Buying My first DSLR, Any suggestions?

[Lethal Squirrel]

I'm looking for a good DSLR camera that takes videos as well for under $600, maybe a little over. I'v had my eye on the Pentax Kx for a while, but i'm not sure how good that brand is, I am not to familiar with it (sorry, camera noob). I was also considering the Nikon D3100.

The only camera I have right now is the one on my iPod touch 4th Gen(sh*t). and the last decent camera I had was the Kodak Easyshare Z950

[TheSoulhunter]

Canon!

Thing is, there are a lot awesome old lenses out there (M42, OM, Pk...), for 100 bucks you can get a fast manual lens with image quality close to todays 1000USD ones, and for technical reasons (mount-to-sensor distance) you cant use most this lenses on Nikons (without optical adapters, which will ruin the image quality) but with Canon you can!

[stuiees]

I am also in the market... But I know far too little to make an informed purchase yet...  I know if I pull the trigger now, out of ignorance I will end up wishing I got something else.  One thing I do know, it matters what kind of photos you plan to take.  The lenses offered should be one of the more important factors in your buying decision.  Later if you want, you can upgrade the camera body, but the lenses would then go to waste if they are not compatible.  I would say pick a brand first, and then look for a body that fits your price range.  Then again if youre just going to stick with fairly basic lenses, you should be pretty safe with any of the entry level cameras from any of the major brands.  Look for a package deal with body and lens kits, they pop up all the time.

[Pylon]

Don't most post-1977 Nikon lenses work on Nikon cameras? Sure you get a ton of limitations on the lower end Nikons (lack of metering especially), but they should mount just fine. In fact you can get pre-1977 non-AI lenses to mount on a lower end
Go to a store and try a DSLR and hold it in your hand. I like Nikon's ergonomics (D40 user here), but give other manufacturers a shot.

[Pylon]

You know you want a 300mm f/2  or a 58mm f/1.2 Noct-Nikkor, or an uber compact 50mm series E, or a 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8, or various cheap but optically excellent primes from the 70s and 80s that have metal barrels and what not.

(though the 300mm f/2.8 VR kinda defeats the first one, and if you don't shoot for scientific purposes a 50mm f1.2 manual will still suffice, and a 50mm f/1.4 AF-S isn't that much bigger than a 50mm series E).

[nanu]

As an indecisive user told to go Canon years ago from a Nikon user, I would rather go Nikon, if I had to choose between the two today.

What do you intend to shoot?

[Lethal Squirrel]

I like taking pictures of all kinds of things. I also really like shooting videos as well. Thats why I'm leaning towards the pentax right now. I know it's probably not as good for pictures as the nikon or canon, but so far all the reviews and stats have told me the pentax is the best for shooting videos out of the sub $600 entry level DSLRs, and it's still really good for pictures. especially at it's price.

[sawedust]

I started with a Nikon D40 a couple years ago and still have it.  It's a nifty little camera that gets you into the world of digital photography.  It's not spectacular by any means, but it was a great beginner camera for me to learn about aperture, shutter speed, proper lighting, etc.

One of the things I like about it is its weight!  It's very light and easy to carry around all day.  Throw a cheapy 18-200mm zoom lens on it and you're good for pretty much anything that you want to shoot (casually, of course)!

But over the years, I've moved away from the D40 and started working with a Canon 5D Mark II when helping out other professional photographers shoot weddings and what not.  I absolutely love how the photos come out, and a camera of that quality is waaaaay better than what my D40 gives me.

We all had to start somewhere!  I'm glad to recommend a camera like a D40 (of any brand) to anyone starting out.  It's great, light, and a good choice if you want to get into digital photography.

[instantkamera]

I own two nikons. Im going to go out on a limb and say it really doesn't ****ing matter.

Steps to photographic success:

1) Get the one you like best in your hand, that agrees with your wallet.

2) Get a nice cheap zoom that covers a lot of range, and learn to make wonderful pictures with it (this will take a while, we call this "learning photography". Please note it does NOT involve frequenting forums to read about new gear you don't own. This is not helpful.).

3) Once you have done that, you might want to reassess your choice, move to a different manufacturer, or to a full frame. At that point, you'll be investing in all new glass, which is why you didnt spend tons of cash on lenses right off the bat. Also, at this point, you shouldnt need to ask about what body/lens you want, as you will already know.

ENJOY!

[Jasonszion]

I shoot all Canon...

The t1 or t2 should do the trick for you... get the kit lens and a $100 50mm 1.8 to start with... I shoot with a 7d and a couple of  50d and love em!

[kill will]

craigslist nikon and win.

[TheSoulhunter]

Remind me again why I want to mount a 1970 lens...

Because some 1970s lenses are better than what you can get today...
Short summary: A old telezoom beats a current top-line macro lens, in macro shooting!

Also check out this samples of other old FD lenses -> 50/1.4, 100/2.8, 28/2
And each of this great lenses cost less than 100 bucks on ebay, you just have to convert the mount

[instantkamera]

Nikon.

Canon!

As an indecisive user told to go Canon years ago from a Nikon user, I would rather go Nikon, if I had to choose between the two today.

I shoot all Canon...
!

I shoot Canon HFS200 for video and Nikon D60-D200/Canon S90/Panasonic Lumix LX3 for stills.

craigslist nikon and win.

...PENTAX...

it really doesn't ****ing matter.

seriously ... just buy something. And get shooting.

edit:

Just to **** with you (and since I have seen no recommendations, despite the fact that they make a good product (not sure about your price SPECIFICALLY)):

Get a SONY.

edit2:

Some of the best lenses today are the newly engineered digital-specific Zuiko lens. I would HATE to have you miss out on that. Olympus it is!

edit3:

Rangefinders seem to be coming back in style, maybe pick up a Fuji x100.

edit4:

I don't have anymore witty quips, but panasonic and samsung make nice stuff too.

edit5:

OK, let's tackle this from another angle. Of CURRENT camera manufacturers, you can safely exclude: Casio, Kodak, Leica, RICOH and Sigma based on what I gleaned from your posts was most important: SLR and video. In fact, scratch the Fuji too, although it is still interesting because it has an APS-C sized sensor in it, which means it should perform like any dSLR equipped with a similar lens (which is also very intriguing).

[Lethal Squirrel]

what about pentax?

[eunjea]

Canon EOS 550D (Rebel T2i / Kiss X4 Digital)
You'll not regret.

[speakeasy]

You can't go wrong between Canon and Nikon. Both make fantastic cameras and lenses and the sad reality is that most people who buy DSLRs don't get skilled enough to make the most out of their camera and some decent glass. If you don't plan on getting more than 2 or 3 lenses, a Pentax is fine too.

That said, I shoot with Canon and think Nikon users are noobs

[keyb_gr]

While Pentaxes have rarely been on the forefront of technology (and focusing on practical use instead), the K-x actually isn't a bad little cam. Image quality is pretty good. I'd say get a decent 17-70 lens to go with it and have fun.

If it's supposed to be more compact, check out Olympus. One of their DSLR models with the pretty nice 14-42 isn't a bad choice either. The Four Thirds sensors tend to be about one stop behind their APS-C cousins, but stuff can be smaller in return, and image quality still is a lot closer to DSLR territory than compact camera territory.

Canon has kinda dropped the ball in sensor development lately, it seems. They used to have the best DSLR CMOS sensors around (heck, they pioneered them), but the sensors used in Nikon D7000 or Pentax K-5 clearly do a better job in terms of dynamic range than their current efforts.

[instantkamera]

what about pentax?

If you like it and it fits your budget, buy it. Don't listen to rip, even if they go out of business tomorrow, you will be fine.

[7bit]

I'm looking for a good DSLR camera that takes videos as well for under $600, maybe a little over. I'v had my eye on the Pentax Kx for a while, but i'm not sure how good that brand is, I am not to familiar with it (sorry, camera noob). I was also considering the Nikon D3100.

The only camera I have right now is the one on my iPod touch 4th Gen(sh*t). and the last decent camera I had was the Kodak Easyshare Z950

Get a Nikon for photos and a real video cam for video!

Don't take a D3000, get a used D40 instead. The D3100 is OK, but you should also consider the discontinued D90 which might sell at a similar price as the D3100.

If you want the best half-frame camera on the market: get the D7000.

Old lenses are not always better than new ones. But sometimes cheaper to get used. On the other hand, the current Canon mount is more than 20 years old, so there is a lot of Canon stuff used available as well.

Get a 20mm lens. It is perfect for shooting keyboards. It is my most favorite lens which I use nearly all the time.

Or get something like a 18-200 so you have all focal lengths covered you will almost ever need.

[instantkamera]

Like Minolta?  Now that would have been a wide decision.

Sony alpha?

[.XL]

I shoot all Canon...

The t1 or t2 should do the trick for you... get the kit lens and a $100 50mm 1.8 to start with... I shoot with a 7d and a couple of  50d and love em!

This ^

Like everyone else is saying, Nikon vs Canon is a total circlejerk. They both work well. The lenses are pretty much the same, despite ripster saying Nikon has better lenses. In fact, it's only certain ranges Nikon is better in, and certain ranges Canon trumps Nikon.

I went and bought an XSi as my first DSLR. Loved it. Bought a Canon 50mm 1.4 to go with it. I sold my XSi to a friend for $500, kept the 50mm lens, and now I'm looking to pick up a 50d! My dad has a 5d MK I, and it's amazing. He's got a 24-105L and I love that too! Though the lens itself is somewhere near $1200 new...

Anyway...choose Nikon or Canon, and get shooting. Then you'll decide which you like best.

My best advice to you is get a Canon T1i (the cheaper the better for your first DSLR) and get the 50mm 1.8 lens. Lots of Nikon users who do artistic shooting LOVE this lens and wish they could have it on Nikon. That says something! It's only $99, too. So you can play around with that...you have a good idea if you like fixed focal length lenses or zoom. I like the fixed better. The pictures taken on them just come out cleaner. I prefer my 50mm 1.4 to my dads 24-105L anyday.

TL;DR: Canon = Nikon. Same ish. Don't worry about either Nikon or Canon, but I wouldn't get another manufacturer if I were you. They have limited lenses and very limited 3rd party lenses. Grab whichever tickles your fancy and go have fun.

P.S. - @ripster, my dads 5d MK 1 and the 50d feel much better than any Nikon I've held onto. The entry level are cheaply made, but it seems to me that there's more money in the abilities of the camera than the body at that price level.

[.XL]

My Nikkor 50mm 1.8 is better than your Canon 50mm 1.8.  Better Bokeh (whenever I'm too lazy to look up specs I just say, "Better Bokeh".  Bokeh is such a fun word to say and write).

Sharp, small and cheap as dirt.  But I prefer my 35mm 1.8 for general walk around and especially indoors.

Trick for you Nikon users (ignore those Canon dweebs).  Use the HN-3 on any 50mm threaded lens and you can use the 72mm lens cap and ditch the filter for protection.  Steel > Glass for protection.

Plus you look more leet.  Not like all those soccer moms with Canons.

It's also $40 more! And not as sharp. The bokeh *might* be nicer (I'll give this one to you, but the comparisons I've seen show no difference) but the Canon is much sharper.

I'm assuming you think Canon = soccer moms, Nikon = semi pros?

Maybe the soccer moms around your way are better informed than you, seeing as almost all pro sports and fashion photogs use Canons :evil:

I had to go there

If I were in your spot, I'd get either:

Nikon D3100 (amazon)

or

Canon T1i (amazon)

[NKRO]

As someone who has shot Canon for the last few years, I would actually recommend Nikon for most people.
It's not that Canon have done anything to put me off them, I just think Nikon is a better choice strictly for taking photographs. Difficult to make the switch once you have a lot invested in one side though.

The cameras are built better and they feel better in your hand. The sensors are larger (1.5x instead of 1.6x crop) and the image quality is generally better. Canon is focused more on high resolutions at the expense of image quality, Nikon focuses on image quality at the expense of resolution, but their cameras are sufficient for most people's needs.

Canon has faster AF, Nikon's is more accurate. Accuracy is more important in my opinion.
Nikon has a wonderful flash system, Canon is trying to catch up and are still nowhere near as flexible.
Canon has reasonable video capabilities, Nikon's are worthless. Video on an SLR is to be used on a tripod for more cinematic style shooting not to replace a camcorder for family stuff though.
Canon has a better live view implementation, including support for live view and camera control directly on a PC monitor via USB. (great for studio style shooting)
Canon has better primes and telephotos, Nikon has better zooms.

I just recently sold off all my Canon gear and bought a Sony NEX though. Focus is done on the sensor which means it's slower than a DSLR but there is no chance for miscalibration (DSLRs use a separate AF sensor that can go out of alignment with the sensor plane) it can shoot 7fps and fits in your pocket. The flash system is terrible and you do lose a lot of physical controls, but with an adapted lens (the 18mm flange-back distance means virtually any lens can be adapted) focus/aperture are set on the lens and you just turn the rear dial to control the shutter speed.


It's not a replacement for a DSLR for work, but for most enthusiasts or people that need a less conspicuous camera it's fantastic as it's similar in size to a medium-sized compact camera but with a 1.5x sensor. The flash system is absolutely terrible with it though. I mostly shoot natural light but for product photography I'm considering picking up a Nikon but it wouldn't be to take out and about.


Not sure that I would recommend anything other than a Sony, Nikon or Canon. All the other systems seem to have some kind of limitation or issue that has put me off considering them. It's not that they're bad, just not quite up there with the big three. Would not recommend buying anything with a smaller than 1.6x sensor. (micro 4/3 etc.)


At the end of the day it doesn't matter too much what you end up with. A good camera is not going to make you a better photographer. It makes it easier to get the image you want the more money you have invested in camera equipment, but if you give a pro a cheap rebel he will take better images than a novice with a D3x and thousands in lenses.

[kill will]

cool username nkro

[speakeasy]

PS OP, ignore everyone who says you're married to a particular brand after you've purchased your first DSLR. If all you have is a camera and a kit lens, you haven't made a significant investment in a particular lens system for it to be a waste of money to switch. In fact, if all you have is a kit lens and you improve to the point where you'd like something better, it wouldn't be a waste at all to switch brands.

That said, if you're used to the ergonomics of a particular camera brand, you'll probably wanna stick to it. I enjoy the placement of the top and rear wheel of Canons, while some people swear by the the scroll wheel placement on Nikons. Pentax is somewhere in between. Go to a local store and try them out and see which one you like the best.

[Qwerty]

Shooting a D3100 here.

I agree that it doesn't really matter though. Your own skills and technique will have more impact on the photo quality than your equipment will, and with practice you can take absolutely fantastic photographs from entry level cameras and kit lenses.

With that said, and not knowing much about canon... I like the feel of the Nikon body, and with this being my first DSLR I can honestly say that I got a lot more from the D3100 than I was expecting. So I was thoroughly pleased with my purchase, and if the camera, lenses, etc got stolen, broken, etc, I would probably buy the D3100 again.

In regards to video. Don't expect a DSLR to give good video. Mind you, I think you should test the video to see just what sort of performance you can expect, because I'm more than happy with my D3100 for taking videos to share on youtube, etc if that's all you're after.

Maybe if you look at specifically what it is you want to be photographing, one company will offer an entry-level feature that will stand out and make it the obvious choice.

[speakeasy]

In regards to video. Don't expect a DSLR to give good video. Mind you, I think you should test the video to see just what sort of performance you can expect, because I'm more than happy with my D3100 for taking videos to share on youtube, etc if that's all you're after.

I disagree. The 7D and 5DmkII have FANTASTIC video. IIRC they shot an episode of House MD with a 5DMkII

Some footage from 7D

[Lethal Squirrel]

I think I'm just gonna go with the Pentax =\
I really don't have the money to buy a $600+ camera.
The Kx will be fine for me, I can get one for less than $500
And later when I wanna get more into photography, I will buy my a nice Nikon or Canon and a nice lens.
Hope I'm not disappointing you Nikon and Canon fans.
Brand is important, but it isn't everything.

[Qwerty]

My stated opinion was based more on the notion that we were discussing cameras in the $600 range. As that's what the OP is looking for.

Though as I said, for sharing personal videos with friends online, etc, the video quality of my D3100 more than satisfies my standards, and actually exceeded my expectations. Which is why I suggested getting a chance to see just what the video quality looks like, as it may meet your standards just fine.

Edit: OP posted while I was writing. I'm sure you'll be quite happy with the Pentax, definitely share some pictures when you get it.

[AndrewZorn]

I'm really disappointed that I bought the videoless Canon Rebel XSi, but then I think to myself that my next one will be a non-first-gen video DSLR.

I don't know which I'm more amazed by, the video quality (which I already knew was movie-quality, but still) or the awesomeness of that EDIT video.  I thought it was real at first, then a model, then baffled by the model complexity, but now I know it's real, but modified.  Still crazy...

[Lethal Squirrel]

I don't know which I'm more amazed by, the video quality (which I already knew was movie-quality, but still) or the awesomeness of that EDIT video.  I thought it was real at first, then a model, then baffled by the model complexity, but now I know it's real, but modified.  Still crazy...

Thats exactly what I thought

[instantkamera]

sweet, now go spend your moo-la and post some shots

[Lethal Squirrel]

Gotta save for about a month, maybe sell a few things. My paycheck is only $150 a week.

[AndrewZorn]

If you are poor, just buy used.  You can usually get a used DSLR locally.
That way all your Pentax lenses aren't useless if you go to a Canon/Nikon like you plan.

[Lethal Squirrel]

If you are poor, just buy used.  You can usually get a used DSLR locally.
That way all your Pentax lenses aren't useless if you go to a Canon/Nikon like you plan.

I wouldn't say I'm poor.  Well, now I am. I spent almost $500 on keyboards in the past month.

But anyways that's what I'm doing. There is a used K-x with the included lens at a local camera store here for $475

That's the one I'm planning to buy.

If I was buying it new, I might as well have got the D3100, I think It's cheaper than the Pentax Retail.

[NKRO]

The Nikon Creative Lighting System (their Flash system) is unbeatable for flexibility.

Absolutely—this is why I would not recommend anything other than Nikon right now if you want to get into flash photography or are doing things like product shoots. It's the reason I am considering a secondary Nikon system. Until the NEX came out my plan was to sell off my Canon gear for a switch over to Nikon because of this.

I disagree. The 7D and 5DmkII have FANTASTIC video. IIRC they shot an episode of House MD with a 5DMkII

You can get good video from the Canons, and Sony/Panasonic are OK. (but I would avoid Panasonic in general due to the small sensor size) Nikon are still far behind everyone else in that regard, but the biggest issue is that while these cameras all advertise "1080p" video it is anything but. It is poorly compressed and there can be considerable aliasing. Sure you get a large sensor and can choose from a wide variety of lenses for shallow depth of field and other effects, but I would certainly not call the video fantastic.

Once they can actually shoot proper 1080p with decent compression, without so much CMOS "jello" and without such short shoot times before overheating, then they will be fantastic for video.

As it is now, you can get good results, but you're going to be spending a lot of time and effort in post to fix up average-at-best quality video files.

Nice lens.  ***** to use in real life.

Nikon was the first to do autofocus while shooting.  WooHoo!  Even $50 camcorders do that.

For the style of shooting that DSLR video is designed for, you don't want autofocus—it'll ruin your shot.

First thing I did with my NEX was disable autofocus in video… then curse the lack of full manual controls (or exposure lock) and framerate selection.

I don't know which I'm more amazed by, the video quality (which I already knew was movie-quality, but still) or the awesomeness of that EDIT video.  I thought it was real at first, then a model, then baffled by the model complexity, but now I know it's real, but modified.  Still crazy...

If they had used a tilt-shift lens (perspective-control lens in Nikon-speak) or a tilt adapter, they could have achieved that effect in-camera rather than doing it with software processing.

I think I'm just gonna go with the Pentax =\
I really don't have the money to buy a $600+ camera.
The Kx will be fine for me, I can get one for less than $500
And later when I wanna get more into photography, I will buy my a nice Nikon or Canon and a nice lens.
Hope I'm not disappointing you Nikon and Canon fans.
Brand is important, but it isn't everything.

Nothing wrong with the Pentax, I just feel like it's better to spend a bit more and go for a camera from one of the big three. If you're just wanting a basic SLR and will stick with the kit lens for a while, it's probably fine, but if you decide that you really like photography and want to expand you might find yourself wishing that you had spent a bit more to begin with.

My main issue with the Kx would be that it runs off AA batteries rather than having a rechargeable Li-ion as with most other SLRs. (but I suppose it's convenient if you run out of juice on the day and don't have any spares—you can always run to a shop and buy a pack of AAs)

[keyb_gr]

My main issue with the Kx would be that it runs off AA batteries rather than having a rechargeable Li-ion as with most other SLRs. (but I suppose it's convenient if you run out of juice on the day and don't have any spares—you can always run to a shop and buy a pack of AAs)

Funnily enough, I'd consider that an advantage - a good charger and a bunch of Eneloops are already present in this household. Conventional batteries really are an emergency solution only, but honestly I don't see anyone depleting two sets of Eneloops (one in camera + a spare) that quickly. The camera is shipped with non-rechargeable lithium batteries which normally last a long time.

It does seem like there were some early samples with power supply problems though, even more fussy than normal (looks like the cam has a bit of a digital power hog syndrome and likes battery impedance low). Better lug along some rechargeables known to be in good shape and test the camera before buying, 'cuz that might have been the reason for selling it.

EDIT: Problem possibly tackled by f/w update. That would be good.

[Lethal Squirrel]

My main issue with the Kx would be that it runs off AA batteries rather than having a rechargeable Li-ion as with most other SLRs. (but I suppose it's convenient if you run out of juice on the day and don't have any spares—you can always run to a shop and buy a pack of AAs)

I have a crap load of rechargeable AA batteries

[NKRO]

Whatever suits you—I have just always found that cameras running off AAs never get the number of shots they claim, and rechargeable AAs seem to degrade fairly quickly.

As I said, it can be advantageous if you run them down and can simply walk into any store and buy "disposable" AAs, but I find that usually a Li-ion equipped camera won't run out of charge in that situation.

I know people that have chosen their camera based on the criteria that it runs off AAs for that reason, and they always seem to be the ones that have problems with the camera running out of power when they need it.

I will admit though, that I have not tried Eneloops yet—I don't think I actually own anything that uses AA batteries any more. The only thing I have that takes standard batteries is my TV remote and they use AAAs now.

[.XL]

Nothing wrong with the Pentax, I just feel like it's better to spend a bit more and go for a camera from one of the big three. If you're just wanting a basic SLR and will stick with the kit lens for a while, it's probably fine, but if you decide that you really like photography and want to expand you might find yourself wishing that you had spent a bit more to begin with.

This is the biggest thing when considering a new DSLR, and the reason I feel you shouldn't go Pentax, but Canon/Nikon.

You buy a DSLR, you like what the kit lens does, but you've found that you like landscape photography, portrait, macro, or what have you...and you want to spend $450 to buy a good lens. Now, you don't just have money in the camera itself, you have a significant amount of money in the lens, also.

If you go Canon/Nikon, you can get yourself that $600 camera, and when money permits, get a new lens in the style of shooting you like (mine happened to be portrait...something I didn't think I'd ever like, seeing as I don't like having pictures taken of me).

If you were to go Pentax, you can surely buy a lens that accomplishes the same goal, but it won't do it nearly as well. Also, consider the fact that the lens production has moved to Vietnam, and the body production to the Philippines. A little research shows that when they moved production, the quality of their products decreased.

In contrast, Nikon and Canon are the worlds largest optics manufacturing companies. They spend and make many, many billions of dollars a year in selling high quality digital imaging products to high end customers like government and hospitals, as well as satellites and telescopes. All the biggest optics needs are done by these 2 corporations. They are the fastest to innovate, and their consumers reap the benefits.

The Nikon/Canon lenses are of the best quality, and you'll find that you will eventually switch over to one of the two. Why not start off with one, allowing you the freedom of being able to just choose a second lens rather than having to worry about selling your camera, finding a good deal on a new one, and then after all that finally getting a new lens?

[J888www]

...to go Pentax, you can surely buy a lens that accomplishes the same goal, but it won't do it nearly as well.

Is that not a contraction in itself ?  If the end-products are the same, why would one end-product be more equal than the other end-product ?



A professional can take better pictures with a mid-range camera than an amateur with high-end equipment.

Me thinks the OP is asking this question in the wrong type of forum, maybe try....
http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/
They may serve to answer your question more fully.

In my case, I've been searching for a replacement for five Years, had considered the Pentax K-5, but eventually purchased an Olympus XZ1 in white from all possible mid-high range cameras available,as it is most suitable for my needs.

Choose wisely, decide again before purchase, be absolutely sure as it will be around your neck for a few Years.

[J888www]

A certain company took my cash but still no show on my camera, been choosing for five Years and these last two Weeks seems an eternity.

[.XL]

A professional can take better pictures with a mid-range camera than an amateur with high-end equipment.

While this is true (I've seen some amazing 3mp cell phone shots from professional photographers), it's only true to an extent. It's true from more of the 'trained eye' ability to 'see' the art in a potential picture rather than any specific technical skillset the photographer has. A photographer is always limited by his equipment.

Sure, a camera is a camera, but it's always nice to have some specialty lenses, especially a nice Fixed focal length one for portraits, one for macro, and a decent zoom for everything else.

[NKRO]

That is a small sensor point & shoot camera, I would not recommend it at all.

At base ISO—ISO 100—it is equivalent to ISO 800 on an APS-C (1.5/1.6x crop) SLR. Anything beyond ISO 200 is borderline unusable due to noise: DxOMark

DPReview - lol.   Don't panic when you read DPReview forums.  If you think people whine about shiny keys here.......every lens can't focus, isn't edge sharp, and you need 20 lenses to hang around there.

I will never buy another SLR that relies on a separate phase-detect AF sensor rather than focusing on the sensor plane. (or at least having the option with Live View) Even Nikon's flagship cameras and lenses have issues focusing at times: http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2010-12-blog.html#blog20101224Nikon35

[.XL]

Is that not a contraction in itself ?  If the end-products are the same, why would one end-product be more equal than the other end-product ?

Not quite. The goal is take a picture, right? You can do that with a 1.3 mp camera easy. But it won't look nearly as good as a Canon DSLR. The goal isn't 'take a fantastic picture' though I'm sure the low level Canon/Nikons are the same in quality as that Pentax, once you really get into photography and want better equip you'll have to switch over to Canon/Nikon, which would be more expensive than just choosing one from the start.

[J888www]

Awwl, I was hoping for more pics of maids, models or some of those ***** to use.
Strange, my feelings stir, us Simians seem to be starting to behave more like humans, just as some humans are beginning to behave more like animals.

"But it won't look nearly as good as a Canon DSLR",
....but but but then the end-products are not the same, as stated.

 A photographer can be limited by his equipment, but it can also be a hindrance. One must see photography from all angles of every aspect, not just from the professional photographers point of view ....ie, a monkey can take a good pic with a point n shoot (just press button) but give this monkey a high-end SLR and this monkey would not know how to use it, no ?

[.XL]

....ie, a monkey can take a good pic with a point n shoot (just press button) but give this monkey a high-end SLR and this monkey would not know how to use it, no ?

And one monkey typing for 3 weeks can type out the full works of Twilight.

Is that the quote I'm thinking of?

[NKRO]

"But it won't look nearly as good as a Canon DSLR",
....but but but then the end-products are not the same, as stated.

I think what he meant was that you may be able to get roughly the same image. (but not always, depending on the limitations of the system) I.e. you have a Macro shot of an object the same size/magnification, but depending on the camera and lens used the image quality of one is probably much better than the other.

Similarly there are now 800mm+ superzoom bridge cameras that will look awful at 800mm and pale in comparison to a DSLR and 800mm prime lens but they're still technically able to take an image at 800mm of the same object with the same framing.

A photographer can be limited by his equipment, but it can also be a hindrance. One must see photography from all angles of every aspect, not just from the professional photographers point of view ....ie, a monkey can take a good pic with a point n shoot (just press button) but give this monkey a high-end SLR and this monkey would not know how to use it, no ?

A high-end SLR is no more complicated than a point & shoot when it's set to Program mode. If you can take good images with a P&S then you will be able to take equally as good or better image with a DSLR.

The point is that most people don't know how to make good images—paying attention to light, composition etc—and so it doesn't matter what equipment you give to a person like that. A better camera or lenses won't make their work any better, they'll take the same dull photographs they did before, except they might now be technically better. (sharper etc.)

Better equipment makes it easier to create the image that you want with less obstacles, if you know what you are doing, but a pro can still make a great image with a limited camera.

[Lethal Squirrel]

Okay. It is official. I am buying the Nikon D3100. One of my photographer friends let me play with his and I was amazed. Plus he is 100% pro Nikon, anti Canon and Pentax, so me buying a Pentax would jeopardize our friendship. Just kidding just kidding xD, thats not the reason I'm getting a Nikon. I just think it's a better investment. And my friend has a ton of lenses he would let me use.

[instantkamera]

good choice.