It's looking like time to finally break down and get a DSLR. I'm looking at perhaps $1500 total.

I want to use only one lens so I don't have problems with dust getting in during a lens change--this will be used mostly while travelling. As much zoom range as feasible would be desired. I don't think image stabilization is available at this price range.

I currently have a Minolta SLR (with lenses and flash.)

Recommendations?

Sigma's 18-200 OS (image stabilized) goes for about $500 for Sigma, Nikon and Canon mounts.

It's non-OS version goes for about $380 for Sigma, Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Sony/Minolta mounts. Since most newer Pentax and Sony cameras have IS on the body, they don't need and can't use the IS on the lens.

Tamron's 18-250 goes for about $480 for Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Sony/Minolta mounts. No IS.

That leaves you over a thousand for the body. Plenty of choices.

---

Having said that, if you don't care about changing lens but want the biggest zoom range, have you looked at higher-end all-in-one cameras like the Fujifilm S8000fd? 18x zoom (28-486mm equivalent) for under $400. Or the just announced S8100fd, or the flagship S100FS (with a 14.3x zoom of 28-400mm equivalent).

Or the just announced Olympus SP-570 UZ, with an even wider zoom range of 26-520mm equivalent, which is 20x.

Nikon's D40 is a lightweight body, comes with a decent 18-55mm lens, but if you add the 18-200mm which has vibration reduction (VR), you don't have to change lenses for traveling and can do a lot without a tripod. The 18-200 is pretty much a one-size-fits all unless you need the 12-24 wide angle, too. There are some good reviews out there on the web. The D40 can be had for under $500 with the 18-55 lens, the 18-200 is available for a little less than $700.

I use the 18-200 almost exclusively and like it very much. Now that the D300 is out, I wonder what a Nikon D200 sells for.

BTW, I agree that not changing the lens will cut down substantially on dust, but you will still need to clean the sensor periodically.

first off, if any of your minolta equipment is recent, it should work with the sony cameras.

however, do look at other options. the nikon 18-200vr is a fantastic all-around lens and much better than the sigma equivalent. nikon just announced an 16-85vr lens, which although it doesn't have as wide a range as the 18-200vr, it is a little wider, as well as a smaller and lighter lens. it all depends if you want a little extra on the wide end or the long end. with the 1.5x multiplier, the lenses are 28-300mm and 24-128mm equivalents.

as for cameras, the nikon d40 is a decent entry level 6 megapixel camera, but the d40x, the new d60, or even the d80 (all 10 megapixels), plus either the 18-200 or 16-85 should still be within your budget.

and dust isn't that big of a deal. i find that an occasional puff of air from a rocket blower is enough to keep the sensor clean.

My advice would be to wait a couple of months for the new stuff shown recently at PMA to hit the shelves.

Then I would buy a Nikon D60 with a Nikkor 16-85 AF-S VR-II, in fact these will likely be sold together in a kit. Prices should be around $600 [or less] for the D60 body and $650 for the 16-85, maybe $100 less for both if sold in a kit. If you really have to scrimp then the new Nikkor 18-55 AF-S VR-II is a smoking deal on a great little optic for about $200

With the D60 and 16-85 you will still have enough left to buy a case, several large capacity SDHC cards, a spare battery, and Nikon CaptureNX software and still stay at or below your $1500 'all-in' figure.

The D60 is a slightly updated D40x which itself is a fantastic camera. While Canon, Sony, and Pentax make great stuff, no one else currently has a DSLR that can match the D40x/D60 for features, price, size, and most importantly - image quality.

The 16-85 has the 35mm range equivalent of 24-120 and the VR-II allows hand-holding down to at least 1/8 of a second if not more.

IMHO the wider FOV provided by the 16-85 is much more valuable in a "travel" lens than is the longer telephoto of the 18-200. Also, as the 16-85 is a 5x zoom it will have far fewer optical compromises than the 11x 18-200 zoom, not to mention it will be significantly shorter and lighter.

Don�t let anyone scare you away from the D40x/D60 because it requires the use of AF-S lenses. Nikon currently has about 30 AF-S lenses [35 after PMA] and every lens they make from now on will be AF-S. Also, Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron have all started to make AF-S lenses for Nikon. Now, if you feel that your skills and interests might increase rapidly then you might want to consider a more complex and expensive DSLR, otherwise I am confident you will be more than happy with the features, small size, light weight, and image quality of the D40x/D60.

It's about 20 by now. It still works fine but I've decided it's time to enter the digital age.

28-300 is exactly what I have on my Minolta. I do agree the name-brand lenses are better. What I've got is an odd brand because Minolta didn't make one with that sort of range.

Yeah, I want at least 10.

It depends on how clean a place you are in. Most of our travels are in China.

if you can wait till April, I'd suggest
Canon XSi with a Tamron 18-250 lens.
Its an excellent lens for under $500 and I've
stayed with Canon for all my cameras... never been disappointed.

I'm waiting for the same camera...

The canon rebel line or the nikon d40 are probably the lightest cameras for traveling. The third party lens are light and has wide range, excellent for traveling.

A word of warning: it gets worse. I switched to a canon rebel G (film) probably 15 years ago to get a lighter weight system. In 2002 (maybe 2003, I really don't remember) I bought a canon 10D. I now have the canon Mark !! 1ds. I'm lusting after the latest model. I switched to canon's L lenses (really good glass). It's a real slippery slope that can develop into a very expensive hobby.

Absolutely... I recently ordered my first L lens (still waiting for it to arrive)
so far even without the L series.. I've spent several thousand within past 6
years or so on camera equipment.

if it's autofocus, it might work on the sony cameras. however, as i said, do look at the alternatives.

unless you are working in a dust storm, it won't be a serious issue. a rocket blower is $10 and it works very well. there are cleaning kits for stubborn dust, but i've yet to need one.

also, unless the rear element of the lens is sealed (most aren't), dust will be able to get in via the lens as it's zoomed in and out.

I'll echo other comments here about a D40 and an 18-200 lens. From what I've heard the D40 is a great little camera and is lightweight and very good. The 18-200 is a great all-purpose lens and if you don't need the extra 100mm (for wildlife for example) it's the perfect travel lens.

Regarding the D60 - From what I've seen of it, don't get it. While they've increase the megapixel count, they've also lowered the base ISO from 200 to 100. It adds very little to the D40 except for cost. I'd stick with the D40 since its well established as a good camera. From what I remember, the D40x also adds very little.

I would stick with Nikon lenses (or Cannon) simply because they are generally better than the off-brand lenses and not that much more expensive. The 18-200 specifically has been very well received and a lot of people like it.

IMHO, the Nikon 18-200 VR by itself is a good reason to buy a Nikon over a Canon.

On a serious note, the D40 and permutations thereof + the 18-200 VR sounds like it fits your needs to a "T". For travel, this combo gets my vote, too.

1] The D60 megapixel count has not been increased. It is still the same 10.2 MPs as was the D40x.

2] The D40 is only available in a kit with either the 18-55, the 18-55 and the 55-200, or 18-135 lens, you can't buy the D40 body by itself.

3] The D40x has been discontinued and the D60 is its replacement

4] The D60 adds to the D40x an active sensor dust removal system and RAW+JPEG mode, two important features which alone make the D60 well worth the additional $80 over the cost of the D40x.