I have lurked at a few digital camera forums, and those guys are all crazy (like I am crazy about biking--- like arguing about how Ti frames ride differently than CF frames--- or arguing Campy vs. Shimano). I read all this madness about noise, dust issues, RAW formats, etc... so I am posting this on a BIKE forum.

I currently have one of those tiny Canon IXUS 5 meg cameras. I purchased it after I broke my other Canon pocket camera after a bike crash--- it was in my jersey pocket and I basically landed on it. I was unemployed at the time (or rather "on a budget"). The pocket camera is cool for biking--- but now that we have a baby, well, everyone else's camera simply takes better photos.

Here is my dilemma- for around $300 I can purchase an advanced non-SLR camera--- in the 6 megapixel range-- with decent video, a solid optical zoom, etc... We find that we are taking more and more little videos with the camera, rather than dragging out the camcorder.

On the other hand, there is a new crop of 10 megapixel digial SLRs that start around $600. My guess is they ship with a crap lens if they have one at all. These cameras generally do not have any video--- but that isn't exactly a deal-breaker. My guess is we will generally use all the automatic settings--- with either camera. Is a digital SLR the way to go? For the sake of argument-- consider money to be no object up to maybe $1200. On one hand, I am inclined to purchase something like the Canon PowerShot S5IS-- 8 megapixels with a 12X optical zoom for around $400---- but I have been reading that this level of camera occupies a no-man's-land that is being replaced by low end SLRs. Thoughts? Experiences? Crass recommendations?

Get the S5 IS.

The SLR will give you a lot more options for growth and will perform better in terms of speed and ISO noise (think film grain) but will still let you use the advanced features if you want to learn.

I just got the new Canon G9 and it is awesome. SLR features in a point and shoot.
Editing in RAW mode is really nice, highly recommended if you can swing it.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=144&modelid=15669#ModelDetailAct

Here are some test shots I did with it yesterday.

My blind Beagle, note the bike chain grease on her head.
http://home.att.net/~playblues/wsb/media/209830/site1109.jpg

Stray cat that hangs out.
http://home.att.net/~playblues/wsb/media/209830/site1110.jpg

No explanation required.
http://home.att.net/~playblues/wsb/media/209830/site1111.jpg

Testing the macro out, really nice.
http://home.att.net/~playblues/wsb/media/209830/site1112.jpg

Wow, those are some great shots! Highlights of the beagle's face are a little blown out on my screen, but her expression is so sweet it's almost heartbreaking.

Wonderful detail. I've been looking for a new pocket camera and narrowed it down to the G9 and the Panasonic TZ-3. If the G9 went to the eqivalent of a 28mm lens, it'd be no contest.

Paul

After my first digital camera started to die, I went out and bought a Nikon D50. I didn't even occupy thoughts of buying one of the advanced cameras. I'll always own some sort of DSLR, and here's why:

- Unless Nikon for some reason decides to get rid of their F-mount and DX sensor format, the three (soon to be four) lenses I own are virtually guaranteed to work on a future Nikon DSLR. I can buy a body only and not worry about glass. But if I buy an advanced P&S, the little wide and telephoto adapters might not work with the next generation models.

- I don't think there's a replacement for a prism viewfinder. Using an LCD might be easier for some, but I dislike them.

- I like the feel, heft, and size of the DSLRs. I have large hands and they're much more comfortable for me to hold. I've always thought they felt like they'll hold up better.

It mostly comes down to ease of use....I'm more comfortable with a DSLR, and enjoy working with them more. I'm sure the G9 or S5IS would take similarly good photos, but I simply dislike staring at an LCD held in front of my face in order to frame shots.

My Nikon has happily served me through 5,723 pictures without a single issue. The same cannot be said for my two Canon P&S models, the A60 and S200 (IXUS 30 to you), each of which had/has problems. In addition to the eight or so A-series models my friends own, ALL of which have had issues. I'll never buy another Canon again.

I like the G9's shots.. That might be the ticket to replace my G2.

Wonderful detail. I've been looking for a new pocket camera and narrowed it down to the G9 and the Panasonic TZ-3. If the G9 went to the eqivalent of a 28mm lens, it'd be no contest.

Paul
That's one of the biggest problems I have with P&S cameras...most don't go very wide at all. My roommate chose his SD800 based partly on the fact it did go slightly wider than most. I'd much rather have wide than tele.

However, you can buy the little adapters for those cameras, like this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/463324-REG/Canon_1595B001_WC_DC58B_Wide_Angle_Converter.html) . But like I mentioned, they rarely will fit on the next generation of whatever series camera they're for.

I was plagued by the dreaded E28 error with my Canon-- seriously, it is so common they should name a camera model the E28.

After my first digital camera started to die, I went out and bought a Nikon D50. I didn't even occupy thoughts of buying one of the advanced cameras. I'll always own some sort of DSLR, and here's why:

- Unless Nikon for some reason decides to get rid of their F-mount and DX sensor format, the three (soon to be four) lenses I own are virtually guaranteed to work on a future Nikon DSLR. I can buy a body only and not worry about glass. But if I buy an advanced P&S, the little wide and telephoto adapters might not work with the next generation models.

- I don't think there's a replacement for a prism viewfinder. Using an LCD might be easier for some, but I dislike them.

- I like the feel, heft, and size of the DSLRs. I have large hands and they're much more comfortable for me to hold. I've always thought they felt like they'll hold up better.

It mostly comes down to ease of use....I'm more comfortable with a DSLR, and enjoy working with them more. I'm sure the G9 or S5IS would take similarly good photos, but I simply dislike staring at an LCD held in front of my face in order to frame shots.

My Nikon has happily served me through 5,723 pictures without a single issue. The same cannot be said for my two Canon P&S models, the A60 and S200 (IXUS 30 to you), each of which had/has problems. In addition to the eight or so A-series models my friends own, ALL of which have had issues. I'll never buy another Canon again.

After my first digital camera started to die, I went out and bought a Nikon D50. I didn't even occupy thoughts of buying one of the advanced cameras. I'll always own some sort of DSLR, and here's why:

- Unless Nikon for some reason decides to get rid of their F-mount and DX sensor format, the three (soon to be four) lenses I own are virtually guaranteed to work on a future Nikon DSLR. I can buy a body only and not worry about glass. But if I buy an advanced P&S, the little wide and telephoto adapters might not work with the next generation models.

- I don't think there's a replacement for a prism viewfinder. Using an LCD might be easier for some, but I dislike them.

- I like the feel, heft, and size of the DSLRs. I have large hands and they're much more comfortable for me to hold. I've always thought they felt like they'll hold up better.

It mostly comes down to ease of use....I'm more comfortable with a DSLR, and enjoy working with them more. I'm sure the G9 or S5IS would take similarly good photos, but I simply dislike staring at an LCD held in front of my face in order to frame shots.

My Nikon has happily served me through 5,723 pictures without a single issue. The same cannot be said for my two Canon P&S models, the A60 and S200 (IXUS 30 to you), each of which had/has problems. In addition to the eight or so A-series models my friends own, ALL of which have had issues. I'll never buy another Canon again.

Nikon now has the D40 & D40X that are perfect for someone that wants the ease of use of a P & S with the flexibility & "Upside" of an SLR. I'm sure Canon has a similar type model.

If I was contemplating a High end P & S, I would spend the little extra to get an SLR package. The High end P & S is at the ceiling (Very little additional developmental headroom), the SLR is at the floor (Lots of developmental headroom.

Len
.

I'm a firm believer in P&S digicams, we have 4 or 5 of them rolling around the house and it is the one camera I carry with me when I travel. My SD1000 is always in my pocket.

And it gives me some great shots.

But for serious picture taking, there is no beating an SLR. First and foremost, the lack of shutter lag makes action shots possible. And then there is the whole thing about manual mode that no P&S can duplicate. Lens options, accessories and general flexibilty is what SLRs are all about.

I'm going to take the middle ground and say there is room for both. I wouldn't be without either. I shoot far more shots with my SD1000, but I shoot far better pictures with my SLRs.

If I had to pick, I think I'd have to analyze what kind of photographer I wanted to be. When I worked in the camera repair department at Kodak, we had a standing joke about the film that was often included a camera sent in for repair. The first 5 shots were of some kids birthday. The next 5 were of summer vacation followed by 5 of Thanksgiving and 5 of Christmas. The remaining were of the users right ear because they were using the camera backwards. This is one type of photographer - the general user that really wants simply to capture life's events for memory purposes. In this age, a decent P&S is perfect for that kind of user.

But if you want to ponder your shots and capture high quality images of things, places and people - make the leap.

Keep a P&S for Easter though. :D

How much megapixel capability do you really need? Seriously, I've been wondering this for a few days now. You can break into the low end SLR market really cheap if you buy body only and aren't looking to be in the 12MP+ range.

How many MP are best for printing (in which sizes)?

I am thinking of buying a DSLR before my Europe trip this summer so that I can shoot as much as I want without film worries or having to drop my film off at some weird developer (I am addicted to printing now). Planning on only buying the body since I have one lens already and will probably buy another in a week or so. Seems you can break into the 6MP range super cheap on ebay (<200 USD easily), 8MP for a little more than that. Also found the 400D (10 MP) body only for $210 +shipping. This seems really reasonable to me.

Can you get away with 6MP anymore? I haven't tried to print any of my pocket digi pictures in larger than 4x6. It's 6MP, and I think I could go a little larger than that without problem.

Nikon now has the D40 & D40X that are perfect for someone that wants the ease of use of a P & S with the flexibility & "Upside" of an SLR. I'm sure Canon has a similar type model.
I don't like the D40, though. It's too small for my hands, lacks the LCD on top (I've read a lot of people saying they hate those, but I find them easier than using the rear LCD), and doesn't have its own motor, so you can't use AF lenses, only AF-S.

But it'd be great for someone starting out, who has small hands. I just wish they'd held onto the D50.

There was an interesting article by David Pogue in the NYT a month or so ago which pretty much argued that it's no longer about megapixels, it's all about lenses. That beyond 4-6MP there is no value to the consumer by going larger.

Said we're trained now that bigger is better and thus we shop along those lines.

I don't really have an opinion, aside from the fact that I haven't seen a significant improvement in 8x10 prints beyond 2MP.

How much megapixel capability do you really need? Seriously, I've been wondering this for a few days now. You can break into the low end SLR market really cheap if you buy body only and aren't looking to be in the 12MP+ range.

How many MP are best for printing (in which sizes)?

I am thinking of buying a DSLR before my Europe trip this summer so that I can shoot as much as I want without film worries or having to drop my film off at some weird developer (I am addicted to printing now). Planning on only buying the body since I have one lens already and will probably buy another in a week or so. Seems you can break into the 6MP range super cheap on ebay (<200 USD easily), 8MP for a little more than that. Also found the 400D (10 MP) body only for $210 +shipping. This seems really reasonable to me.

Can you get away with 6MP anymore? I haven't tried to print any of my pocket digi pictures in larger than 4x6. It's 6MP, and I think I could go a little larger than that without problem.

I had a D50......at 6 MP, I've printed as large as 13X19 with no problem at all. In addition, the files are smaller than larger MP cameras.

What the increased MP has given me (above 6) is the ability to crop long reach shots and still be able to print them large.......it's not necessary that often, but when it is, I appreciate it. OTOH, more MP makes the camera less forgiving of bad handholding technique.........because of the higher resolution, it shows edge softness with less shake than lower MP cameras.

Like anything, it's always about tradeoffs.

Len

HAlso found the 400D (10 MP) body only for $210 +shipping. This seems really reasonable to me.


I can guarantee that's a scam site. Tons out there when it comes to photography. Check the store rating on http://www.resellerratings.com/ before you buy.

B&H is very reliable and usually has among the lowest prices. I've personally also used Beach Camera and 17th Street Photo (both through amazon and directly) and recommend them.

I believe the higher pixels come in handy when cropping and editing photos. It seems that 10MP is the sweet spot at the moment for SLRs. But I also believe that not all pixels are created equally--- from what I have seen.

How much megapixel capability do you really need? Seriously, I've been wondering this for a few days now. You can break into the low end SLR market really cheap if you buy body only and aren't looking to be in the 12MP+ range.

How many MP are best for printing (in which sizes)?

I am thinking of buying a DSLR before my Europe trip this summer so that I can shoot as much as I want without film worries or having to drop my film off at some weird developer (I am addicted to printing now). Planning on only buying the body since I have one lens already and will probably buy another in a week or so. Seems you can break into the 6MP range super cheap on ebay (<200 USD easily), 8MP for a little more than that. Also found the 400D (10 MP) body only for $210 +shipping. This seems really reasonable to me.

Can you get away with 6MP anymore? I haven't tried to print any of my pocket digi pictures in larger than 4x6. It's 6MP, and I think I could go a little larger than that without problem.

How much megapixel capability do you really need? Seriously, I've been wondering this for a few days now. You can break into the low end SLR market really cheap if you buy body only and aren't looking to be in the 12MP+ range.

How many MP are best for printing (in which sizes)?

I am thinking of buying a DSLR before my Europe trip this summer so that I can shoot as much as I want without film worries or having to drop my film off at some weird developer (I am addicted to printing now). Planning on only buying the body since I have one lens already and will probably buy another in a week or so. Seems you can break into the 6MP range super cheap on ebay (<200 USD easily), 8MP for a little more than that. Also found the 400D (10 MP) body only for $210 +shipping. This seems really reasonable to me.

Can you get away with 6MP anymore? I haven't tried to print any of my pocket digi pictures in larger than 4x6. It's 6MP, and I think I could go a little larger than that without problem.
I've never seen much need to go beyond 5 MP unless you need to routinely make 11x14 prints or larger. Of course this is for the hobbyist--not talking about a pro here. My 5MP Canon S2Is takes way better pix than the P&S cheapie Nikon that is 6MP.

Recs? Shoot Canon. Rebel XT ($430) or Rebel XTi ($575) with Tamron's 17-50mm f/2.8 ($450) lens and add a nifty fifty (50mm f/1.8) for $75. Optically the Tamron is about as good as it gets for a zoom.

Why Canon? Well, Canon's DSLRs are the low-noise leader (Canon's P&S cameras are a different story). Meaning you can use high ISO settings and get decent shots. Also, all of Canon's EOS cameras can take advantage of the full line of autofocus lenses. Not so with Nikon, which has stuck with the F mount and put the AF motor in the camera body. Only they took the AF motor out of the D40, so it only will autofocus with a few of the newest lenses that have a built-in motor. [Sorry if this is all the crap you were hoping to avoid!]

Image quality wise, point and shoots just don't compare to DSLRs. And it sounds like you have the P&S end covered with your current camera.

I can also tell you optical zooms are generally crap. You need to use a really fast shutter speed (think outside on a sunny day) to get anything decent.

Really, though, the best camera is going to be the one that you use. If you don't think you're going to drag out a DSLR, stick with a P&S.

I have lurked at a few digital camera forums, and those guys are all crazy (like I am crazy about biking--- like arguing about how Ti frames ride differently than CF frames--- or arguing Campy vs. Shimano). I read all this madness about noise, dust issues, RAW formats, etc... so I am posting this on a BIKE forum.

I currently have one of those tiny Canon IXUS 5 meg cameras. I purchased it after I broke my other Canon pocket camera after a bike crash--- it was in my jersey pocket and I basically landed on it. I was unemployed at the time (or rather "on a budget"). The pocket camera is cool for biking--- but now that we have a baby, well, everyone else's camera simply takes better photos.

Here is my dilemma- for around $300 I can purchase an advanced non-SLR camera--- in the 6 megapixel range-- with decent video, a solid optical zoom, etc... We find that we are taking more and more little videos with the camera, rather than dragging out the camcorder.

On the other hand, there is a new crop of 10 megapixel digial SLRs that start around $600. My guess is they ship with a crap lens if they have one at all. These cameras generally do not have any video--- but that isn't exactly a deal-breaker. My guess is we will generally use all the automatic settings--- with either camera. Is a digital SLR the way to go? For the sake of argument-- consider money to be no object up to maybe $1200. On one hand, I am inclined to purchase something like the Canon PowerShot S5IS-- 8 megapixels with a 12X optical zoom for around $400---- but I have been reading that this level of camera occupies a no-man's-land that is being replaced by low end SLRs. Thoughts? Experiences? Crass recommendations?

It seems that 10MP is the sweet spot at the moment for SLRs. But I also believe that not all pixels are created equally--- from what I have seen.

Yep, depends on what format you're shooting, APS-C (15x22mm) or full-frame (24x36). At just over twice the size of a typical DSLR (APS-C) sensor, a full-frame sensor is generally going to have larger photosites that produce higher quality images.

I'd argue my 12MP 'full-frame' 5D is sitting in the sweetest spot right now. But 8-10MP is about right for a typical DSLR.

Ok, seems like everyone just recommends the camera they own, much like the biking part of this forum. I own _____ and it is the best.

There is a place for compact cameras, the new gen of consumer high zoom cameras, and consumer SLR's. (I happen to own both a compact and a digital SLR)

1. Figure out what camera works best for you. Is a camera you want to put in your pocket the best description of your usage? Is a camera that can zoom in on something farther your best usage? Is learning about photography, buying lenses, and accessories the best for you?

I get asked what camera to buy all the time. Honestly, it comes down to what your using it for, much like a bike. Do you want to time trial? Hill climb? Comfort? Crit?

To me, the biggest difference between a Digital SLR and a P&S camera is the sensor size allowing for different depth of field. Next the ability to change lenses, followed by the ability to modify lighting.

Here is an example that demonstrates what I'm talking about.
http://www.roadbiker.ca/mambots/content/smoothgallery/cache/images/stories/ugm/2/images/640x437-cervelo_soloist_down_tube.jpg
See how the image goes from sharp to "blurry" that is depth of field. With the small sensors found in P&S it would be very very very difficult to do that.
Harder to notice is how the image is lit. You can tell theres some lighting going on, but again, you would not likely to reproduce that with a p&s, as its pretty much flash off, or have an ugly reflection, horrible eyes and features with flash on.

Here is a short article I did in 5 mins a few years ago when someone asked me what the diff was.
http://www.myphotoaxis.com/content/view/18/28/

I really like the Canon G9. I've been thinking about upgrading from my G3 and heard that the G7 wasn't really worth the money. But the G9 seems to be fantastic.

Recs? Shoot Canon. Rebel XT ($430) or Rebel XTi ($575) with Tamron's 17-50mm f/2.8 ($450) lens and add a nifty fifty (50mm f/1.8) for $75. Optically the Tamron is about as good as it gets for a zoom.

Theree are better optical zooms (from both Canon & Nikon pro line) out there than the Tamron....that being said, there are very good consumer grade zooms from both Canon & Nikon.

Why Canon? Well, Canon's DSLRs are the low-noise leader (Canon's P&S cameras are a different story). Meaning you can use high ISO settings and get decent shots.

At the high end cameras, this was true up until the D3 & D300......on the low end, the D40, D50 & D80 have been tested at equivilant or better than their Canon counterpart. Canon had the lead for years, but that gap was closed for a while now (at the low end). Noise, especially for a non-pro, is the most over-hyoed feature in photography. Very few non-pros use low ISO shooting.

Also, all of Canon's EOS cameras can take advantage of the full line of autofocus lenses.

I thought Canon changed their Mount several years ago so the best lenses can not be used on the lower end cameras. This is not true of Mikon. All of Nikons very best lenses have internal motors and can be used on all Nikon cameras.,.....including the entry level D40

Not so with Nikon, which has stuck with the F mount and put the AF motor in the camera body. Only they took the AF motor out of the D40, so it only will autofocus with a few of the newest lenses that have a built-in motor. [Sorry if this is all the crap you were hoping to avoid!]

Mis-leading. While the D40 does not have an internal focusing motor.........it is aimed at the entry level consumer that doesn't have any older lenses. Every Nikon Lense introduced in the last several years has an internal focusing motor. Again, Nikons very best lenses can be used on their entry level camera.....Canon can't say the same.

Image quality wise, point and shoots just don't compare to DSLRs. And it sounds like you have the P&S end covered with your current camera.

I can also tell you optical zooms are generally crap. You need to use a really fast shutter speed (think outside on a sunny day) to get anything decent.

Again, not true. Both Canon & Nikon have several Optical Zooms that are way better than decent. Zooms have come a long way in the last several years. Look at the 70-200 F4 from Canon, or the 18-70 or 18-200 from Nikon. Reasonable priced and really good quality.

Really, though, the best camera is going to be the one that you use. If you don't think you're going to drag out a DSLR, stick with a P&S.

I don;t think that there is much practical difference betwwen Canon or Nikon in actual use. Each have things they do well, and things they don't so well......but most of the differences are pretty minor.

I don't think a aspiring Photographer can go wrong with either.

Len

G9 has Raw, which was inexplicably dropped from the G7. It also has image stabilization.

I really like the Canon G9. I've been thinking about upgrading from my G3 and heard that the G7 wasn't really worth the money. But the G9 seems to be fantastic.

thanks--- that was an excellent argument for an DSLR.

I could see becoming more of a hobbyist in the digital realm, since there is no real cost in printing and "learning" from mistakes.

The Tamron is an excellent lens AND it's within the OP's budget. I wasn't going to suggest Canon's EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS because, well, it costs twice as much as the Tamron for the image stabilizaiton.

As to the D3 and D300--they aren't even available yet. All the claims about surpassing Canon's high ISO capabilities are just hand-waving at this point. I guess you drank the Nikon Kool-Aid and are believing Nikon's own publicity materials rather than actual tests of production cameras.

And as to Nikon's D40/D50/D80 having better high-ISO performance than Canons--even the Nikon fanboys wouldn't make that claim. Head over to the discussion forums at dpreview to see that; the Nikon folks are really hoping the D3 and D300 live up to the hype. The Canon folks are, too, as competition can only be a good thing.

And without an internal focus motor (e.g., D40), a beginner isn't going to be able to use (with AF) the cheap primes that should be in anyone's bag! To me, that's a fatal flaw of the D40. Well, Nikon's primes mostly haven't been upgraded with USM motors like Canon's consumer-grade primes anyways. +2 Canon.

Nikon's flash systems definitely leads Canon's. The ability to trigger an off-camera flash with the on-camera flash is very cool.

I typed 'optical zoom' when I meant 'digital zoom.' Mistake on my part.

OP asked for recs, that's why I actually made some recommendations instead of some vague suggestions.

Excepting the D40, though, I agree that either system is a great choice.

Ok, seems like everyone just recommends the camera they own, much like the biking part of this forum. I own _____ and it is the best.
I see. I'd much rather recommend something I've never seen, touched, or taken a picture with.

C'mon, man. Why do you think all of us have purchased what we did? Because we weighed the pros and cons, tested cameras out, etc. All of the responses I've read here do say that "I own _____," and then go on to say why. Why it was purchased and why the user likes/dislikes the camera.

There are plenty of posts here that discuss the pros and cons of DSLR vs.advanced P&S.

BTW, I could easily take that shot of yours with my cheapass old A60 in fully manual mode, without even a wide-angle adapter.

And without an internal focus motor (e.g., D40), a beginner isn't going to be able to use (with AF) the cheap primes that should be in anyone's bag!
I don't think the intended audience of the D40 is going to be stocking up on fast primes. They'll get a few zooms and stick with those. If they're considering primes, they're likely more than a simple beginner and should know the D40 doesn't support some of them.

I was plagued by the dreaded E28 error with my Canon-- seriously, it is so common they should name a camera model the E28.
I wish mine had given errors. It simply began taking the noisiest pictures ever....the viewfinder looked like an old TV with bad reception. Several of my friends' A60/75 models have either stopped taking pictures or the viewfinder will work intermittently.

My SD200 has focusing problems, and will not focus to infinity when zoomed in past halfway. Stupid POS.

The Tamron is an excellent lens AND it's within the OP's budget. I wasn't going to suggest Canon's EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS because, well, it costs twice as much as the Tamron for the image stabilizaiton.

Since you didn't mention cost.....I responded accordingly.


As to the D3 and D300--they aren't even available yet. All the claims about surpassing Canon's high ISO capabilities are just hand-waving at this point. I guess you drank the Nikon Kool-Aid and are believing Nikon's own publicity materials rather than actual tests of production cameras.

Both the D3 and D300 have been available to working pros for 3 to 5 weeks and their are reviews available on both. Both are performing at worst equivilant at high ISO to anything else available other than the 5D with the D-3 surpassing everything at High ISO performance. It's not kool-aid.

And as to Nikon's D40/D50/D80 having better high-ISO performance than Canons--even the Nikon fanboys wouldn't make that claim. Head over to the discussion forums at dpreview to see that; the Nikon folks are really hoping the D3 and D300 live up to the hype. The Canon folks are, too, as competition can only be a good thing.

Go to Galbraiths sight, or image resources, or any one of several others. The D40 has equaled or exceeded anything canon has at similar price ranges. not comparing the d40 to the 5D.

And without an internal focus motor (e.g., D40), a beginner isn't going to be able to use (with AF) the cheap primes that should be in anyone's bag! To me, that's a fatal flaw of the D40. Well, Nikon's primes mostly haven't been upgraded with USM motors like Canon's consumer-grade primes anyways. +2 Canon.

Someone looking at an entry level DSLR isn't looking for prime lenses usually....so that is a strawman's argument.

Nikon's flash systems definitely leads Canon's. The ability to trigger an off-camera flash with the on-camera flash is very cool.

Agreed, and I wish Nikon had more f/4 zooms......as I said, both systems have strengths and weaknesses.......my response to you was just trying to balance the one-sidedness of your original post, no more, no less.

I typed 'optical zoom' when I meant 'digital zoom.' Mistake on my part.

Hence my response.

OP asked for recs, that's why I actually made some recommendations instead of some vague suggestions.

Excepting the D40, though, I agree that either system is a great choice.

Here we disagree. I think the D40 is the perfect entry level DSLR....if it fits in your hands well......Fro $350 (only slighlty more than a high end P & S, you get both a taste of a DSLR, really good performance, and the ability to use many different high end lenses. I suspect the Rebel. I also think a Rebel is equally as good. Both have both manual and progammed scene modes,, both give a great intro to DSLR capabilities. Neither will be used for more than a year or so by someone who gets seriously into Photography. Both, I think are equally good.

YMMV

Len

That's true. But isn't it often the case that a beginner doesn't really know what s/he will want or need in the future?

The D40 doesn't allow much room for expansion and growth, while the discontinued D50 did.

I don't think the intended audience of the D40 is going to be stocking up on fast primes. They'll get a few zooms and stick with those. If they're considering primes, they're likely more than a simple beginner and should know the D40 doesn't support some of them.

That's true. But isn't it often the case that a beginner doesn't really know what s/he will want or need in the future?

The D40 doesn't allow much room for expansion and growth, while the discontinued D50 did.

I'd say that differently. I think the D40 doesn't allow the use of older primes in auto focus mode. .......it does allow for the use of any other lense in the Nikon Lineup.......including every High end Pro lense they make. I think this gives a beginner an awful large range for expansion & growth.

I loved the D50.......BTW, and agree it had more growth range than the D40.

Len


I

That's true. But isn't it often the case that a beginner doesn't really know what s/he will want or need in the future?

The D40 doesn't allow much room for expansion and growth, while the discontinued D50 did.
I agree somewhat. But a beginner should recognize a potential camera's ability to expand, or else they are simply uninformed.

I agree with yourself and Len, the D50 had more room for growth. I love mine and feel no need to replace it with anything newer, unless it dies. Knock on MDF.

With regard to primes, Canon has a whole bevy of consumer-grade (and priced) primes with USM motors. Nikon just doesn't. Yea, the D40 make AF with one of their pro primes. But what beginner is going to go from Sora to Red in one fell swoop?

I'd say that differently. I think the D40 doesn't allow the use of older primes in auto focus mode. .......it does allow for the use of any other lense in the Nikon Lineup.......including every High end Pro lense they make. I think this gives a beginner an awful large range for expansion & growth.

I loved the D50.......BTW, and agree it had more growth range than the D40.

Len


I

[QUQuote:
Originally Posted by jorgy
The Tamron is an excellent lens AND it's within the OP's budget. I wasn't going to suggest Canon's EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS because, well, it costs twice as much as the Tamron for the image stabilizaiton.

Quote:
Since you didn't mention cost.....I responded accordingly.

<b>The OP did mention cost, so it was implicit in my reply. Sorry you didn't pick up on that.</b>

As to the D3 and D300--they aren't even available yet. All the claims about surpassing Canon's high ISO capabilities are just hand-waving at this point. I guess you drank the Nikon Kool-Aid and are believing Nikon's own publicity materials rather than actual tests of production cameras.

Quote:
Both the D3 and D300 have been available to working pros for 3 to 5 weeks and their are reviews available on both. Both are performing at worst equivilant at high ISO to anything else available other than the 5D with the D-3 surpassing everything at High ISO performance. It's not kool-aid.

<b>I've seen no controlled tests. Period. None. I've seen some examples from pros and when folks have had the chance to put a card in a D3 or D300 at a show and make some snaps. The results do look promising.</b>

And as to Nikon's D40/D50/D80 having better high-ISO performance than Canons--even the Nikon fanboys wouldn't make that claim. Head over to the discussion forums at dpreview to see that; the Nikon folks are really hoping the D3 and D300 live up to the hype. The Canon folks are, too, as competition can only be a good thing.

Quote:
Go to Galbraiths sight, or image resources, or any one of several others. The D40 has equaled or exceeded anything canon has at similar price ranges. not comparing the d40 to the 5D.

<b>I've just seen nothing of the sort. I'm not too familiar with Galbriath's site, but I wasn't able to find any comparisons.</b>

And without an internal focus motor (e.g., D40), a beginner isn't going to be able to use (with AF) the cheap primes that should be in anyone's bag! To me, that's a fatal flaw of the D40. Well, Nikon's primes mostly haven't been upgraded with USM motors like Canon's consumer-grade primes anyways. +2 Canon.

Quote:
Someone looking at an entry level DSLR isn't looking for prime lenses usually....so that is a strawman's argument.

<b>It's not a strawman's argument. It's the same argument used to dissuade folks from buying a Sora-equipped bike. You may not appreciate the differences at first, but you'll soon figure them out.</b>

Nikon's flash systems definitely leads Canon's. The ability to trigger an off-camera flash with the on-camera flash is very cool.

Quote:
Agreed, and I wish Nikon had more f/4 zooms......as I said, both systems have strengths and weaknesses.......my response to you was just trying to balance the one-sidedness of your original post, no more, no less.

I typed 'optical zoom' when I meant 'digital zoom.' Mistake on my part.

Quote:
Hence my response.

OP asked for recs, that's why I actually made some recommendations instead of some vague suggestions.

Excepting the D40, though, I agree that either system is a great choice.

Here we disagree. I think the D40 is the perfect entry level DSLR....if it fits in your hands well......Fro $350 (only slighlty more than a high end P & S, you get both a taste of a DSLR, really good performance, and the ability to use many different high end lenses. I suspect the Rebel. I also think a Rebel is equally as good. Both have both manual and progammed scene modes,, both give a great intro to DSLR capabilities. Neither will be used for more than a year or so by someone who gets seriously into Photography. Both, I think are equally good.

YMMV

Len

Bringing this to biking metaphors--- I started with an aluminum frame with 105 and quickly ended up with a CF Look with DA-- then several other bikes-- and now have more than 10 wheel sets lying around. I can see outgrowing a point and shoot--- however, at $300 to 400, there isn't much invested in the first place. The technology is generally disposable in those cameras anyway.

As I see it, I have always been a little concerned about fully investing in digital photo technology---- however, now that a camera body can be had for as little as $500, the additional investments that I will eventually make in flash and lens equipment will survive future leaps in technology. Also, at 10+ megapixels, aside from editing, I don't see a compelling reason to wait. I am sure there will be better image capturing technologies that emerge in the future, but it appears there is tremendous bang for the buck right now.

I will still have a pocket camera for casual use. Back in the day, I had a Pentax K1000-- fully manual- so I know a bit about manual settings. My wife is leaning toward a DSLR.

One concern-- I have had trouble with both Canons having E28 errors--- my newest camera was unusable for a few weeks, then suddenly started working again. My mother owns a higher end Canon, and recently had to have it serviced because it simply would not focus. She had to send to back twice to have it fully repaired under extended warranty. I have some concerns about their reliability--- especially considering that I will likely purchase whatever camera in the US, where they cost half what they normally cost here. On the other hand, my father had a Nikon film SLR many years ago, and it needed all sorts of repairs on its "computer."

How much is dust an issue with DSLRs when swapping lenses frequently? Also, I am generally obsessed with usability issues--- such as common functions should not be buried beneath layers of menus. Is it safe to assume that these issues have been generally sorted out?

I see that extended warranties are generally inexpensive for DSLRs--- this seems to indicate that they are trouble-free--- any recommendations to purchase an extended warranty (if I buy one locally)?



That's true. But isn't it often the case that a beginner doesn't really know what s/he will want or need in the future?

The D40 doesn't allow much room for expansion and growth, while the discontinued D50 did.

One concern-- I have had trouble with both Canons having E28 errors--- my newest camera was unusable for a few weeks, then suddenly started working again. My mother owns a higher end Canon, and recently had to have it serviced because it simply would not focus. She had to send to back twice to have it fully repaired under extended warranty. I have some concerns about their reliability--- especially considering that I will likely purchase whatever camera in the US, where they cost half what they normally cost here. On the other hand, my father had a Nikon film SLR many years ago, and it needed all sorts of repairs on its "computer."
As I mentioned, both of my Canons and eight of my friends' have had problems. These are all P&S, however. My Nikon has had zero issues, and I know of other friends with Nikons who have not had problems. Sometimes it's just the luck of the draw, I guess, but the Canons scare me. I can't comment on the Canon SLRs, though, other than one friend who really likes his.

How much is dust an issue with DSLRs when swapping lenses frequently? Also, I am generally obsessed with usability issues--- such as common functions should not be buried beneath layers of menus. Is it safe to assume that these issues have been generally sorted out?
Dunno about the dust (haven't found any yet), but Nikon keeps the common functions completely outside of the menu...exposure compensation, timer/remote mode, white balance, ISO, etc. I hold down one button and turn the thumbwheel.

FYI 8MP =35mm film. Anything beyond that is for fun.

You wont go wrong with either Canon or Nikon. What will happen after you pick one is you'll buy lenses, that will make it cost prohibative to switch. Both makers have good product. Buy one with 5-7mp, and maybe a 18-55 or 18-70 lens to let you start playing around. Lets be honest, that what you're going to be doing.

After some time you'll want different glass to take different types of shots, but the basics will be there. Good picture quality, easy of use, manual features and enough MP that if you end up printing they'll look great.

When you start at $500ish for a DSLR there are really two ways this goes.
1. It's enough, you buy diffferent glass to take different shots
2. You realize after alot of use, that you can see the value in a $1500 body and you migrate your glass over to a new camera.

Two is far less common then you might think.

After some research we bought the D50 last year and really enjoy it. Good friend of mine is on his 2nd canon, and he loves it. So I think you can easily do either.

I have a Nikon D50 and it's the abosolute best and only camera that anyone could ever want :D :rolleyes:

Actually I bought it when I lost our P&S in the bottom of a duffel bag. Found it about 5 months later - after I bought the D50.

I went the the camera store and said I wanted to look into the DSLR's but didn't know anything about them. I wanted a better camera than the one I lost and wanted to basically take better pics but needed the ease of a P&S. (I know it's the photographer, not the camera - but these things must be learned) The camera guy steered me towars the D50 and I'm glad he did. It was as easy to use as a P&S, but I was able to control more of the shot and get the picture I had in my mind easier. Since then I've picked up a few more lenses and started playing with the manual settings. This book helped a complete novice figure out how to use and play with all the manual settings.http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780817463007&z=y. I've probably taken about 4,000 shots with my D50 and it's been great. I still carry the P&S sometimes, but I have my backpack with all my lenses, filters and stuff that go with me quite often.

P&S offers quick snaphots and are easy to carry around. The DSLR provides me with the ability to get the shot I want. At this point in my life, I will honestly say that I will always have both a P&S and a DSLR. :thumbsup:

It doesn't matter what you have, it matters how you use it.

I have and use all sorts of cameras. I can get a just fine photo from all of them because I know how to use them.

Get any camera, learn how it works, learn what it is good at and understand what it doesn't do well (no camera is perfect-or even anywhere close to perfect).

Then take lots of pix and throw most of them away.

In no time you will be a great photographer-or at least as great as you want to be.

More from the G9 this weekend.

http://home.att.net/~playblues/wsb/media/209830/site1113.jpg

http://home.att.net/~playblues/wsb/media/209830/site1114.jpg

http://home.att.net/~playblues/wsb/media/209830/site1115.jpg

Not entirely true--- the 5MP Canon ixus that I have is smaller than a cell phone--- and is generally crap.

It doesn't matter what you have, it matters how you use it.

I have and use all sorts of cameras. I can get a just fine photo from all of them because I know how to use them.

Get any camera, learn how it works, learn what it is good at and understand what it doesn't do well (no camera is perfect-or even anywhere close to perfect).

Then take lots of pix and throw most of them away.

In no time you will be a great photographer-or at least as great as you want to be.