Jlaf - I'm new to the DSLR world too and did pretty much what you did about a month and a half ago - I upgraded from P&S to a Canon 350, the XT. Being I am new, I won't know all the ins and outs of all the cameras you listed. I know there are people here partial to Nikon and to Olympus and to Canon. I'm nto a pro and have no plans of becoming a pro. Like you I plan on slowly accumulating lens over the years..

That being said, I picked the Canon b/c I did read it was a great cam (and so are the others too). The most important thing is how the body felt to you, was it comfortable? I know alot of people complain about the 350d being too small. I don't find it too small, at least for me. It could be bigger, I do agree, but it wasn't enough to completely turn me off from the camera. I won't begin to compare the 350 to the Nikon or Olympus b/c of my lack of experience and it wouldn't be fair, but I'll talk about the 350d and why I like it (not saying it's any better or worse than your other choices, just noting what I like about it)..

I like the lens selection and the fact that there seem to be a good number of places that rent out canon equipment and lenses..

Great performance at high ISOs.

Ergonomics - Some may disagree feeling that the camera is small, but I think it feels fine in my hands and I like the location and layout of the buttons..

Good software - It comes with some good software to process your RAW images.

B/c I'm a beginner, I'm not going to have all the ins and outs, like you'd find on a review on this website. But I know it's been a fun and challenging camera. I think I won't outgrow it soon at all. I'll probably be able to keep the body for years to come. Coming from P&S world, it's a world of difference. You can produce awesome pics but of course, it's more difficult so I've also produced very lousy pics.

I only own the kit lens and the 50mm f/1.8. I have no complaints about the 350d so far and think it's an excellent camera.Just trying to learn.

Blog: http://novicephotog.blogspot.com/Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/9778447@N07/..

Well I am a Nikon user, but what I do not care for about the D40 D40X is the lack of internal focus motor and thus the limitation of Nikon lens's that are available for it..

The dollar amounts you have listed, is this basically your limit?.

I like the E410 and if you are willing to part with a couple hundred more, you can get the New E510 which looks excellent, more and more lens are becoming available and the not so fast but excellent sharp optics of the camera kit will get you by for some time. A few bemoan about he 4/3rd system, but I have seen some wonderful results from them. And they are blissfully light but sturdy and not a chore to haul..

Also several people I know have and love the K100 Pentax, pricing is great, starter lens kit is not the greatest but not the worst, and every pentax lenes ever for 35mm will work, or so I am told.A picture is the expression of an impression.If the beautiful were not in us, how would we ever recognize it?Ernst Haas..

Riceowl- Thanks for your post. I don't necessarily need tech specs on a camera, so your personal experience was more then adequate... especially since you were in my position not too long ago..

KimberlyC wrote:.

Well I am a Nikon user, but what I do not care for about the D40 D40Xis the lack of internal focus motor and thus the limitation of Nikonlens's that are available for it..

The dollar amounts you have listed, is this basically your limit?.

I like the E410 and if you are willing to part with a couple hundredmore, you can get the New E510 which looks excellent, more and morelens are becoming available and the not so fast but excellent sharpoptics of the camera kit will get you by for some time. A few bemoanabout he 4/3rd system, but I have seen some wonderful results fromthem. And they are blissfully light but sturdy and not a chore tohaul..

Also several people I know have and love the K100 Pentax, pricing isgreat, starter lens kit is not the greatest but not the worst, andevery pentax lenes ever for 35mm will work, or so I am told.A picture is the expression of an impression.If the beautiful were not in us, how would we ever recognize it?Ernst Haas.

KimberlyC- The prices I listed are pretty much my price range. Since I am new to dSLR I don't think I want to spend a lot of money on my first camera. After a few years, if I find myself really liking photography then I'll opt to buy a $1200 camera. However, being that I may upgrade in a few years and that you are a Nikon user, my question is this:.

Have you had any experience with the higher end cameras, like the D200, D2Xs, or D3? And if so, what are your thoughts on them? Would choosing the D40 and then upgrading to one of those later be a better choice then, lets say... the Canon 350D and upgrading to the EOS-1Ds Mark lll (just an example)?.

The lack of AF in the D40 doesn't bother me cause if I really get into photography then I'll upgrade to one of their cameras that has it, later on..

Again, thanks for any kind of input!..

Jlaf,.

All the cameras you list are good and have legions of happy users. The Pentax K100D is also worth consideration - it is back-compatible with all K-mount lenses and has in-body shake reduction which is really useful for those of us who neglect to carry a heavy tripod everywhere. The lack of an autofocus motor in the body of the Nikon means that you will be restricted to those lenses which have the motor in the lens, but there are a lot of these (and getting more all the time - Sigma has recently released versions of it's popular 18-50 and 17-70 zooms for the Nikon D40/D40x)..

You can't really make a 'bad' decision from this group, so pick up the cameras in a shop and play with them and see what feels good to you. The only thing worth warning you about is that the Canon 18-55 kit lens has a very poor reputation - so if you go for a Canon, get the body only wth a good 3rd partly lens like Sigma 17-70..

Best wishesMike..

Jlaf wrote:.

Have you had any experience with the higher end cameras, like theD200, D2Xs, or D3? And if so, what are your thoughts on them? Wouldchoosing the D40 and then upgrading to one of those later be a betterchoice then, lets say... the Canon 350D and upgrading to the EOS-1DsMark lll (just an example)?.

There is really very little difference between the major players - Canon and Nikon - on this score. Other mfrs have less of a range and thus a not so obvious upgrade path..

The lack of AF in the D40 doesn't bother me cause if I really getinto photography then I'll upgrade to one of their cameras that hasit, later on..

I think your comment above is shorthand but to be clear the D40 has AF but it is in the lens not the body. AF-S lenses are faster to focus than AF. All Nikon lenses announced since 2003 have been AF-S and will work on the D40/40x. There are over 40 lenses that will AF on the D40..

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Chris Elliott wrote:.

The lack of AF in the D40 doesn't bother me cause if I really getinto photography then I'll upgrade to one of their cameras that hasit, later on..

I think your comment above is shorthand but to be clear the D40 hasAF but it is in the lens not the body. AF-S lenses are faster tofocus than AF. All Nikon lenses announced since 2003 have been AF-Sand will work on the D40/40x. There are over 40 lenses that will AFon the D40..

Right, sorry I wasn't too clear on that.. but thats exactly what I was thinking as I was typing..

Thanks for all the advice! I checked out the Pentax and even though I really liked it a lot, I think I'll be getting the Nikon D40. The D40 just felt right in my hand and thats what everyone is saying to look for..

The only dilemma I have now is to either get the Nikon D40 with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor and AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED - or - the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC HSM?? I'm thinking the Sigma and then getting a mid-range zoom lens later.. Is there another starter lens I should look at?.

Thanks again for all the comments. I was really torn and had no idea what to get.. so, this really helped a lot. Thanks!!..

Jlaf wrote:.

I used to tell people to buy a camera that felt good in their hands and one that they were not afraid to drop. It sounds like you're on the right track. One thing though, the 55-200 packaged in a kit with the D40 and the 18-55 is not the VR lens. (And I suggest you do get the VR lens) so you'd have to buy the D40 w/the 18-55 then buy the 55-200 separately..

'Nice pen, bet you write good stories with it.'..

Nikonparrothead wrote:.

Jlaf wrote:.

I used to tell people to buy a camera that felt good in their handsand one that they were not afraid to drop. It sounds like you're onthe right track. One thing though, the 55-200 packaged in a kit withthe D40 and the 18-55 is not the VR lens. (And I suggest you do getthe VR lens) so you'd have to buy the D40 w/the 18-55 then buy the55-200 separately..

You're right.. I just double checked the site I was going to buy from and, although the picture they use IS the VR lens, the specifications listed for the lens is clearly the NON-VR 55-200 lens. So, thank you for pointing that out..

I think i'm overwhelming myself with which option lens to get with the camera.. I'm going to stop thinking about it and just get the D40 w/the kit lens and buy the 55-200 VR separately. I think that'll leave me with a couple extra bucks for an 8g SDHC card and an extra battery.. possibly even a bag..

Thanks again for everyones help!!..

Jlaf wrote:.

The only dilemma I have now is to either get the Nikon D40 with18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor and AF-S DX VRZoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED - or - the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5DC HSM?? I'm thinking the Sigma and then getting a mid-range zoomlens later.. Is there another starter lens I should look at?.

You have 4 optionsa) the Nikon 18-55 kitb) the Nikon 18-70 3.5-4.5c) the Nikon 18-135 3.5-5.6d) the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 IF it is available..

Not sure whether the HSM lens has been released and/or is in plentiful supply. Sigma sometimes take a VERY long time to supply in numbers lenses they have announced but this is an update of an existing lens so I would have thought they would have changed over production a while ago and only announced the lens when supplies are available but I could be wrong. The 17-70 is a good lens. I have it and I really like the colours. I also have the 18-55 as a walk around lens for my d50..

If you can find it available as a package or get the D40 as a bare body of the options a) - c) I would go with the 18-135. You will then have a killer combination of walk around lens and light weight body. That will keep you going for a while and you can get more specialist lenses as you become sure of the need..

Everything will depend on cost but I would place desirability in the followiing order:.

C), d), b), a)..

But there is not a bad lens among them. They are all excellent value for money. Personally I do not like swaping lenses that much. I would find the 18-55 a bit limiting. It you get a 17/18-70 that would be a more satisfying lens to work with..

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Chris Elliott wrote:.

Jlaf wrote:.

The only dilemma I have now is to either get the Nikon D40 with18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor and AF-S DX VRZoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED - or - the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5DC HSM?? I'm thinking the Sigma and then getting a mid-range zoomlens later.. Is there another starter lens I should look at?.

You have 4 optionsa) the Nikon 18-55 kitb) the Nikon 18-70 3.5-4.5c) the Nikon 18-135 3.5-5.6d) the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 IF it is available..

Not sure whether the HSM lens has been released and/or is inplentiful supply. Sigma sometimes take a VERY long time to supply innumbers lenses they have announced but this is an update of anexisting lens so I would have thought they would have changed overproduction a while ago and only announced the lens when supplies areavailable but I could be wrong. The 17-70 is a good lens. I have itand I really like the colours. I also have the 18-55 as a walk aroundlens for my d50..

If you can find it available as a package or get the D40 as a barebody of the options a) - c) I would go with the 18-135. You will thenhave a killer combination of walk around lens and light weight body.That will keep you going for a while and you can get more specialistlenses as you become sure of the need..

Everything will depend on cost but I would place desirability in thefollowiing order:.

C), d), b), a)..

But there is not a bad lens among them. They are all excellent valuefor money. Personally I do not like swaping lenses that much. I wouldfind the 18-55 a bit limiting. It you get a 17/18-70 that would be amore satisfying lens to work with..

Well, once I thought I had it figured out, you shake things up again haha..

I didn't even think about the 18-135 lens and now that you pointed it out, I like the logic in getting it. My only question about that lens is.. The further zoomed you are does the image turn out shaky-looking? I guess what I mean is, would I have an easier time getting a stable picture with the 55-200 VR lens or would I not even have an issue with being zoomed in on the 18-135 lens?.

I did find a package of the D40 w/ 18-135 lens for the price I'm wanting to spend... So, if I wont have an issue with the lens then I'm willing to go for it..

Thanks for the help!..

Just spotted an HSM Sigma 17-70. So they definitely are available..

Http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/...QcategoryZ30070QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem.

Re the 18-135.

The general rule of thumb is that you can hand hold the reciprocal of the lens focal length expressed in 35 mm terms..

So 135mm = 200mm approx at 1.5x crop..

So you will need 1/200th to be sure to avoid camera shake. Some people can do better. This is just an average and if you took say 10 shots in rapid sucession at say 100th chances are one or two would be OK..

There are other ways to do the same thing. Most obvious is a monopod. I have used one for years and get decent shots with my 80-200 f2.8. I also have a minature tripod in my bag that can be sited on a wall or whatever. Then of course simplest of all you can up the ISO to give you 1/200th. You shouild have no problem getting f/5.6 1/200th or better at ISO 100 in most daylight.

Of course I am talking about 135mm. At 70mm you would need about 1/100th to hand hold. So very worst scenario is you lose the long end of your 135mm lens in very poor light (e.g dusk)but it is there to use the rest of the time..

Remember VR will help stop camera shake but it will NOT stop action. You will need a minimum of 1/200th to stop most action anyway..

Hope that helps..

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Surprisingly, I understood all of that..

You pretty much talked me into getting the D40 w/18-135mm lens and then I'll save up for either the sigma 17-70 or the nikon 55-200 VR. But as of right now, the 18-135 seems more viable and valuable as a first lens..

Thanks for helping me in picking a good beginner dSLR package!! I hope to get it between now and the end of september...

What ever camera you buy, don't forget about other essentials. Like SD, bag, cleaning kit, batteries, tripod. etc. These addition can break the bank too.D4015-55mm EDII55-200mm EDSB-600manfrotto tri 718b..

Joey Camacho wrote:.

What ever camera you buy, don't forget about other essentials. LikeSD, bag, cleaning kit, batteries, tripod. etc. These addition canbreak the bank too..

Yeah, I looked at all of that. Its about $850 +tax and shipping for the D40 w/ 18-135mm, 4gb sd card, 1 extra battery, 70" tripod, a bag, a cleaning kit, and a pen lens cleaner. I think thats good to get started with..

I was thinking of getting a UV filter but I'll have to do more research first.....

In reply to your remarks....get a camera now that has decent specs you can live with for a while..the higher importance is in the lens...so you will want to consider spending your upgrade dollars on better glass. The camera is nice, but the lens quality is more important. Even if you have to settle for a middle of the line camera, get the best glass for it eventually that you can afford. It does in a way limit you in your camera brand choice, but it's worth it....A picture is the expression of an impression.If the beautiful were not in us, how would we ever recognize it?Ernst Haas..