and a leg if you buy them new.

My Sony 770 cost me $425 and came with 5 memory sticks, 3 batteries, USB memory stick reader, 2 battery chargers (including a rapid charger), etc. These . Most of my electronics purchases these days are used items: if they're from buyers with good feedback, I really don't consider this a liability.

Buy a used full version of Photoshop (eBay again). I have 5.0 and it cost me $28.

The 770 is a 2.1 megapixel (nowadays considered practically antique), and I've used it to take pictures of friends' audio equipment; some have been shown on eBay and Audiogon. The resolution is more than adequate for this purpose, and is fine for printing up snapshots. I am not a photographer--I'm a symphony musician. But I've had numerous images published, including a portrait shot with the Sony.

For really fine resolution, however, I feel that film cameras are still preferable. It also seems to me that the differences in price/performance between digital and film cameras is similar to that between a better CD player and, say, a Rega TT. You get better results (but certainly not the convenience) with the older technology. This is, of course, my opinion--others may strongly disagree.

One final comment: any camera with manual options (which the 770 has, by the way) will teach a person a lot about lighting, exposure control, composition, etc. I don't think anyone would argue with this.

Good luck!

Nick

Nick Said:

"One final comment: any camera with manual options (which the 770 has, by the way) will teach a person a lot about lighting, exposure control, composition, etc. I don't think anyone would argue with this."

Simply having the options available on a camera will not teach a person anything at all. Learning how to use the options and actually making a habit of using them on a regular basis may teach a person a whole lot. It may be semantics, but it is very true. I've met lots of folks who buy THE ULTIMATE (fill in the blank) and never use the thing to anything near to its potential. Like folks who buy sport bikes with gobs of torque and horsepower, and then ride them three times a year, eventually selling them at great loss to buy the next BEST FASTEST blah, blah, blah. A tool is just a tool. It's the person who wields it who will creates the results with it.

Marco