Ask Engadget: Best DSLR for a committed amateur?

With the holiday season fast approaching, there's nothing that warms the heart like giving a gift with no expectation of anything in return. It's with that spirit that we pass along Dylan's incredibly important question:

"I've been nagging myself to get into digital photography and with Christmas coming soon I've decided to get a DSLR so I can dive in. I'm leaning heavily toward the Sony Alpha 350. I've always been a big Sony fan but I can back off of that if someone gives me good reason to try Nikon, Canon, etc. I would like to hang around the price range of the Alpha 350; ultimately, I'm looking for a good camera for a newcomer to the scene but I don't want to have to upgrade soon."

We hear ya Dylan, and our dutiful readers do too. (Right? Right.) After giving this one a response, feel free to send in your own inquiry to ask at engadget dawt com.

[metfoo @ Nov 20th 2008 10:50PM]

Sony Alpha. a700 is worth every penny. I fyou are on a tighter budget than a a300

[SITEiNK @ Nov 20th 2008 11:31PM]

yea the Sony is a good one, but I'd have to recommend the Nikon D90. It's easy to use and extremely flexible, compatible with all of the Nikon lenses ever made and has great expansion options like remote flash units and GPS. Check it out at a place like best buy or something where you can hold the camera in your hands to get a feel for what is right for you.

[Mike Cohen @ Nov 20th 2008 11:44PM]

If you can afford it, go with a Nikon D90. It's the best camera in that price range, with its 12MP resolution, excellent high ISO performance, live view, video recording, and internal AF motor for better lens compatibility. If you want something cheaper, get a D80 or D60, or the recently discontinued D40x.

[jordan turpentine @ Nov 20th 2008 11:52PM]

The a700 is a great camera for the cost, as is the a200, 300 and 350. Whichever you chose you will be pleased. Personally I chose the a200 because the 10mp is not outresolved by the lenses I am buying. If you plan on doing a lot of high iso shooting it would be worth it to get the a700 as it has crazy good high iso performance. A cool thing about the sony line is the glass you can get. All of the old Minolta auto-focus lenses are in play. Low end Nikons and Canons have weird mounts and you have to get image stabilization on every lens which will really add up. Sony has the most features for your dollar with just as good if not slightly better (especially the a700) than it's competitors. I would say the a200 outresolves it's competition because nothing in it's price range comes even close to having all of it's features and resolution.

[RyanTV @ Nov 21st 2008 12:17AM]

It really ends up being a personal preference. I personally am not into Sony cameras at all. I love Canon's glass selection, but their camera bodies feel clunky in my hand. The most natural fit for me was the nikon line. I have a D200 and a D40 backup that i'm trading up to a D90. Bang for buck, you really can't go wrong with a D90 with the 18-105 lens. you get a very high quality camera body and a nice zoom lens for less than 1200 bucks at B&H. add that it does live view and video and you got yourself a winner.

[Geir E @ Nov 21st 2008 2:04AM]

The reason Sony doesn't get that high remarks in this crowd is not because most users here have invested in different brands thus leaning towards those for their suggestions. But Sony are not new in the game in terms of knowledge. They have the Konica Minolta engineers (Minolta made the first slr camera with integrated autofocus, among other milestones in photographical history) on their team and they are rather huge in the movie and camcorder industry, plus ofcourse on top in the digital compact industry. So Sony has the background and the engineers to create the best products.

Coming from compact cameras, the a350 has a live view that is faster to use than the competition. You got a great selection of lenses and if you get into the system the G lenses and the Carl Zeiss will give you optical quality which equals or surpasses the competition. So in every respect the Sony system is mature enough.

The d90 is a great camerea, but in that price range you can get a Sony a700 which might not have this working, but not streamlined video function - But it is a more solid and well made camera.

The Canon 450d (whatever the us name is) is a very good camera in terms of image quality and it is a great choice.

If you're on a tight budget, the d40 is the cheapest (and least advanced) and the a200 also is very affordable.

But in any case, choosing a camera is hard because the marked is full of great cameras - the good thing is that you can't go wrong ;)

[G2 @ Nov 21st 2008 8:34AM]

Clearly the Nikon D90 is the camera of choice at this time. Unless you are willing to pay the price for a full frame sensor dslr camera and the lenses to go with it, then the D90 is the best DX sensor camera on the market today...better even then it's more expensive sibling, the D300. Not just my opinion...reputable reviews say so.
I would skip the kit lens...buy the D90 body and order the Nikkor AF-S 18-200 3.5/5.6 VR lens. There is a good chance that, as an amateur, you will not need any other lenses. The DX sensor has a crop factor of 1.5 (compared to a full frame sensor) so this lens will provide you with an approximate field of view of 27 - 300mm (35mm equivelant). Very impressive for a DSLR.
Finally, don't buy a DX sensor camera with more megapixels than this Nikon thinking that you'll get a more usable camera and better images. Pixels packed in high density on a sensor diminishes the light sensing ability. In other words, you can over do it. The Canon 50D is a prime example of this. A very good camera that will take sharp pictures, but without the light sensitivity of the Nikon because Canon has just simply crammed too many pixels onto that sensor. Result: Lower sensitivity: more noise.
Read the reviews to your satisfaction...do your homework...and you'll either buy the Nikon D90 or you'll wait a year or two for something better. But today.... the Nikon D90 is the camera.

[ekwmin @ Nov 21st 2008 1:08PM]

You'll have to commit to the brand, so make your decision wisely. The camera is only half the story. The more important part are the lenses. Most likely you'll keep your lenses much longer than your camera, it's a good idea to spend good money on good lenses. Right now I'm in the Nikon camp and I like the Nikons because overall they have better low light sensitivity (higher ISO with less grain). But that depends on what type of photography you like. You can't go wrong with either Nikon or Canon. Things will swing back and forth, for a while I was envying the Canon cameras and now it's the other way around, but in the end they both end up with similar features and performance. My recommendation is either a Nikon or Canon (models mentioned by others). Don't be tempted to replace your camera when a new model comes out instead spend the money on 2-3 good lenses. All the bells and whistles won't automatically make you a better photographer. These are all great cameras.

[billy bob thorton @ Nov 21st 2008 2:32PM]

the sony is a bad idea regardless of what some others around might believe. I'm a pro but started out as a beginner. what you need to understand is that you're not so much buying a camera, but buying into a system. You will get tired of the kit lenses right away and you will be horrified buy the prices of the sony lenses. The used market is a huge concern and nikon and canon have that covered.

If you're willing to invest in the right camera that will serve for a long time, look at the D300. What sets it apart is that it can accept any f-mount Nikon lenses made since the 50s. You can buy amazing lenses for around $100 where as the modern af lenses can cost $1500 on average.

There is nothing wrong with the quality of the sony camera, it's not a good system compared to nikon or canon.

Canon bodies are generally cheaper but Nikon lenses can be less money sometimes. I started out on a canon system in the infant days of digital but when it came time to buy my own I went with Nikon for the lens selection.

I would recommend a used D50 off ebay (should go for around $250-$300), 35-70mm 2.8 (about $130+), 50mm 1.4 ($230+), SB600, a couple of EN EL3e batteries (can be used with higher end models like d200, 300, 700), and a few lexar platinum II 2GB SD cards (fastest for this camera) and you should still have money left over for a nice case and maybe some ice cream.

or you can blow your whole budget on a new model and the junk lenses that comes with it.

[Bruno @ Nov 22nd 2008 6:11AM]

IMHO (In my humble opinion), SIGMA SD14 gives you outstanding, clear-cut details in your pictures. On the contrary, this is not the case for those flagships, such as Canon, Fuji, Leica, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Panasonic, Sanyo or Sony, who certainly manifacture good cameras, but cannot get the finest details; see for this http://www.testiweb.com/dp1.htm . Moreover, next april, SIGMA, http://www.sigma-photo.com , will put into the market the above updated camera, named SD15 (alas, without movie mode!) and a second version of a fixed lens camera, DP2, (alas, without a zoom lens!), where a new speedier data processor has been added. I foresee also in a near future new products, after this month's news of SIGMA having bought out Foveon, http://www.foveon.com , the USA company which devised the first and only viable three layers (RGB) sensor ever utilized in prosumer or professional digital cameras.

[Bohoops @ Nov 29th 2008 11:58AM]

As an owner of both Nikon (former) and Canon and I can review both brands. First, I always wanted Nikon and finally got one a few years ago. I do not buy cheap lenses, therefore all the lenses are of quality nature. The Nikon products are way overhyped and and you'll always hear Nikon lovers bash anything but Nikon. Mine is an honest review. Did the Nikon take great pictures? Absolutely, but there are a few differences. Canon's auto focus lenses focus noticably faster than Nikons. The Nikon lenses also vignetted considerably more. Even my friends cheaper Canon lenses did not vignette as much as the better Nikon lenses. This may not be that big of deal with digital, because you can easily crop. Canon has on average many more features built into their cameras (across all price ranges) than Nikon. Most features from both camera lines you will hardly ever use. Nikon definately has a better Flash system. I never took a bad (exposure) flash picture with the Nikon. With most Canon DSLR's you have to hold in the AE lock button to take a better flash picture when it's dark. The Canon flash is just as good as the Nikon when using fill flash. I commited with Canon because as an owner of both I believe that the Canon lenses were better and noticably faster (focusing) which is important to me. The Canon was also easier for my wife to understand and use when she helps me take random shots at weddings. I loved my Nikon (and I wanted it to be better than my Canon), but I love my Canon more and now only have Canon DSLR's. As far as lenses go. When you watch a sporting event and see all those white lenses used by the professional photographers, those are Canon lenses and not Nikon or Sony. That should also tell you what brand the average sports photographer prefers. Remember, there are not many Sony lenses that you can buy. Another strong point for Nikon. If you have an inexpensive source for previous Nikon lenses, you will be able to use most Nikon lenses (even manual focus only) on the Nikon product. This is a major consideration if you don't mind manual focus lenses and know how to take pictures the 'old fashion way'. Pawn shops are a great source for these lenses. Unfortunately for me, I need auto focus lenses because it takes me forever to focus manually. One other nice thing the Nikon does easier than the Canon is reversing the lense on the camera to make your wide angle a Macro lens. A good inexpensive wide angle prime lens can double as a great macro lens if you buy an adapter an put the lens on the camera backwards. Basically, two lenses for the price of one. Nikons auto focus lenses are not 100% electronic and the Canon's are. Canon's will not retain the aperature opening when you remove the lens (Nikon will retain the opening (at least on the lenses made a few years ago). You can easily take a meter reading for a maco shot and keep that same setting on the Nikon lens when you remove the lens to reverse it. On the Canon, it is not that easy. You actually have to do a few more steps and try and fake out the Canon when you take the lens off by holding in the DOFP button and turn the power off. A real pain. Hope this helped. You won't go wrong with Nikon or Canon. They are both very good products. Sony? Lack of a good lens assortment would make me shy away, even if it was a superior camera (which I doubt). There are two types of Zeiss lenses. Consumer and professional. Which one does Sony use? Hope this helped. You can get a Canon 40D for a great price right now. If that is still too expensive then the Rebel 12mp is a good start to enter the DSLR world, but the 40D is superior in every way to that camera for just a little more money.

[kumquat @ Nov 20th 2008 10:50PM]

I think the Canon Rebel XS is a good bet. I know someone who is getting into DSLRs and he got the camera + kit lens for a bit over $500. For a camera that's newer than the XSi - and pretty comparable in performance - I think that's a pretty good deal.

The Nikon D40 is a popular beginner DSLR too. You can get it for cheap with multiple lenses. It's a bit older and maybe a little less capable, although some people swear by it, i.e. that Ken Rockwell guy everybody loves so much.

[Ed Handy @ Nov 21st 2008 12:37PM]

I'm a very serious amateur, and use a slightly older Canon, the XTi - and if I were getting a new DSLR in the same price range today, would think hard about XS rather than the XSi. They're both very good cameras and the price difference is just big enough that the small features difference (slightly better AF, slightly faster shots per second) is not convincing for the XSi. In my experience, 6MP on my original DRebel was enough (although that camera had some other fatal flaws) and the 10MP on my XTi is excessive (although in other ways it's a far superior camera.)

I wish they'd bring the sRAW feature from the higher end cameras down to the cheaper ones. Ah well. As for Nikon, I like Nikon and was very impressed by the D70/D70s/D80 family - if I hadn't already had quite a bit invested in lenses for my Canon film lenses, I'd have jumped to one of those rather than waiting for the price to fall on the XTi. I was not nearly as impressed by the controls or build quality on the D40, though, and with the amateur Canons close to the D40 in price I think the Canons are the winner there (now in the prosumer space, up around $800-$1000, the 40D/D80 and 50D/D90 choices both tougher calls.)

As for Sony (and Samsung/Pentax, and Sigma), I don't think they've got nearly the same range of manufacturer and 3rd-party lens support, and I don't have the same degree of trust that the manufacturers will be supporting the lines for the long haul. I'd stick to Canon or Nikon.

One other factor is what lenses you want. As Jon points out below, bodies go obsolete fast, whereas I'm still using lenses I bought in college in the mid-1990s for film use. Nikon and Canon have similar lines, but not identical ones.

[billy bob thorton @ Nov 21st 2008 2:40PM]

Ken Rockwell is an idiot. He's not a real photographer but more of a camera masturbator. he's to cameras what sean hanity is to news. Love or hate Hanity, you know what I mean.

[cwj @ Nov 22nd 2008 4:22PM]

@Ed Handy

does, like, 40 years of lenses make up for the lack of 3rd party lens support for Pentax? Aren't their lenses are already highly regarded for adding to other systems anyway?

[ubn2 @ Nov 20th 2008 10:50PM]

nikkon

[Gabe @ Nov 20th 2008 10:51PM]

All I know is that Sony are a big bunch of LIARS.

Other than that, I don't know what to suggest.

[metfoo @ Nov 20th 2008 10:56PM]

liars in which way?

[max @ Nov 21st 2008 2:00PM]

apparently the "oh no I'm disappearing!!!!" way

[Sisyphus @ Nov 20th 2008 10:53PM]

What a coincidence!

I literally just got home with two sealed packages -- one contains a Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi, and the other a Canon 55-250mm telephoto lens. I'm also a digital SLR newbie (I have actually never owned a digital camera), but I read a fair amount of reviews that give the XSi great marks in the realm of price / performance. I have used regular SLR cameras in the past, so I look forward to playing with the bevy of manual settings.

I look forward to getting this all set up and diving in. Good question!

[Sisyphus @ Nov 20th 2008 10:55PM]

Also, I should add that I got the camera w/ lens kit, plus a free gift of a bag and an 8 GB SDHC card from the Egg with free shipping and no tax for $649. A good deal in my book.

One of the big plusses for me: The stock Canon XSi kit lens has Image Stabilizer technology. Hope this helps!

[kumquat @ Nov 20th 2008 10:58PM]

You didn't get the EF-S 55-250 lens with the camera and kit lens for $649, did you? Because that would be positively ridiculous.

I think the EF-S 55-250 lens is a very good deal for the money. The ultimate telephoto lens, to me, is the EF 70-200 f/2.8L, which costs $1500. And it's only one stop faster! I'll take the lighter, cheaper EF-S lens, um, most of the time.

[Exninja @ Nov 21st 2008 12:40AM]

@kumquat. You might think the f2.8 70-200 might be only one stop faster but that's f2.8 through the entire zoom range (think f2.8 fast regardless of focal length) rather than the reduced aperture of the 55-250 when fully zoomed out (think slower shutter speed in order to capture the same amount of light). Add to that the superior L glass & weather sealing and that's why the lens costs more.

[kumquat @ Nov 21st 2008 12:50AM]

@Exninja: Oh I'm well aware that the 70-200 f/2.8L, like all L lenses, is a fantastic lens. Having 2.8 across the whole zoom range is great. And the 55-250 is 5.6 at the telephoto end, which I guess is 2 stops worse than the f/2.8L.

It's obvious why the 2.8L is better. But photography needs to be a very big part of your life to make purchasing it a wise decision.

[loocas @ Nov 21st 2008 6:47AM]

I bought the f2.8L IS and I'm not a photographer, I just love taking pictures of my dog :)

(if you consider low-ranking me for an obvious BS, look up my blog site before you do so...)

[jeesusfreek @ Nov 21st 2008 8:23AM]

@loocas

I didn't low rank you for obvious BS, because I believe you, but I did low rank you for obvious stupidity, for spending that much money on something that is going to be used leisurely at best. For example, I like making abstract desktop backgrounds for personal use. Now, GIMP is a logical choice because for a broke college student, $2500 for CS4 is a bit out of reach. Spending that much money on a lens for personal use (you aren't even making money from the hobby, if I'm understanding correctly) is very poor fiscal management, something that pretty much all of America does not seem to understand, and regardless of how much spare cash you have lying around.

On an unrelated note, it boils down to personal preference. However, go to any professional photography site (one of my close friends, my older sister, and my older sister's friend are all professional photographers - All three use Canon) and they will tell you that it is not personal preference between all DSLR's, but between Canon and Nikon. Nikon is widely regarded as having the better glass, Canon is widely regarded as having the edge on UI and user functionality as well as features. However, both are excellent cameras (if I could underline that, I would). Very, very good.

If you have a Costco near you, they have a killer deal on a Digital Rebel XSi - camera body plus 2 lenses - 18-55mm IS Lens and the EF-S 55-250mm IS Lens. If you want slightly better glass in terms of optical properties, go with a Nikon D40. An equivalent to the Canon deal at Costco can be had for around the same price.

Plus, you know, a free lifetime warranty ain't bad outta the deal either.

[Rifter @ Nov 21st 2008 12:05PM]

For lower end, I would go with the Canon XSi or Canon XS. Quite honestly, I would go with a Canon or Nikon, and nothing else. I am not saying that the Sony is a bad camera, or anything like that. I am just saying that Canon and Nikon ARE the big boys on the block, which means a LOT of lenses are available to those to cameras, and no others. Also, new lenses come out that fit on those two camera bodies, before others. Tamron has a new 18-270mm lens that makes my knees all wobbly. I would love to get that lens, and it only fits a Nikon and Canon mount, right now.

Here are a couple of examples of what a Canon XSi is capable of (at least in my amateur hands)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/2979418988/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/2547255136/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/2811931759/ - This last one is processed in HDR, but the 3 images that make it up, are captured on the XSi, using XSi's internal bracketing.

[loocas @ Nov 21st 2008 8:44PM]

@jeesusfreek

I didn't low rank you for being a broke student, I was tempted to low rank you for not realizing there are people that actually work, make money and have hobbies that may or may not cost them a lot. But still, I didn't low rank you.

[loocas @ Nov 21st 2008 8:49PM]

@ jeesusfreek

Oh, by the way, who said I paid for it? My money did pay for it and this is "something that pretty much all of America does not seem to understand", well, including you, so next time you try to accuse somebody of a "very poor fiscal management", stop for a second and think...

[PickyMe @ Nov 22nd 2008 10:22AM]

I would have to agree with Loocus there JeesusFreek. A hobbie is something that someone wants to do and enjoy. If they have the money for it, then they should go for it. It's just like people who modify cars. There are a lot of people who just do it for fun and don't enter any compititions or make money from it. Sometime, they end up losing money, but they still do it cause it's their hobby that makes them happy. People who don't have the money would think it would be a waste, but not to people who do have the money. I'm not a rich person myself, but I do "hook up" cars and take pictures of them for fun. I use the Canon 1D and I'm waiting for my 5D mark ii to come in. I also have a Nikon D60 to carry around.

Back to the topic...

I too recommend staying with Canon or Nikon. Canon and Nikon are used by most professional photographers and are more well-known. They also specialize in cameras and image quality, unlike Sony who pretty much tries to make everything out there. I'm not saying that their cameras are bad, but if you truely want something that will last and a manufacture that is truely trusted world wide that won't be going out of business for quite a while, then I would highly suggest getting a Canon or Nikon. As for which model, I can't really recommend any because it depends on what type of photography you will be taking. I recommend to spend a fair amount of money on the body and worry about the lens. Good glass will make any photo look amazing on any slr camera. Also, Carl Zeiss lens are a little too expensive in my opinion. Plus, Canon and Nikon have a larger selections of lens to choose from than other competitors.

Goodluck on finding the right camera. Please post which model you purchased and give us your reviews =] I enjoy reading other people reviews on cameras or anything really.

[Joel Hawksley @ Nov 20th 2008 10:55PM]

Get a used Canon EOS 30D and spend the rest on glass. They have been going for about $550 lately.

[Lazerface @ Nov 21st 2008 1:25AM]

Or a brand new 40D. They have been dropping in price alot lately. Regardless, its all about lenses in the end. New bodies are coming along faster than ever, and you can gradually upgrade on those. However, lenses will stay with you, and last 10+ years or more, depending on how much you abuse them.

+1 for canon, mostly due to their fantastic glass!

[Sunil Khiatani @ Nov 21st 2008 1:48AM]

Have to go with Canon instead of Sony, I own a 40D and have to say that the quality is excellent, plus you can get a great selection of glass. You can get expensive, cheap 3rd party, second hand etc..

Sony's cameras may cost about the same as canon's but I've noticed the glass costs a lot more especially when you look at the higher end stuff.

[Bryce @ Nov 21st 2008 10:51AM]

DON'T GET THE 40D!!!!

I used to own one. The screen on the back is big, but low resolution and totally shitty. The camera as a whole is sluggish and results are constantly soft unless you do tons of sharpening in post. This happens regardless of working with raws or jpegs. The 30d is a workhorse that has significantly sharper results sooc than the 40d. You can do more with a properly sharp image than a higher resolution image.

[brandon @ Nov 21st 2008 12:06PM]

The 40D is NOT sluggish by any stretch of the imagination. If you have a high speed memory card you can sit there and hold the shoot button (jpeg) pretty much until you run out of space.

That having been said, I did just buy one, and its a great camera (I love the IS lens) but it could be better. It doesn't ship with very good presets, but then what camera does?

[lukasz @ Nov 20th 2008 10:55PM]

Nikon D90 - Movie capture 720p - New CMOS sensor

[yelohbird @ Nov 20th 2008 11:32PM]

I agree. Small, affordable, 720p video (unparalleled), live view, and Nikon simply has a much wider catalog of lenses/accessories available compared to Sony/Minolta.

[Konstantin @ Nov 21st 2008 1:34AM]

Yeah, the D90 hands down. Even if you are not going to use that video mode Nikon does DSLR's and SLR's right. I haven't seen any bad reviews for the D90 or it predecessor the D80 and I have been drooling over both for almost two years. Ditto on the large lens selection!!! Get the Nikor VRII 18-200 mm lens!

P.S. - Try to avoid buying those off brand lenses (like Sigma). Pay a little more and get the Nikor or the Canon or whatever.

[lukasz @ Nov 21st 2008 6:50AM]

If you are not sure about a lens get 50mm 1.8 AF photographers call it fantastic plastic, because it very affordable ($80-$120) and its a great lens to get started on. I have 18-200mm VRII but the f stop is too slow and only use it outdoors with good light.

50mm is perfect for portraits and indoor party photos its 1.8 f stop nicely blurs the subject background giving a professional look.

[KMAN @ Nov 20th 2008 10:55PM]

I know it's not an proper SLR... But what about the Powershot G10?

[austin @ Nov 20th 2008 11:00PM]

fail.

[J @ Nov 21st 2008 4:52PM]

Don't fail the Canon G10 until you've actually looked at it. Especially if you've only used a Point & Shoot automatic before.

[Mike @ Nov 24th 2008 11:10AM]

As a former G5 user, I would have to say that the G series is a good "in-between" series for those wanting to go to the SLR, but not sure. However, due to the price of the Canon XS Kit being less than $100 bucks in many places (and that nice 18-55 IS lens included), I would have to say spend the extra cash and go for the XS.

Personally, I have an XTi with the 18-55, the 55-250 IS and just picked up the 18-200 IS and I have to say that I absolutely LOVE that lens! eliminating the two other lenses except in rare circumstances is a definite plus!

[riley hallwood @ Nov 20th 2008 10:56PM]

a used nikon d200 can be had cheap. sony doesnt have enough experience in the market for my money to go to them. nikon and canon are reliable with excellent lens selection and quality, going with either of them would be a good move. also, my friend has a sony dslr and it has a proprietary hotshoe, im not sure if they all do but if so thats a major disadvantage.

[Cunthor @ Nov 21st 2008 12:02AM]

Coming from someone selling his D200, I agree. Heaps of bang for your buck.

But if you need to get new, get Nikon D90. Same quality of pictures as the very expensive D300, and does video at 720p with stablised lens (with a VERY useful 18-105mm range). Not to mention having accessibility to arguably the best upgrade path with lenses, flashes and future semi-pro bodies.

[sdjavan @ Nov 20th 2008 10:57PM]

YES I'M FIRST!
I'd recommend D60 if you're barely getting your feet wet and just wanna leave it there.
I'd probably recommend the D80 if you plan on actually trying to get more into photography. The D80 has 9 AF points and a buil-in screw drive motor, so you can use many cheap lenses.

[JP @ Nov 20th 2008 11:59PM]

Hahahaha first? Really? Maybe next time.

Fail.

[kyle @ Nov 20th 2008 10:57PM]

Nikon D90. I have been very happy with the camera and once you dump the kit lens and pick up the 18-200 lens you will have an outfit that will handle 95% of day to day shooting. The movie mode is a bit gimmicky because of the focus issue, though still nice to have. I am constantly impressed with the color reproduction. Like all products with this many features and settings it will take time to be able to effectively use the camera in all situations...but "out of the box" this Nikon takes great photos in auto or no-flash auto (which I personally love) and as you progress with the camera it will continue to reward you. There has also been a price reduction on the kit...Abe's of Maine has it for 1149.00.

[holycow @ Nov 20th 2008 11:31PM]

I second that. Get the D90 even though it hella expensive. I bought the Alpha 200 as i was just starting with DSLR's this summer and I loved using them so much that i wanted more, so i returned it and recently got a D90. So i would suggest getting the best there is as it'll keep you engaged lot longer than a lower end entry level model.

[vvnraman @ Nov 21st 2008 12:22AM]

Agreed... But one should start with Nikon D40. Its available for half the price of D90 along with the 18-55mm kit lens on Best Buy. It can be used to get familiar with a DSLR. You can always upgrade the body once you feel you've used this one enough. And surely the 18-200mm lens would be more than enough for any amateur's needs.