I have never bought a DSLR before, but am really interested in taking up photography classes and learning. I do not want to buy an entry level camera, gets used to it, then have to re-educate myself all over again in order to upgrade. I would rather be thrown into the Canon 7D and eventually muck through learning how to use it. Thoughts?

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 had my mind set on the D3100 but my friend is really against that as he said that it is a really super entry level camera and is not going to do any good in the long run. He asked me to buy a D90 instead. He uses that and I always use his if I had the chance. I really like the D90 and I know it’s really good so now I’m really stuck between these two models.

I know what is ISO, shutter speed and other terms and I just find the D3100 is easier to use as most of the stuff you need to adjust are not embedded in the menu unlike other cameras. I love taking photographs of landscapes, animals, portraits and macro shots.

Aside from the 18 Megapixel APS-C sensor and its features… why is it considered mid-ranged, though it is designed to be an entry-level camera? Do you think it’s a high-end yet entry-level camera or the most expensive entry-level camera?

Any idea?

To those who own a 550D, or any Canon DSLR, explain please!

I had my mind set on the D3100 but my friend is really against that as he said that it is a really super entry level camera and is not going to do any good in the long run. He asked me to buy a D90 instead. He uses that and I always use his if I had the chance. I really like the D90 and I know it’s really good so now I’m really stuck between these two models.

I know what is ISO, shutter speed and other terms and I just find the D3100 is easier to use as most of the stuff you need to adjust are not embedded in the menu unlike other cameras. I love taking photographs of landscapes, animals, portraits and macro shots. Or should I get the D5000?

Hello
I’m looking to upgrade from my point and shoot, which i find frustrating because of the lack of customizability (cant manually focus, doesnt work well in low light, overall quality not as good as dslr).
I dont really want an entry level camera because I plan on having my dslr for a long long time. (10 years or so). I think im a decent photographer (and i was told i was good by my photo teacher), even with my point and shoot, so im hoping to expand my skills with a dslr.
Should I get a nikon or a canon? What models should i look at? From the research I have done, i think i heard the nikon D7000 is good, and the canon EOS is good too (not sure which one exactly though haha).

I think im going to take 500 bucks from my parents, as a birthday/college/late christmas gift, and then get a job to make the remainder up. Of course I would like a cheaper camera, but i’m willing to work for a better quality one. I guess it would be good if its not too much greater than 1000 dollars,because I want it before july.
Jereon: Of course I will have to upgrade lenses and some stuff, but the point is that I dont want to get bored of all the features (and want even more customizability) after a year or so.

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’m a first time DSLR buyer, and plan to use my new camera extensively. I’ve limited my choices: the Nikon d7000, d90, and perhaps a Canon 60d. Keep in mind that I cannot afford to get an entry level camera and trade it in in a few years, so I want to buy a camera I can grow into and have for a long time. Which should I go with?

I am looking to upgrade from my current entry level DSLR. I was thinking of maybe the 550D twin lens kit then buying some more glass. However 2 people I know and the salesman told me the 550D is also only really an entry level camera and they all suggested the 7D,

The trouble is the 7D with one lens is over A00 I feel I could get more for my money with the 550D. I don’t want to have to upgrade again in 12mnths but it’s working out pretty expensive for the 7D.

I am a keen photographer and enter comps etc

Can someone please offer their opinion/advice on which way I should go

thanks in advance
Thanks Keerok. only reason I am upgrading is I get a lot of grainieness especially in low light shots even when bumping up the ISO. I have had it back to the shop they tested it aand got the same thing. the older the camera and more shots i take the worse it is. They eventually sent it away for me and when it came back their support guy told me it actually seems that these cameras are like that. both the &d and 550D are good in low light conditions. part of my confusion is being told the 550D is only entry level and not to bother with it

I know, it sounds like a stupid question but with entry level cameras like the d3100 making amazing pictures according to online reviews what is the point of a higher level camera? I know it will never achieve a film look but to be honest it seems like a d3100 and photoshop could definitely keep you going as a professional photographer.

For those who are professional, I hope you don’t take that comment offensively. I would just like to know why have more and better features on a camera such as hard buttons for iso and white balance and having a full frame sensor is so beneficial?

With a fully manual film camera it doesnt seem like there are too many features but professional photos can still be made by them.

I would just like to know, preferably in a list why a professional photographer absolutely needs a professional grade camera.

I mean dont get me wrong, they are awesome but why?

Please and Thank you.