Wanting one kinda bad.

What is the one to get right now?

Thinking about the Nikon D90.

Great camera, but you may have to go for a used or refurbished one to stay near $1000.

I was checking "Filcker" yesterday and it is the most popular DSLR among Flicker users.

Here's "Wink" getting one ...
"I looked long and hard at a lot of possibilities, and ended up buying a Nikon D90 with an 18-200mm Nikkor lens (with vibration reduction). I think this is the best one body - one lens combination one can buy today. I got mine for much less than $2,000."
http://forums.accuratereloadin...8911043/m/8761099821

Just my preference, but I like Canon. For around $1K, you can get a Canon T2i that's 18 megapixel and also shoots HD video. Also for that price, it comes with a 18-55 image stabilized lens. I'm saving to upgrade to the new 7D.

John

What you specifically plan to do with it would influence my recommendation. You could probably get away with a little less camera and spend a bit more on better glass -- and still stay around the $1K mark.

The Nikon D3000 (10.1 MP) comes to mind. Or, if you don't plan on getting prints much larger than 11x14 to maybe 16x20, the D40 -- now discontinued and priced very well -- would make lots of sense.

Also influencing the recommendation would be the type of photos you'd be taking. Perhaps a single zoom lens would cover everything you needed. If so, you could then spend a bit more on getting a lens that's perhaps a tad faster and still stay within your budget. Or perhaps a fixed focal length lens -- faster still and better suited to low-light photography -- might be just the ticket (the new AF-S 35mm f/1.8 is pretty nice and a little over $200).

You could also get the D3000 along with 18-55 and 55-200mm lenses with the Vibration Reduction feature and still maintain your budget.

Lastly, don't overlook demos and refurbs. Nikon's policy on a return -- no matter the reason -- is that the item gets a complete check-up and basic overhaul if necessary. Even if absolutely nothing was wrong with the unit, it can't be sold as "new" and thus enters the "refurbished" moniker.

i use a great camera called the Lumix DMC LX3. it is a great compact camera and takes photos worthy of a SLR. its only £400 but you can spend the rest on extras such as new lenses etc.

check out some of my photos for proof. here's a link : Tanzania Hunt Series.

hope you enjoy

Canon 50D. Amazon, $975 shipped in the USA.

What Bobby said.

For the most part, YOUR use for the camera will greatly influence which type and model you might need.

In general, for most users, a DSLR is overkill when there are so many of the high-quality compact P&Ss with zooms available now.

Nikon is running a nice sale --- buy one of their digital slr's like the D90 and they will sell you any variety of lenses at a great discount.

Take a look at www,nikonusa.com and search for the specials.

Do you already have any Lens? I would purchase used high end. Purchase nice IS lens they will last forever. L series in Cannon. They will also hold their value. In a body look at a used 40D (500-600) Fredmaranda.com is a good venue to purchase used high end equipment.

Best advice,thus far.

I just came back from hiking in the Swiss Alps. I had two cameras with me, a Panasonic TZ10 pocket camera, and a Sony HX1 instead of an SLR.

The Panasonic has a 12X optical zoom, and the Sony has a 20X optical zoom.

If I had taken an SLR, I would have had to carry at least two lenses. And walking up to 12,000 feet with heavy equipment wasn't something I looked forward to.

You might wish to have a look at the photos.

Photos of the Swiss Alps

I like a Canon G10 in the pocket.

Best bang for the buck is the Pentax KX with arguably the best kit lenses in the business. In body stabilization and if you want a weather resistant body go for the K7.

quote:

Originally posted by Ahab:
Best bang for the buck is the Pentax KX with arguably the best kit lenses in the business. In body stabilization and if you want a weather resistant body go for the K7.

What happens if the image stabilization in the body craps out? The best stabilization is the one on the lens, not the body. In this case, if a lens goes bad, one still can continue using the camera with other lenses. Not so if the body stabilization fails.

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:
Wanting one kinda bad.

What is the one to get right now?

Thinking about the Nikon D90.

Both the D90 and the Canon T2i cost less than $1,000. However, the D90 is an older camera, while the T2i is new. IQ from both should be about the same, but where the T2i has a huge advantage is on video. If you aren't interested in video, then both should be equally fine.

quote:

Originally posted by Ray:

quote:

Originally posted by Ahab:
Best bang for the buck is the Pentax KX with arguably the best kit lenses in the business. In body stabilization and if you want a weather resistant body go for the K7.

What happens if the image stabilization in the body craps out? The best stabilization is the one on the lens, not the body. In this case, if a lens goes bad, one still can continue using the camera with other lenses. Not so if the body stabilization fails.

Not true. The closer to the sensor the IS system is the better the results. You pay extra for IS when you buy that lens. If the in camera IS went out it would not stop you from using the camera.

quote:

Originally posted by Ahab:

quote:

Originally posted by Ray:

quote:

Originally posted by Ahab:
Best bang for the buck is the Pentax KX with arguably the best kit lenses in the business. In body stabilization and if you want a weather resistant body go for the K7.

What happens if the image stabilization in the body craps out? The best stabilization is the one on the lens, not the body. In this case, if a lens goes bad, one still can continue using the camera with other lenses. Not so if the body stabilization fails.

Not true. The closer to the sensor the IS system is the better the results. You pay extra for IS when you buy that lens. If the in camera IS went out it would not stop you from using the camera.

Not true. The sensor has nothing to do with image stabilization. The servo and its circuit card aren't connected to the sensor, but to the the main circuit board via the electrical contacts at the lens mount. Nikon has switched the servo to the lens, just like Canon. With the servo installed in the body, there is only one way to repair it and that's by sending the camera to a shop. But when the servo is in the lens, all one has to do is to send that lens to the shop, and continue using the other lenses and the same body.

I decided to add the following: While I use Canon cameras, I don't need the Canon IS since I use my camera during the day in Alaska (lots of daylight during the summer). But some people use IS extensively, and these are the ones who want Canon IS. What IS does is the following:
Adds 2 to 3-stop Image Stabilizer for greatly reduced image blur caused by camera shake which in turn aids with shooting in low light conditions without flash, or for gaining DOF. The 3-stop allows a person taking photos in low light to use a shutter speed of just 1/15 sec instead of 1/125, with no perceptible increase in image blur.

So, with IS I can use a Canon lens that is not as fast as another. Now, if I need the IS feature and my camera IS fails (one that has IS in the body), I am out of luck unless I have a second body with me. The more expensive the camera is (or the more you depend on image stabilization), the less you want image stabilization in the body. But if you can do without IS, then you can continue using whichever camera or lens you have. For example, Canon IS is used when the camera is being hand-held, not on a tripod. If you are using a tripod, then it does not matter if the lens has IS or not, because the IS function is turned to OFF.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
I just came back from hiking in the Swiss Alps. I had two cameras with me, a Panasonic TZ10 pocket camera, and a Sony HX1 instead of an SLR.

The Panasonic has a 12X optical zoom, and the Sony has a 20X optical zoom.

If I had taken an SLR, I would have had to carry at least two lenses. And walking up to 12,000 feet with heavy equipment wasn't something I looked forward to.

You might wish to have a look at the photos.

Photos of the Swiss Alps

cool pic's thanks for sharing