SO FAR, just around the house it is working. We'll see what tomorrow brings. I will say she is pretty excited about it.

I know that is not a "Pro" choice camera and the lens 75-250 (I mistakenly said 300 the other night) is only a $250.00 lens, but for a hobbyist, I think it is a fairly good set up.

I would like to get her a really nice camera and a much better lens.

My main camera is a Nikon D2h. When I bought it years ago I paid about $1800 for it used. New, it was about $3600. But it's paid for itself several times over shooting sports and such. Now I carry a Nikon D80 that I traded a case of 5.56 ammo for. It takes much better pictures, but doesn't perform nearly as good at high-speed stuff.

Patty just needs (Wants) a good quality camera that has relatively easy to learn and understand controls the she can change fairly quickly and a good quality lens. I don't know how the Canon Xs she has rates, but It MIGHT work well for her if she just had a higher quality lens.

One thing I don't like about the lens she has now is that when she zooms in close, the length of the lens changes. Are they all like that?

Til you get into the really expensive lenses they are.

The money is in the lenses. Bodies are pretty much like computers. Give 'em a couple years and they're obsolete.

Camera bodies, that is.

Yeah I knew the picture is the lens. But MAN some of those camera bodies can get expensive.

You ain't kidding there.

I want a new camera pretty badly, but since I'm not shooting for money any more I just can't justify spending $2k on a new body.

Ok, over the past how ever long, you have gotten a feel for the kind of pictures Patty likes to take. She likes Canon and Nikon both, but likes the Canon a bit better. IN YOUR OPINION, what would be a good set up (or we just get a better lens for her canon Xs) with a good lens, Nikon or Canon.