I want to purchase a nice digital camera. I want to take professional quality photos and it's important the camera isn't to heavy.

I'm undecided... canon new rebel xsi, canon 40D, Nikon D200, Nikon D300, Nikon D60 ????
I can't afford anything over $1,800.
Is it possible to buy a camera in this price range and have professional photos?

What do you mean by "professional photos"? Not a put down, I just don't know what you have in mind.

The camera makes a difference, but the photographer makes more of a difference.

I just took a photography course at my local university. I was amazed at the difference in photographs by the art students and the rest of us. Truly amazing.

Any of those cameras will serve you well. I have a Canon 10D and a MarkII 1Ds. the later is very heavy. The biggest difference is that I can crop more of the MarkII pictures because I have more pixels to work with. Otherwise at 13x19 I get really good prints.

I'm putting my pennies towards an Olympus E-510. The body sells with a two lenses for under $700. The kit lenses are quite good and the Olympus features in-body stabilization.


http://www.flickr.com/groups/olympus_e500/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,144098/article.html
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4380...pus-e-510.html

When you buy a digital SLR, you're not just buying a camera. You're buying into a system, which consists of at least a body and a lens, potentially a lot more lenses and other accessories like flash.

If you think you'll go further in this hobby or profession or whatever, you should look at all those components. It won't do you any good if you buy a great body but you can't find the lens that fit you.

Each brand has its strength and weaknesses. Nikon and Canon are most popular brands with lots and lots of lenses and accessories, but neither has in-body stabilization. Olympus uses the "Four-Thirds" systems with smaller sensors, which allows them to make smaller and lighter lens and bodies, but that also means more digital noise at high ISO. And you also have Pentax and Sony, each with their particular features.

So, what are you actually trying to get for $1,800? You can get a Nikon D300 body, but you won't be able to take any pictures with it as you won't have any lens. Or you can go with a more basic body, and then various combination of lenses.

Professionals can take high-quality published images with a point and shoot. Plenty of folks shoot junk with 1Ds MkIII's. I'd suggest starting with a mid-level DSLR, more than capable of superb images, and spend $$$ on trianing courses, shooting trips, etc. The only limitation is if you're truly looking to shoot "professional" as in selling images to stock agencies for resale. These agencies have technical limitation that you would need to look at.

As mentioned above, you need to budget for more than the body. $1800 will get you a D300, the best in that price range, but if that's at the expense of limited spending on lenses, it's not a good investment.

Personally, I'd stick with Nikon or Canon, given the vast array of lenses, accessories, other shooters you can get advice from, etc. Sony/Olympus/etc make competitive gear in certain price ranges, but nothing I see that stands out to the extent it overshadows the above.

At the D60/D80/XSi/40D range, it comes down to personal preference. Both companies will provide strong offerings for a long time to come, IMHO. they've leap-frogged each other over time, and will continue to do so, but the gaps are generally small. Put your hands on all of them, work the controls, shoot some images, and see what you prefer. I don't think you can go wrong with any of them.

I've been invested in Canon for a long time, and the XSi (and the whole Rebel range over time) is too small for my hands, feeling like a bit of a toy and hard to work the controls. I also couldn't live without the control dial on the rear, so I'm shooting with a 40D.

From what I've read, the 300D is the best buy (and only option) at the $1700-1800 range, the 40D is better than the D200 in the $1100-$1400 range, and I can't really come to a consensus at the <$1K range.

As others have said, a DSLR will not give you good images. To put it into the perspective of painting, a P&S is like painting on a wall with only a few brush sizes. A DSLR is like painting on the best canvas possible with any brush you could want. If you're good, you can make the wall painting amazing and the canvas painting even better. But if you're not good, no matter what equipment you have you won't take good photographs.

All DSLRs are heavy and big. If you want something small and light, get a P&S. If you're really serious about photography and can only spend $1800, I would spend less on a body and more on lenses and accessories. The reason is you're going to find that based on the kind of photography you like you're going to need certain things. For example, if you only want to do portraits, you'll probably need to get a good lighting system but primes will be fine (and probably better, though I'm not a portrait person). For wildlife/sports, a good tele lens and probably a good flash. For landscapes, a wide lens and more filters than you could think of (ND, Grad ND, polarizer, etc...). You'll almost definitely need a good tripod (and good intro tripods cost over $100, but the kind you need again depends on your habits). You'll also need a bag, and again, the kind depends on what you do.

If you just spend $1800 on a body and one lens, you'll probably become frustrated with the lack of options available to you. I started by spending around $1350 for a D70 with 18-70 lens, a 75-300 lens, and bag for the equipment. Within a few months I had spent a few hundred more on filters and over the last 3 years since I got the D70, I've spent a total (except for the initial purchase) of around $1.5k getting tripods, flash, and other things I needed. I'm currently looking into upgrading my tele lens for another $500, but only because I can see where the new ones would let me take pictures the old one couldn't.

So, in summary, don't just get a DSLR because you can. Do it because you know what you're missing and are willing to spend the time, effort, and money to make it really work well for you.

Hi Pennyrod, Let me throw in another consideration. No camera, however advanced, does any good if it is not with you when you come across a situation worth taking a picture. While you will definitely carry your DSLR plus lenses and accessories to a party you plan to attend, will you carry all of that all the time during your travels, and change lenses as appropriate?

If not, maybe think in terms of an advanced "point and shoot".

[In a link given below the professional photographer Ken Rcokwell, remembering his child's birth, says: "Life waits for no camera. When this happened I had no idea what was going on. I just kept shooting without worrying about anything." He had a DSLR, but he is a pro and this was an anticipated moment. ]

The best ps camera is Panasonic FZ-50 (=Leica V-Lux1), with one caveat: it lacks true wide-angle (28 or wider) which is useful in many travel situations. To cover those, the best choice is FZ-18 which is smaller, has true superzoom lens (28-504), and most of the desired manual controls. Both are good one-piece cameras but they are not pocketable.

For a pocketable solution, as you'd expect, some compromise is needed. Panasonic LX2 (=Leica D-Lux3) gives great creative control with limited zoom range (28-112); the TZ-5 is all auto but has greater zoom (28-280) and its older version TZ-3 is available at heavily discounted price.

Of course, there is no law against owning both a DSLR system, and a pocket ps.

For cameras offered under both Panasonic and Leica brands, I'd choose Panasonic which is not only cheaper but also less likely to attract thieves.

If you still want a DSLR - At least one respected pro regards Nikon D-40 as "the answer to most people's camera questions":

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm

His all-said-and-done summary:
"Get the Nikon D200 if you don't mind the weight.
Get a Nikon D40 for everything else.
Get the Canon 5D if you work on a tripod.
Forget the rest."
(http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/d200...d40-5d-xti.htm)

This agrees with anrkitec's recommendation below.

Good luck.

I'm kind of curious just how good the FZ18's lens it. That's a pretty long zoom range (I know its actually about 5-85) but I can't believe the quality could be all that good.

In any case, one thing that will be missing from P&S is good DOF control. The small sensors ensure that you can't quite make the background completely out of focus as you can with a DSLR. I also have to agree that getting both a P&S and a DSLR is not a bad idea - they're really two different beasts.

If I were you, I would get an ultra compact P&S for a 2-3 hundred dollars. Use it for a few months and try to play with its manual controls. Remember a DSLR does not manage everything for you. I personally like the Canon SD series, but I'm sure the others are good too. Then, in a few months, if you're feeling the limit of a P&S, get an intro DSLR and a few lenses. That way, as aktchi said, you can always have a camera with you while using the fancy one for the times you're actually going out on a photo trip.

These issues are forever being discussed on many forums and the one I like is: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1033 . You can also see the pictures people have taken with these cameras. (This particular forum is dedicated to Panasonic but the same site also has forums devoted to other makes as well general photography.)

From Canon I like G-9. I think Panasonics are better matched to my needs and tastes at present, especially the company's commitment to wide-angle, but these decisions are made by small margins and I can certainly recommend the G-9 to OP.

BTW, DPReview, an Amazon subsidiary, has a great tool for screening cameras by features: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp

Buy the Nikon D40 w/16-85 [$800] then take a local extension or C.C. Intro to Photography class [$200] then attend the Nikon School: Intro to the Digital SLR and Workflow [$125] next time it comes to your area, then do a bit of research and take a masters class from someone whose work you respect and in an area that interests you [$500-$1500 depending on duration].

Much better [and more effective] way to spend $2000 towards becoming a good photographer than buying an $1800 body with a cheap lens and winging the rest.

It really depends what kind of professional photography OP is talking about.
Sure, professional photographer can take a gorgeous artistic picture with small p&s, but he cannot shoot, for example, a NFL game with that.
I can guarantee that I can take better NFL photography with 1D Mk.III & 300mm f/2.8L IS than a professional photographer with Canon Ixus.
All depends on what kind of photography OP will take.

I would recommend that you 1. decide what it is you really want to do with your camera. 2. After that, ask questions about the strengths and limitations of the cameras you are interested in.

Hopefully it will lead you to buying the best camera for you. You don't want to buy more camera than you need. I have been doing photography for more than 20 years. Two years ago I decided to go digital and bought a Nikon D200. I am still learning how to best utilize all of the features the camera has. Don't skimp on lenses either.

I guess before jumping into what DSLR should I get, the first question should be am I trying to capture images that a P&S with full manual mode just flat out cannot do? When you say professional looking photo, what does it mean? Different professional photographers had different needs, sport photog will need high frame rate, fast focus body with the fastest glass they can get . Studio, wedding photogs just need good portrait lens but might spend half their budget on lighting (strobe, softboxes, flash).

I have a bias towards Sony digital cameras (I think you either hate them or love them due to the memory stick thing). I don't know how "professional" these two cameras I have are considered. Probably they'd be considered high end amateur cameras, or at least the first one would. But they do the trick.

My main camera is a Sony DSC-H5, which is 7mp (I think), and has a 12x zoom. It does wonderful photos. It's been one-upped already by a model that has a 15x zoom and a special night feature. This camera's nearly a pound in weight and a bit bulky, so it's a pain at times to carry. But it's worth it.

This is an example of an H5 shot I took when a friend visited. This pic shows off the zoom well and the quality of the camera:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alohaor...7603956923736/

I also have a DSC-H3, which is 8mp and has a 10x zoom. It's light and small and a little more awkward settings wise, but it's as good as the H5 quality wise. Still, I think I'm used to the heavier feeling of the H5, and I prefer that. The H3 is really a more "on the go" camera for those who want a good zoom in a light weight model.

This is with the H3 flash on, and is not a travel related photo!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alohaor...7603358549720/

Personally, I wouldn't consider any of the Sony camera a professional camera.
Yes, there are professionals using Sony camera to capture great images.
Yes, they are good cameras.
But, IMHO, professional cameras are either Canon 1D(s) line, Nikon D3 (or D2x, D2h, etc) for 35mm format or Hasselblad (or some other medium, large format cameras).

Likes of Canon 5D, Nikon D300, or Sony DSLRs are considered to be high end amateur cameras, at least to me.

But, they all take great pictures none the less.