I am looking to get an entry level DSLR. I have always had canon point and shoot cameras, and they have been great quality for the price. Obviously the photo quality was not nearly as good as a DSLR, but they served their purpose and were a good value. However, the nikon D3000 has good reviews too, and I have never tried a nikon camera, so they may be good too. Both are about the same price on amazon with a 18-55mm lens. Does anyone have any experience with these two cameras and have a preference?

I have an entry level DSLR, Nikon d3000, and I am looking for a new lens. One that is good for portraits. From your experience which lens would you recommend? Please note that I am on a budget, so nothing to expensive.
I already have a 18-55mm lens…

I am looking to get my first dslr camera, and after getting lots of advice from different people and scouring the net for a good entry level camera I think the canon 1000d and 1100d are the best ones for the budget I have, although the 450d sounds like it’s good too…

Is it worth paying extra to get the 1100d? I would be nice to be able to take videos, but I’m not that bothered really, I’m more interested in photos. Also eventually I would like to be able to buy a decent telephoto lens with stabilization (or now if I can afford it!) so any advice or reviews about them would be great – I’m interested in wildlife photography. If I get the 1000d which is cheaper I would possibly be able to afford a telephoto lens right now too, but would this not be worth it in the long run?

Any reviews, advice, recommendations etc would be really really great as I’m new to all of this.

Final question, you get a 18-55mm lens kit with most canons for a little bit extra, I’m guessing it would be worth me getting this as I have nothing at the moment?

I’m upgrading from my point and shoot, which has been great, but I just need something better. I’m looking for something that will provide quality that’s semi-professional but with simple functions and relatively portable. Basically, an entry-level camera for someone who needs more than what a point and shoot has to offer. I’ve searched relentlessly for high-quality cameras within my price range and I’ve narrowed it down to the Olympus PEN EP1 with a 17mm lens and optical viewfinder for 0 or the Pentax K-x with a 18-55mm lens for 0. Both are 12 mp. From what I’ve researched, the Pentax seems to give slightly better image quality, however the Olympus has a sleek, compact design that is definitely more appealing. The Pentax is a true DSLR while the Olympus is a micro four thirds. Everyone always says that when going for professionalism, the DSLR is better, but it’s bulky size just makes it a bit inconvenient and the Olympus seems to give pretty high quality images as well. I don’t want to sacrifice image quality for camera size, though, so I’m a bit torn.

Which would be better for someone looking for an upgrade from point & shoots who expects high quality images but without the complicated controls of higher end DSLR’s? I still enjoy shooting with manual focus and settings, but I just want something where the settings will be simple and user-friendly, as they were on my point & shoot.

I currently have a Canon EOS 500D. Im having trouble deciding which one to do whether to buy a new pair of lens for my canon (for now im planning to buy a 50mm f/1.8) or just save up my money until im able to buy a new nikon DSLR. (D3100 to be exact or maybe a better model if they will release a new one in the the future). sometimes i find nikon’s image quality (like the D5000 and D3100) quite nice compare to my 500D’s capture..regarding on exposure and color saturation. In my opinion sometimes i feel that the capture from my canon 500D doesnt look like it came from a DSLR ,sometimes it looks like it was taken from a regular compact camera..=(..and as i look into the different reviews in the internet about the 500D,they always say that the 500D is inferior compare to other entry level DSLR cameras..the question is: Is my canon 500D already a good camera to invest good lens or should i just shift to nikon?..need your opinion about this guys.. by the way if you are gonna ask i just have a 18-55mm lens kit now.

I love my current Olympus 570UZ bridge camera . (zoom is controled by zoom ring on the lens, 10mp, 20x optical IS zoom).

BUT, the images are just not coming out how I would Like. I would REALLY love my pictures to look real-life…which is what a DSLR sensor could easily do for me–due to its larger size.

I want to sell my Olympus570UZ and get a entry level DSLR used for the same price. The only thing is that I will only be able to afford the kit lens (which will most likely include a 18-55mm). If I could Find a 50mm with at least a f/2.0 I would be ecstatic.

My question is though, I have a 20x zoom now… but will the 18-55mm lens work for most of my shots because thats all I can afford until maybe Christmas time when I get more money???
I do portraits, and macro.

Never do sports, but would like to in the future

I have used a compact digital camera in the past (5.1 MP) to take good close-up pictures for use on eBay with hosting on Auctiva (so a larger, higher resolution picture really IS worthwhile, unlike the garbage pictures ebay’s internal hosting allows). My camera was stolen so we’re looking into upgrading to a DSLR. I’ve started researching macro lenses because one of the primary uses of the camera will be for ebay selling and maybe 1/4 of those pictures will be closeups.
With the significantly higher resolution pictures available with some DSLRs that are being recommended to me (8-10 MP), do I really NEED a macro lens? How close can I really get to an item without a macro lens? Can I take a decent shot from approximately 18-24" away with a stock lens (18-55mm) and simply crop out the detailed portion I need?
Along the same lines, how close can I really get to an item/subject with a 18-55mm lens before a DSLR camera can no longer auto-focus?
If it helps, I’m looking at some entry level DSLRs like the Canon XS or the Nikon D3000 or D40

Thanks for your help everyone!

I am planning to buy a mid or upper entry level DSLR, either a Cannon or Nikon. I am not sure what kind of photography I will be doing. So, what lens would be versatile enough to compliment the kit lens in different type of photography?
Or should I try out the camera for sometime and then decide to buy another lens? And what is the 18-55mm lens good for?

What lenses would you suggest for someone just starting out using a DSLR? I bought a Nikon D40 and the kit came with an 18-55mm lens. I wanted a zoom lens, so I went out and got a 55-200 mm zoom. But now I’m thinking that the 18-135mm lens might be more versatile for a beginner and I am thinking of exchanging lenses. I did try out the 18-200mm lens. But the D40 camera body is relatively small and light weight. And the 18-200mm lens is a little big for that camera and I thought it caused the camera to feel very heavy and off balance.

I don’t want to get the 18-135mm lens in addition to the others. I don’t want to load up on Nikon lenses. I am looking at the Nikon D40 as an entry-level camera while I learn more about photography and cameras. I’m not convinced that I will stay with Nikons. After a bit I may move over to Canon.

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

I am looking for a entry level DSLR camera that would take good shots. I coach hockey and football and would like to get action shots of the kids. I would prefer to spend around 700 for the camera, also i notice most come with the standard 55mm lens. What would be a better lens to bring me closer to the action? Thank you
I am looking for a entry level DSLR camera that would take good shots. I coach hockey and football and would like to get action shots of the kids. I would prefer to spend around 700 for the camera, also i notice most come with the standard 55mm lens. What would be a better lens to bring me closer to the action? Thank you
I was looking at the Nikon D5000 DX-Format Digital SLR Outfit w/ 18-55mm and 55-200mm VR Zoom Lenses? would that work for my needs?