Wrapping up grad school and now with some more free time after work, I'm really looking to get into photography. I have a Pentax point and shoot, and itching for an SLR.

I'm never going to be a pro, but want something that I won't be outgrowing anytime soon. What are the key features I should be looking for and what is a good starting lens? I've been keeping my eyes on www.slickdeals.net for any hot buys, and not in a huge rush. Not looking for anything over 10mp.

Any solid starter recommendations would be much appreciated

Thanks

Amazing that you still can't Google.

you could get a canon 400d (XTi) and that will really help you learn your way around the camera. as far as lenses, the kit lens is alright for what it is and what it costs. figure out what you like to take pictures of before dropping coin on an expensive lens. ie, if you prefer wide landscapes, or close ups of animals, or macro work, etc. different lenses do different things.
i'd suggest doing some homework and figuring out what works best for you. then go to your local camera shop and play with some cameras in person.

<ul><li><a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/">Where I found my 10D for super cheap a few years ago.</a></li></ul>

I'd like to start with nature pictures, probably some of the ocean, beaches, and maybe close ups of birds or flowers at some point.

I haven't determined a final budget yet, but would like a decent starting piece to expand on. I see Cannons and Nikon packages for around $600 on steep sales quite often, and wonder how something like that would suite me. I'm not expecting an exact model recommendation, but are there particular brands and models that are no-go's or big hits in the group. I've seen quite a few great shots come from this forum.

EOS Rebel XTi Black SLR Digital Camera w/ 18-55mm Kit (10.1MP, 3888x2592, CompactFlash Slot) &lt;$575

Nikon D40 Digital SLR Kit with18-55mm lens + Nikon 55-00mm VR DX Lens &lt; $575

I'll certainly spend more if I recognize what I'm missing out on. I read great reviews on models here and there, but I want to know what to look for when I head into the local store.

(loved your picture of the fly)

last time I checked prices, they were in the low to mid $400's.

As far as the lens, I agree with A2TURBO, get a cheap kit lens for now (18-55). That should run about $50 used. Get comfortable using an SLR and then determine what type of lens is needed for the work you want to do.

Used 20D and kit lens should be around $500. Start scouring FM, POTN, and dgrin buy/sell forums. Please buy Raj's 20D so he can stop mentioning it.

Course who knows when I'll have an Audi again...

Then I'll mention all the other stuff YOU want! :-P The 20D is the only thing between you and bankruptcy!

Some truth to that...

So does Kris.

Hah!

20D was a pretty substantial improvement over the 10D, and the price differential isn't too great. 30D was a mild improvement, probably better saving the extra bucks for a lens. XTi is probably the first in the rebel series that has a nice collection of features (to me at least). Not sure if the price is where you need it to be though.

When you could just drive up here, put some money on the kitchen table, and bring it home to momma!

Seriously, I decided it's going. I had to buy a 70-200 2.8 for weddings. If I ever need a 100-400 I'll just rent. I might go to EMRA in July in NJ to shoot the boys with the 100-400, then that's it.

case, battery, strap, uv filter with a 2 year warranty. Just sayin'.

Deleted in 3....2....1...

Can't justify the upfront cost for the amount I'd need/use it.

Both are actually slightly below what I was expecting to pay, but I played with both and like them.

I know that after you choose a brand, the lenses tie you to them for eternity... should I favor one brand over the other? I like that the Nikon uses SD cards like my other camera and is a bit more common, and I like the feel a little more.

Is there a reason to regret going with the Nikon? I dont see myself making posters and have read 6mp should be sufficient. Is it worth considering any other brands?

Thanks again

Do a search here...someone asked about these two and I seem to recall the D40x was the universal recommendation.

Anyway, the review below raises some interesting points I'll comment on. The lens compatibility issue raised about the D40 concerns me. I'm not clear on how many lenses will not work with the D40, but it states any primes faster than f1.8 will not work. Personally, I would knock it right off your list for that reason alone. You buy an SLR so you can use it with a wide variety of lenses. If you've ever used a fast prime, you'll be in heaven. Even if you never own one, you can always rent one for a week.

They go on to mention some color and contrast observations. I'll go out on a limb and say it's probably harder to get out of camera jpegs that are quite as nice as the Nikons, however if you intend to shoot in RAW, I would argue it makes little difference since you're applying all those changes to the RAW image in the computer in order to generate your jpeg. If you suspect you'll be shooting jpegs for some time to come, then maybe this warrants further investigation. That article wasn't clear about what settings they used on either camera for the comparison. I'd want to see a few more reviews that confirm what they observed before taking it for gospel.<ul><li><a href="http://www.dpnotes.com/canon-eos-400d-digital-rebel-xti-vs-nikon-d40x/">http://www.dpnotes.com/canon-eos-400d-digital-rebel-xti-vs-nikon-d40x/</a</li></ul>

You are buying a lens system. In 3 years your DSLR will be obsolete and nearly worthless on the used market, but the lenses wont be.

At your budget, starting out, buy the cheapest body, and spend the money on the best lens you can afford.

Both Canon and Nikon have extensive and excellent lens offerings.

You're the one making those sounds in my basement? Stop that ****. Gives me the creeps man.

Lenses are more important than the body, BUT, the body needs to have the features and functionality that you require. Example, I still have my old UrRebel, and I use it as a backup. But I hate using it, because it's so much slower than my 30D. It's got that 4 image buffer. The screen is tiny.

sure, it makes nice images with my L lens, but it sucks to use once you get used to a better body.

and they work perfectly. And are probably worth more than I paid for them.

How many 10 year old DSLRs are worth anything?

Your post contradicts your title, since you mainly rant how you hate your Ur-Rebel.

My UrRebel isn't obsolete, but it's slow to use. It's a cheap camera.

My point was, you can't buy a cheap body and expensive lenses and call it a day. You need a nice body AND nice lenses. =)

His advice wasn't to go out and buy a 4 year old rebel. His advice was not to dump a ton of money into the body because that technology is changing so fast, and the body depreciates so quickly. And in fairness, even Canon or Nikon's cheapest dSLR's are not slouches, and within the budget stated, are perfectly acceptable. Sure, there are better bodies, but all things considered, he is best served by not spending a ton on the body.

I know we all agree...we're just waiting for you to admit it! :-P

and I've gotten great results with my expensive (relatively) camera and an inexpensive lens..

Oh, you've lost the right to post how nice your inexpensive glass is...at least until you forfeit that L! :-P

Now I'm just arguing! :-)

the 'inexpensive' lens was my old 18-125..

The L is WAY WAY better obviously.

What toy were you playing with? :-)

Instead of the Waterfest women.

I mount my 40+ year old AIed 200mm F4, tell the camera that's what it is, and basically all the metering modes work. I still gotta focus myself of course...

Sure, the D200 isn't cheap, but I got it cause I have a lot of old glass.

RKA elaborated on my point - DSLRs depreciate rapidly, and even low end ones are pretty darned good for starters. Spend the money on good glass. If JeepRage gets serious, he eventually gets a better body (like a D300), the old one becomes a backup, and his good glass still works. If he hates photography, he can sell his glass for little loss.

Got the free bag, Nikon DVDs, threw in 2 UV filters for $599. The package on the website is now at $799 (and while I think it is overpriced at that price), I think I got a good deal for a Brick and Mortar store that I can go to if I have any problems.

It took some haggling to upgrade the optional 55-200 lens to the VR version, but well worth it. Now my question is, I can basically keep the accessories and 55-200VR for $100 and try exchanging/upgrading elsewhere to a D60. I'd get $499 credit to return the D40 18-55 kit elsewhere and have to pay the difference to upgrade to the D60.

Based on pretty much everything I've read, the D40 takes a better picture than the D60, but the D60 throws in a few small bells and whistles for about $250 (including the 18-55VR lens kit). If the body will be out of date within a few years, by the time I get better or appreciate the differences, I'd probably want to upgrade out of the D40 or D60 regardless. Stick with the D40?

Those are both nice lenses, especially for the money. Good move to push for the VR on the longer zoom.

As for switching your gear all around to get a deal on VR on the 18-55, not sure it's worth it on the shorter lens. Depends on what you shoot. If you plan to do a lot of low light stuff without a tripod, e.g. candid city-scapes or insides of buildings / non-flash weddings/ concerts, it's probably worth it, cause you'll be shooting at long shutter speeds (roughly 1/4 - 1/30 of a second). If you mainly shoot outdoor scenics, action, etc. where there is more light or you need faster shutter speeds, VR won't help as much.