recommend a good computer and digital camera?

Gunbei is absolutely correct. Megapixels do not tell the whole story and are certainly NOT an indication of image quality necessarily. There are cameras that produce a with 4 megapixel ccds that will produce consistently better images than cameras producing double that. The biggest jump in image quality you are likely to invest in in the prosumer camera is jumping up to the (physically) larger CCD of most of the (prosumer and professional) SLR cameras, and taking advantage of the RAW file capabilities of those cameras (much larger files which require conversion to use as jpegs or tiffs). Again, even there, numbers don't tell the whole story...use your eyes, consult the reviews. The numbers game, especially megapixels, means about as much in the consumer/prosumer camera market as it does in high-end audio It is used in the consumer market as a marketting gimmick. Definitely consult the review sites and magazines that have already been recommendded by Gunbei, Prpixel and others. If you are limiting your blow-up size to the typical 8X10 inches or so, as Gunbei suggests a good 3-4 megapixel camera can do that quite well.

To clarify a few points in Prpixels post; Pro SLR cameras are available in 35mm SLR body-style from around 4 megapixels to 14. As an example; The 4 Megapixel Nikon D2H is a remarkable camera, as is the 11 Megapixel Canon 1DS. Each tool has it's advantages, and each one produces amazing images for the state of the art today. Both have their advantages and drawbacks. The digital backs used on Hasselblad and other medium format cameras have been around a long while, and just like the consumer market are getting better and better. They are still quite expensive $10-20K on average, and up until recently most had to be tied to a laptop in order to shoot. There are also digital backs available to shoot with large format 4x5 inch cameras. If you shoot a lot of pictures, digital is certainly the cheapest way to go. Keep in mind on digital cards you dump the files onto your computer, wipe the card clean again and shoot over and over. Film still has an edge in overall quality, but the average person will not take advantage and may not even notice or care about those diffferences.

Marco

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