I'd recommend getting a digital SLR. The prices have gone way down these days.

I'm a Nikon guy, but really you can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon.

If you aren't already aware of this site, you may want to check out : www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp . Narrow down the features you want in cameras then you can compare them one against the others. I was in the same boat 2 yrs ago. It can be overwhelming if you aren't versed the technical aspect of photography, but it's worth checking out.

The advice above is great advice. It's worth going to a shop and holding one in your hand.

Do not get a DSLR, for starting out it is overkill and the temptation to get fancy lenses for each kind of picture is close to overwhelming. The point of photography is the image, not the equipment used to make it. Sure, more $, better quality files, but the difference between a decent point and shoot and a decent DSLR in terms of image quality simply isn't there anymore. (Now, between a decent DSLR and something like a Hasselblad with one of those 39mp backs there is a big jump in quality -- but also in price.)

Instead get a fairly high end point and shoot with a decent zoom lens and a tilting lcd so you can put it on a tripod and compose by looking down comfortably instead of squinting through the view finder. By high end, I mean one that has full manual override for exposure and iso, like a dial that has M, A, and S settings in addition to auto or P and various scene settings. Check out DPreview.com and google "camera ratings and reviews" There are several sites that give recommendations for things like nature pics, landscapes and such.

I have worked with several cameras with interchangeable lenses, including the old mechanical Hasselblad and a 4x5. In the 35mm film world I still have a fancy Nikon with several lenses, but when I was using it regularly, I shot probably 90% with the zoom. Now I work with a very high end point and shoot (Sony R1) and a moderate DSLR with only one lens -- the lens cost nearly twice what the camera did, and the quality does show. However, I also have a real cheap point and shoot (Canon A710) which can produce top quality pictures if the exposure is just right.

The main thing in moving beyond snapshots to "real" photography is learning how to control both composition and exposure. The zoom will really help with composition, the manual overrides, study, and experimentation is how you learn exposure. The real advantage of a DSLR is when you are at the point where you want to spend over $1000 on a non-zoom prime lens because you've found a subject matter than will benefit from it.

my 2 cents, :-) The photos on my profile here are a mixture of all three of my cameras, I challenge you to tell the difference between ones made with the el cheapo point and shoot and the ones made with the $1400 85mm f1.4 zeiss prime lens. (Now if we were looking at prints and not the web, there would be no contest).

> ... sun

WARNING:

When you look through the viewfinder of an SLR, you have an *optical* path to what you see;
no electronics sit between your eye and the sun. In fact, there's *lenses* to magnify what you see...

Eye-damage caused this way is likely to be permanent.

DO NOT LOOK AT THE SUN THROUGH YOUR SLR (not even an eclipse/etc), UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND HOW TO HANDLE THIS PROBLEM! There ARE ways. But you should be sure you know what you're doing, first.