THanks all, especially Alpha. Looks good. I will try the same thing on the original file. Antoonio--D30 w/24/2.8 at f/2.8, ISO200, manual focus, handheld at 1/6 sec braced on a fence post and supported by fervent prayers LOL. BillGlaw. The brightest lights bugged the bejesus out of me. They look like headlights at best in my version above. And the noise sucked, but at ISO200 and a sixth, what did I expect? Thanks again.

JordyArt--2 or three inches across, with the legs included. Body is probably 3/4 inch long. Antoonio--'Zackly. They scare me witless. But, with a big chunk of glass and plastic shielding my face, I can be quite courageous...LOL Sue

The G2 is a sweeeet camera, as was the G1 before it, and both take awesome pix. If we are doing wish lists, I want a 600 mm /2.8 lens with image stabilization, and USM LOL. If anyone ever makes one, I probably won't be able to lift it...

Maygen Don't worry about the brand of your camera. You can take an excellent photograph with a disposable or even a pinhole camera (a pinhole doesn't even have a lens, see?). Brand name debates are just dumb, IMO. Your camera accepts different lenses, and to me those lenses are like the different gears on a bicycle--meant to be used. A short lens (wide angle of view) is good for some tasks (landscapes and interiors, for starters), long lenses (telephotos) are essential for other tasks (wildlife and paparazzi work). Your zoom lens (focal lenght 70-210) is in the sort of "short telephoto range". The lens your camera came with might be a 50 mm. It should say on the lens. 50 mm is considered "normal" for 35 mm cameras. The other numbers you listed (4.5-4.6, should the second number be 5.6, perhaps?) have to do with the diameter of the shutter when it's open, AKA the aperture. A smaller number is a bigger aperture. A bigger aperture lets in more light, so you can use a faster shutter. Faster shutter generally means sharper photo, and is also good for moving subjects, of course (freezes the action). If your camera is fully automatic, it is making the decisions about aperture and shutter speed for you. If you like the results then it's making good decisions; but if it has manual overrides, then you are missing out on some creative possibilities... So. You need to know about lenses in general: www.Photo.Net has good tutorial types of things that explain about lenses and lens optics and so forth. Probably a little technical, but...free and fairly short, 10 or 15 pages. Um. Just a thought. Ansel Adams book "The Camera", costs about 17 bucks at Barnes and Noble, is very clear, and is not long. Unlike this post, which is very long, and probably not clear. Sorry! Sue

Alpha OK here's the skinny: converted RAW file using tungsten w.b. ISO200, and 200 mm lens, f/5.6, 1/500. Manually focussed (oh yeah, my eyes aren't dead yet!) If you say "fill flash" to me now, I might do something drastic :>b. Syyd, yes the big Boston Aquarium, right on the water--totally awesome. I'm definitely going back, someday, to spend the WHOOOOOOLE day, too. Sue

My sentiments precisely. But, I can't stop taking pictures of them :-O

oops, forgot the link: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2001_reviews/nikon5000.html

Syyd-- In you weren't already aware of this, here is the link to a VERY comprehensive review. I owned a Nikon 950 and then a Nikon 990; the 5000 camera is a big sister to them; I am in a D30 now, and not looking back, so I have paid no attention to the 5000. Still from my experience with the smaller versions, I would say you pay close attention to anything anyone says about 1. battery usage, 2. file size vs. memory capacity, and 3. cycle speed (how long before you can take another shot). The 950 and 990 took great pictures alright and they were fun to use, unless you wanted to take a lot of pictures in a few hours, then it was nothing but frustrating. This camera will have even larger file sizes, so unless Nikon has addressed the camera write speed and battery use issues, the 5000 has the potential to be even worse in this respect. My two cents, which in a recession is worth .7 cents LOL. Sue