There's a really thorough review of your Camera below;
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1100D

Unless you're hung up on buying "New", I'd say to find out what the better camera's were 3-4 years ago and check the Pawn/Resale shops.  They are glutted with Camera's now that most people are using their cell phones for taking pictures (albeit, Phone pics are nowhere near the quality of a good SLR).

Just looking on EBay, one of the better cameras of 2010, the Canon EOS 550D could be picked up for $200-$350.  Just FYI, many Resale Shops use eBay as their baseline for setting a retail price.

Do you know anyone else with a DSLR, if so it may be best to get the same brand so you can borrow lenses.

Personally I like the Sony A DSLT series and I own an A57, but they also have the smaller NEX series.

Nikon and Canon also have some good DSLRs and as BernieTime said a camera a few years old is likely to also be miles better than your current camera.  The main gain with the new ones will be taking video and low light performance.

One thing to remember is a DSLR kit lens like the 15-85 you mention will not zoom in anywhere near as much as the modern compacts with their 20-30x zooms and DSLR lenses cost big money.  An alternative might be to look at the modern compacts like the Sony HX20v, WX200 or the Canon SX280/270.  The quality of these when looking at the pixel level will be poor compared to a DSLR, but they will have flexibility that would cost a fortune to have with a DSLR and generally have good anti shake systems too.  When the images are resized down to computer screen size they will look pretty decent, though printing might be a different matter.

Oh and make sure you have any digital zoom features on your camera turned off as that would explain some very blurry pictures.

As a Nikon user, I can only give my experience with Nikons.

If you were to go second hand, I'd get a D300 and a 18-135mm lens. The image below was taken with this combination. Although heavily compressed so I could upload it, it's not altered in any way.

Another less expensive choice would be a D70 with 18-70 kit lens. For a sample taken with that combination see my desktop in the July desktop thread. Though that one has been processed and resized.

Check out the August 2013 issue of Consumer Reports.

I have a Fuji Film FinePix HS25 EXR it's a nice cam for a pro or a weekend warrior. I love this cam.

That's possibly your problem right there...

As they say about cars....."the most important nut is the 'nut' holding the wheel" ...

Often the first 'limitation' rached by a camera is the user . It's why there are such things as photography courses ...

as a 'casual' photographer (admitedly trained BY an former head of art department of a teachers college AND practicing artist in ALL media including photography) I have taken photos on low end cameras that even expert and professional photographers with their very expensive gear would have had great difficulty in getting mostly by being there WITH a camera that was ready to work and did NOT need 15 minutes to set up for the photo, so I would suggest finding a camera that FITS you, and is comfortable for YOU.

and unless you NEED a particular feature that is ONLY on high end cameras, do NOT exclude the pro-sumers with the integrated higher zoom lenses.

regarding the training courses, the best possible advice I could give is if the view in the viewfinder/display pleases you TAKE the photo, and always keep your eyes open for unusual or interesting compositions.

harpo

A camera is like any other creative tool (such as Photoshop), the end result is down to the skill behind the tool

However, a skillful 'artist' can create better results with Photoshop than with MS Paint

DSLR's are an overbuy now.  You can get a decent mirrorless camera for a few hundred bucks, and those have interchangable lenses as well.

I have a Nikon one, and I'm ready to sell my DSLR.

Yes, Fuzzy is correct.  A full-function SLR or DSLR will be simply limited to much what any camera can do if the limiter is the user with perhaps little or no understanding of what all the settings actually DO.

And re PS vs Paint ....there are examples on the net of a skilled user doing FAR superior work with Paint than most users of PS could even hope to emulate.

I'm no shutter-bug ... but the best photo I ever managed to do was with an Olympus Pen half-frame in 1973.  If I can find it I'll post it.  It was into the sunset...and my 'filter' was a pair of Polaroid clip-ons [for glasses] held in front of the lens....

I like to thank you all for your comments and help... I just got back online after a inet downtime of 2 days thanks to tcom...
Managed to talk to my dad meanwhile and he told me that he has no knowledge about digital cams he said he avoided them but also he mentioned that nowadays digital is the way to go since you can instantly copy the pictures to a drive

To my old camera i have to correct myself its not a fuji its a Kodak Easyshare CX7530 with 5 mp 
The pictures i took are all ok but the color isnt and distant objects even if zoomed in get blurry while they look good on the preview.
Might be the lens i dont know.
this is a picture that shows the problem.

It was good weather this day and it was sunny the sun was on the right as you can see by the reflection of the boats window ... 
i think i took this around 3pm but it looks like its night (blurry + no color at all.)
Almost every picture i took in zoom is missing some saturation or color and is blurry.
But the pictures i took close up are decent.
 

This is a shot that was taken without zoom
 

currently reading into the Fuji Film FinePix HS25 EXR 

Unless you're an existing professional who has a hardcore reason to prefer film to digital, digital is a no-brainer, but actually not for the reason you mention above.  If you're in the beginner learning phase, like many of us are, film is completely unforgiving with regards to the learning curve.

1. With film, every shot you take costs you money.  This discourages you from experimenting, and experimenting is the only way to learn.  Sometimes you need to take the same picture a dozen different ways.  With digital, that costs you nothing to do, but with film it costs you a fortune.

2. With film, you don't know the mistakes you've made until you get the film developed days or weeks later.  With digital, you see your mistakes on the spot, and can immediately try taking new pictures to learn from your mistake.  That's also a reason why a good LCD display on a camera is nice.  If you can see the shot you just took on a good display, you'll know right then and there if something is wrong with it.

I think both the lack of saturation and the blurriness is because with the zoom you're getting less light onto your sensor.  Basically, the more light you get onto your sensor, the better your life will be.  I think zoom cuts the amount of light down significantly (the cone of light entering your camera is much narrower).  With less light hitting the sensor, the camera has to do some ugly tricks to compensate.  For one, it'll keep the shutter open longer.  When you're zoomed, any little quiver in your hand holding the camera is going to be magnified, and the long shutter time will magnify it even further.  That means blurriness.  The camera will also have a harder time getting colours right when it's not getting much light.

That's why cameras with bigger sensors do better in low light situations.  A bigger sensor means it can collect more light, and have to compensate less.

But I'm a newb to all of this, I just bought my first "real" camera 3 days ago, so I'm still learning.  I may be completely wrong on the above.

The picture is dark because it's against the light. The camera has exposed for the bright areas leaving other areas dark. Usually you would need exposure compensation of + 1 to 2 stops to make the picture lighter.

With a small sensor size 5mp means very little. The picture isn't sharp because the camera just doesn't have the resolving power needed.

The flowers are better as they are in direct sunlight. However, you can still see the lack of sharpness.

Cauldyth may i ask what camera you bought?
so far i checked and compared prices and settings of the cams i currently would say i tend to go and test the 
Fuji Film FinePix HS25 EXR it is currently up for 199€ / reviews are pretty good rating aswell.

the Kodak Easyshare i have has a very small lens compared to any other cam that was posted here.
I will wait a little longer and will test some of these cams posted when i get into a bigger town next week.
Afterall i want a cam that i can handle and hold easy.

@JAfo yes i know - the question is just if i could learn the settings quickly enough and if it would be better to spend a bit more instead of getting
a cam for the budget i currently have or below that does the job.

@ Neil could you possibly post some pictures of the Nikon one ? only found a view - thanks

The quality overall isnt great while the flowers turned out ok i guess
I have a question since someone told me sunblends can help with the first example i posted, the guy said the picture would have tuned out good with one
My question isnt that just to protect the lens from incomming light or does it more ? 

Yeah i think i rather go for a compact... since i have nobody around that would or could borrow me a lens and im not willing to invest the money that i invested into my rig 

So far im happy about all of the feedback you guys provided and i thank each one of you for helping me out on this.

I actually went for a DSLR, the Nikon D7100.  The reason is that I have a very specific use for my camera.  When I go on vacation, I want to take pictures of wildlife and nature, and ideally be able to print them as large as possible for hanging on my wall.  Until now, I've been using the Canon SD990 from 2009, which at the time was a higher end point-and-shoot compact.  Here are a couple sample pics, and why they motivated me to invest in a DSLR.

The above pic was taken in the early morning while hiking through the rainforest in Japan.  The pic itself is kind of interesting, but it doesn't do the place justice.  The forest (on the island of Yakushima, if anyone cares) was a million shades of green upon green.  It was mindblowing.  Unfortunately, being early morning in the rainforest, there was very little light.  The Canon SD990, like most compacts, has a very tiny sensor behind a very small lens.  The camera struggled to capture enough light, and had to compensate.  The pic is very washed out, and the shutter speed was long.

The long shutter speed is responsible for the blurring of the falling water, which can be a nice effect, but if I wanted to get a fast shutter speed pic where you could resolve each drop of water, that simply wasn't an option.  Now take into account that I was hiking, hot, tired, and breathing heavily, and many of the pics I took would be blurry because I couldn't manually hold the camera still during the long shutter. The above pic is one of the few that I managed to take without blur throughout.  I may never make it back there, and I don't have any pics of the place that do it justice.

Here's another pic:

This is taken with the SD990 in the Australian outback, and while it's also a nice pic, using a dedicated macro lens would've made for a much more spectacular picture.  (Search online for macro insect photos to see some examples, I won't post any here in the interest of bandwidth).

Now, to tackle both of these subjects properly, I really need an interchangeable lens camera.  That means either DSLR or mirrorless.  Mirrorless are great because you can slap a pancake lens on them, making them pocketable.  If you later want a big honking zoom or macro lens, then you can slap those on instead.  For me though, since I only use my camera for the above two situations, I'd only ever have a big lens attached, in which case a mirrorless wouldn't be pocketable anyway.

What's left is the better affordability of the mirrorless.  Well, I'm taking a trip to Borneo in 2 months, and that's another place I may never visit again, so I figured I'd blow the extra money and have a shot at the best pics a newb like me could get.  We'll see how that works out...

Sorry for the long ramble...

Thanks Cauldyth 

I drove to my home town today and checked some cams recommended here the Nikon one was quite nice and small the picture quality of each of the cams named here was more than superior over what i has in that tiny Kodac

I tested a 60D, the Nikon one the 1100D aswell as the Fuiji HS30 and HS25 EXR
Finally i went for the Fuji since it was nice in the hand it had a 30times zoom a good auto focus and modes for aperture and shutter speed aswell as various portrait settups. And a manual mode where you can try to realy do everything on your own.
Must say im not a huge fan of the reversed manual zoom but that is something i adjusted to pretty quickly.
I bought the 25 model of it because i like to just carry another pack of AA batterys around- the thing im missing is the RAW file mode but i can choose a smilar mode that makes 3 images in different blends so i can use these as RAW its just a bit more work.

I got the cam for 199€ and bought a Lexar 16Gig SDHC-UHS-1 class 10 card that just cost me 12 euros.
I would have payed double or tripple the money if not more to buy a SLR with a ranged lens.
Im happy so far and im reading the manual that came with it however i would like you to show you my very first shots on AUTO i took with it