dSLR for beginner?

[Twinkeethekid]

I think I made up my mind that I want an SLR for my first camera. I just love the look, feel, and control of it. However, I feel as though I could experiment more with a digital camera, by not worrying about film stock costs. Of course, I am poor college student. So, should I save and get the Canon Digital Rebel, or go with say the Rebel Ti. Or maybe kill the whole idea of SLR and get say the G3. Please, help me out.

[mpkirby]

Twinkeethekid wrote:
I think I made up my mind that I want an SLR for my first camera. I just love the look, feel, and control of it. However, I feel as though I could experiment more with a digital camera, by not worrying about film stock costs. Of course, I am poor college student. So, should I save and get the Canon Digital Rebel, or go with say the Rebel Ti. Or maybe kill the whole idea of SLR and get say the G3. Please, help me out.

To be honest, unless you are a photo major, or someone with a particularly strong interest in photography, a college student would be better off with a small (read non g3) pocketable digicam that you can take anywhere and embarass your friends.

When I was in school, my roommate was a photography major. Many a late night was spent metering people in the midst of alchohol induced sickness in the men's bathroom.

It turns out the best approach is to slide the light meter under the door and do a quick meter read before letting them know you are going to take the picture (facial expressions are better).

It would have been much easier with a small digital camera.

Mike

[Canuck]

Twinkeethekid wrote:
I think I made up my mind that I want an SLR for my first camera. I just love the look, feel, and control of it. However, I feel as though I could experiment more with a digital camera, by not worrying about film stock costs. Of course, I am poor college student. So, should I save and get the Canon Digital Rebel, or go with say the Rebel Ti. Or maybe kill the whole idea of SLR and get say the G3. Please, help me out.

Ok, before we go any further, how much are you willing to commit to this? Here's why: For example if you can't afford the 300D (aka: Digital Rebel) there is no point in going any further and will reccommend a G3/G5. You realise that you will have to buy lenses to make the 300D work as advertised and they can get very expensive. I'm already leaning to the G3 option for you. Why? Well, you aren't struck on film developing and that can get expensive. SLRs regardless if they are film or digital require lenses and they are extra!! Ok, I have a 10D w/ BG-ED3 and Idunno about $7000 invested in this so far. I have 2 lenses of which they are a Sigma EX ($1900) and Canon L ($1370) without filters. Now granted, I have a decent pay job, but I really don't like it.

That's the method to my madness in a nutshell.

[Twinkeethekid]

Here's the thing. I'm not all that interested in taking candid photos. Sure, a few here and there... but I want to make art. I know my budget is tight right now, but I also love the idea of taking macro shots, which would require a seperate macro lens (those macro modes aren't worth for crap on the digital camera. I want REAL close). I've been involved with videogrophy for the past 2 years, and will continue with that (with my craoppy 1 CCD camera, but it's something). However, I still am VERY interested in still photogrophy (possibly more so if allowed to explore some more). My need for a small camera isn't neccesary (in fact... i love the bigness of an SLR (easier to grasp)). Plus, it's something i plan to be interested in all my life (hence the want for SLR, because I can contunitly grow my camera, without changing my body every other month). So i guess it comes down to... should I spend the money up front for a dSLR, or go with a film SLR and pay less now? Thnx

[mpkirby]

Twinkeethekid wrote:
Here's the thing. I'm not all that interested in taking candid photos. Sure, a few here and there... but I want to make art.

Buy a used film SLR with some decent lenses (mostly primes), and learn to develop Tri-X Pan B&W film yourself.

Then find those B&W photographers you admire most, and try to emulate them. By the time you get bored with this, or actually accomplish your goals, you will be out of college.

Meanwhile you will learn more about photography then you could possible imagine, and stay within your budget.

Of course you are going to have to be disciplined...Use a notebook to record settings and thoughts about the composition of the picture before you snap. Learn darkroom techniques, development techniques, composition, lighting, etc. But you are at a point in your life where you actually have the time to do this....

Mike

[DAMphyne]

I would say, go for the DSLR, the cost of film and processing will keep you from taking the pictures you want. I'm sure you'll have a computer in college, and after you buy the camera, it's all free.
I used to shoot what I could afford, now I shoot what I want.
My 2 cents

[mpkirby]

damphyne wrote:
I would say, go for the DSLR, the cost of film and processing will keep you from taking the pictures you want. I'm sure you'll have a computer in college, and after you buy the camera, it's all free.
I used to shoot what I could afford, now I shoot what I want.
My 2 cents

You can get a new Canon EOS Elan 7 for 269 dollars at B&H Photo. Assuming lenses cost the same, and you get 1/2 a gig of compact flash, then you end up with about ($1500 + $150) - $269 = $1381 difference.

$1381 will buy a whole lot of film and paper.

Besides...I still have my ancient Pentax K1000 w/ lenses, and believe it or not, still use it (I shoot quilts on slide film for submission...Digital to slide doesn't work too well, and it is very expensive).

It will be interesting to see if the D10 has the same 20 year holding power that the film versions have had. Will the sensor still be noise free after 20 thousand images? Will the electronics break down at all? Or will technology just pass it by -- How do owners of the D30 feel right now? And it is just a couple of years..

No matter what choice you make (digital SLR, or film SLR), you will still have a blast...

Mike

[chris.bailey]

Twinkeethekid wrote:
I think I made up my mind that I want an SLR for my first camera. I just love the look, feel, and control of it. However, I feel as though I could experiment more with a digital camera, by not worrying about film stock costs. Of course, I am poor college student. So, should I save and get the Canon Digital Rebel, or go with say the Rebel Ti. Or maybe kill the whole idea of SLR and get say the G3. Please, help me out.

I would be tempted to look for a second hand D60 on Ebay, its still a great camera and there seem to be several around second hand at reasonable prices.

[CoolToolGuy]

I have both, and I will offer this - if you want to learn photography on a budget, your best move may be to get the G3 (okay Scottie, Shields Up!).
I love my Drebel, and my collection of glass is growing. But if you get the G3 you will learn a certain discipline of how to get the shot within the limitations that the camera provides. And you will be surprised how much you can get with it. The G3 (or G5) has all of the shooting modes of the EOS system (it has even more feaures than the Drebel), and you will learn how to control your exposures. Yes, there will be limitations that don't exist with a DSLR, but that is not the end of the world. You will develop your ability to capture the image.
Several noted photographers and photojournalists worked with Leica rangefinders and the like, despite the Canon F1 and Nikon F systems, for this very reason.
One issue with this in the digital world is that the G3 will teach you about Canon's shooting modes, and some of the accessories (flash, batteries) will help you most if you buy a Canon DSLR. But, that is not a bad thing.
I know the flak will be coming in from the DSLR bigots who think that the G3 is a toy, but I'll stick to my guns. You can carry a lot of photographic capability in a little bag with the G3, and when you go for the DSLR you will be getting the shots, not wishing you had another lens.
Have Fun
Rick

[elm54]

damphyne wrote:
I'm sure you'll have a computer in college, and after you buy the camera, it's all free.

that's what my thinking was like....
Then there's compactflash cards, card readers. software, lenses, storage devices and carrying devices, printers, paper, ink, tripods, more lenses, more software, faster computers...... :eyes
Get my drift? If you are on a tight budget and starting out, some of the other advice above is worth taking heed to....A point and shoot will teach alot about composition focus and light... the G3 is a pretty fine camera , check out some of the shared photos.
Alot of the expenses I listed above will follow with any digital system. Someone mentioned B&W and developing your own. I never did, (Too new) But it sounds good too.
Just my thoughts..
Eric

[Whaler]

2 cents. . . . from someone who's been there & done that.

New or used G3 (great little camera) $400 - $500

New G5 $600 - 700

New Eos Rebel & "kit" lens & 500MB memory $1125.00

Steve Allen once said "It only cost a little more to go first class".

Just sold my G3 (at a loss) & bought a Drebel. Where am I going with this? Wait, save, and buy the Drebel. You'll be much happier in the long run. The key to the last sentence is "long run".
Did this help?

[iwatkins]

Cheap s/h G3 for digital.

Or I like Mikes idea better. Get a cheap s/h film 35mm SLR with a lens or two and shoot B&W.

You can develop B&W almost anywhere. If you are college that does photography, maybe you could have access to their darkrooms for occasional printing purposes.

I'm sure being on a budget will make you really think about every shot you take and that is a good thing.

Since I went digital I've seen a marked reduction in the quality of my shots. I think is mainly down to the fact that taking shots is now free hence I don't think about them enough before tripping the shutter. I am working on it but it is going to take time :)

Cheers

Ian

[Fotochik_CA]

Go for the rebel..If you are serious about your photography then go for the tools you will use the most. Why not get it and then make a few extra bucks (after getting some practice) by taking pictures and then selling them .... Campus have a lot of places that you can do that lots of activity, events people....dont go short if you have to wait awhile then do so.....If its worth it to you then do it. If I wantewd to study photography (whether in a lcassroom or by experience) and really takeit seriously I would get a SLR...if you want to go digital then you'll have to pay for it of course. And it doesnt take long to gp through several hundred dollars of film and developing costs. As for lenses just start with what you have and go from there. I have about $8000 worth of camera equipment but I didnt buy it all at once....you can do the same.

[Tom W]

Buy a used film SLR with some decent lenses (mostly primes), and learn to develop Tri-X Pan B&W film yourself.

Then find those B&W photographers you admire most, and try to emulate them. By the time you get bored with this, or actually accomplish your goals, you will be out of college.

Meanwhile you will learn more about photography then you could possible imagine, and stay within your budget.

Of course you are going to have to be disciplined...Use a notebook to record settings and thoughts about the composition of the picture before you snap. Learn darkroom techniques, development techniques, composition, lighting, etc. But you are at a point in your life where you actually have the time to do this....

Mike

I agree wholeheartedly with Mike here - buy a used 35 mm Camera. You might consider a used Rebel 2000 or Elan along with a lens or two from a reputable dealer like B&H or Keh.com. The idea here is that you can learn as Mike pointed out, plus if you lose interest, you haven't spent 3 month's rent on a camera you don't use. Plus, the EF lenses that these two cameras use are compatible with Canon's digital cameras so you can move up as time and finances permit, or just stay with what you have until you feel ready.

I shot plenty of photos with my old manual Canon FT, but I had put it away for several years in favor of a point-and-shoot camera before the bug hit me again. After playing with a couple of digital Point-and-shoot cameras (the S-400 is my third), I decided to get back into SLR photography. Rather than jump right into the first thing I found, I bought a used Elan II along with a new 28-105 3.5-4.5 lens. I've since bought a few more toys, but I'm almost ready to take the digital SLR plunge (that's why I'm here). There's no hurry - stick around and read, but take the cheap route to start with and learn how it works and what you really want to use in the long run. Then purchase digital at that point.

Edit: I've never gone with the Black-and-white thing. Yes, its cheaper, and yes, its probably a good way to gain valuable knowledge WRT exposure control, brightness, and contrast, but I just never liked black and white photos as much as I liked color. It may be a childhood thing, as I really hated the fact that we were the only people on our street that still had a Black-and White TV set until 1968. :)

[mpkirby]

[quote=mpkirby]
It may be a childhood thing, as I really hated the fact that we were the only people on our street that still had a Black-and White TV set until 1968. :)

Hah..I have you beat by a mile. I wasn't born until 1968, and we had a B&W television set until I was 12. (It really really sucked.) and I never had a VCR while I was a kid ...or in college...or grad school...I think they finally picked one up so the grandkids could watch videos...

Mike

[Belmondo]

Being substantially older than dirt, I actually remember a time with no television at all. My parents bought our first TV in 1952 when I was 10 years old. My wife and I bought our first color set in 1968. Normally I don't have a great memory for such details, but I remember the day it was delivered, we watched Martin Luther King Jr.'s funeral.

Tom

[Tom W]

Being substantially older than dirt, I actually remember a time with no television at all. My parents bought our first TV in 1952 when I was 10 years old. My wife and I bought our first color set in 1968. Normally I don't have a great memory for such details, but I remember the day it was delivered, we watched Martin Luther King Jr.'s funeral.

Tom

My God, man, you are old. :D j/k again (I usually am)

Seriously, you were watching TV throughout the '50's, when my parents were very busy ... ummmm ... "procreating". I am the last of 5 kids born in the '50's. :)

[Belmondo]

Seriously, you were watching TV throughout the '50's, when my parents were very busy ... ummmm ... "procreating". I am the last of 5 kids born in the '50's. :)
And you should be awfully glad they didn't get hooked on 'I Love Lucy' and a couple other shows of that era. You might not be here to talk about it.

It sure was a simpler time. People did indeed have time to procreate. :wink:

[Tom W]

"LuuuuuuCy... You' got some 'splainin' to do...."

Heh heh. I think they watched a little Lucy, then moved on down the hall. I'm just wondering how they managed to carry on when my oldest brother was 8, but they still managed to conceive me.

You're right though, it was a simpler time. I remember watching the Flintstones, as a family, on the little black-and-white TV with the slightly rounded screen. I also remember later on watching re-runs of the Honeymooners. What good stuff that was. I wonder when they found time to "procreate"...

Then again, it wasn't too long ago that I might have wondered when they had time to watch TV...

[Nolz]

i agree whoe heartedly with "cooltoolguy"

i think the skills learned dealing with a compact point and shoot will lead to a greater appreciation of a DSLR when the budget allows.

you need only look around the forum here to see that the photos churned out by the G3/5 owners are more than adequate for most people. im sure the experienced users can take shots better than i can currently take with my 300D :P

[drisley]

i agree whoe heartedly with "cooltoolguy"

i think the skills learned dealing with a compact point and shoot will lead to a greater appreciation of a DSLR when the budget allows.

you need only look around the forum here to see that the photos churned out by the G3/5 owners are more than adequate for most people. im sure the experienced users can take shots better than i can currently take with my 300D :P

I agree. Just check out this page of Don Ellis'.
He uses G1 and G2 still, and his pics are better than 90% of the stuff I've seen from the 300D. Just goes to show it's who is behind the camera that is most important.
www.kleptography.com

[Nolz]

my point precisely!....some fantastic pics on that site for sure :wink:

[andrew1]

I have a reasonable solution for you, Sellling a Rebel 300D W/ 18-55 lens, Brand New USA $899.00 + $15.00 ship in Continental US.

If interested let me know.
Andrew

[CyberDyneSystems]

Why on Earth is every one recomending film cameras on the Digital forum? Has the world changed it's rotation? :)

Look at the 300D-Rbel if an SLR is a must,. it's $1,000.00 with the lens.

Otherwise look at some of the more capable "SLR-Like" Digicams like the very afordable Fuji s5000 with a 10X zoom at only $400.00

But definatley go digital,. I don't even know what film looks like :D

[CoolToolGuy]

I agree with CDS on the digital point - if you are just starting out, there seems to be little reason to learn photography with film at this time, unless you see a job in your future that requires film. Film will become more and more impractical as time goes on, as it becomes harder to find good processing, and harder to find chemicals if you want to do your own. Go with digital, and go with a camera that will allow you to control the image (did I say G5? Yes, I am a Canon bigot). If you want to start with a DSLR, go for it. But, at the start of this thread, we were talking about a college student, and I think the rangefinder (I just can't bring myself to call a G5 a point & shoot) is a more compact option if you are carrying books, etc. around with you. (okay, how did I get on top of this box labeled 'Soap'?).

Have Fun
Rick

[torsten]

I favor digital too. It may depend on your personality. Knowing that each film shot had its costs, made me worry constantly about whether the shot was worth the press of the shutter and I ended up not using my film SLR enough to get good with it. With digital, those concerns are gone and you feel free to actually experiment with the camera -- essential if you want to learn and develop a skill.

I'm sort of in the same situation though. I can't really afford the DSLR and the lenses I want, so I got a G5 (last week). I do have concerns/complaints about it though and may end up waiting for the next model or trying another brand. Non-SLR digitals can do a lot for the money, so I'll probably stick with that format.

[DAMphyne]

I favor digital too. It may depend on your personality. Knowing that each film shot had its costs, made me worry constantly about whether the shot was worth the press of the shutter and I ended up not using my film SLR enough to get good with it. With digital, those concerns are gone and you feel free to actually experiment with the camera -- essential if you want to learn and develop a skill.



Hear Hear,
If you think you want to learn darkroom techniques, find a film zealot and join them in the darkroom for a couple of hours(or more), You can learn a bunch about photography. I was a believer in doing the darkroom thing for a long time, until I received enlightenment.
You can spend endless hours in the darkroom, trying to get the perfect print, only to find out you should have "Bracketed" your exposures, no perfect print this time.
You can ALWAYS afford to bracket with digital. The main thing is to Pay Attention to what you are doing when you shoot.
That's another plus about digital, it keeps track of all that techno stuff. With film, don't forget to bring along a paper and pencil to write down exposures , film speeds, distance, lens, even the camera you use.
I can't say how many Great Photos I missed because I was entering stuff into the log so I could have a record of the crummy shot I justtook. Digital allowes you to change film speed, mid roll, so to speak, can't do that with film.
Most important to me, I've spent Hours in the darkroom, setting-up, mixing smelly chemicals, getting my hands and nose contaminated with strong solutions, that you are going to dump down the drain. Finally, get a decent(?) print that I can show to all my Pals, only to have one ask, make me one. IF you remember ALL the parameters that you used making the print, temperature, time, burning and dodging, paper stock, mix of chemicals, yadda-yadda-yadda. Get my drift?
Still not the same, Hmmm.
Get a DSLR, if you are really interested in photography, it can grow with your skills, if you buy a P&S, soon, very soon, you'll want a SLR. If you get a DSLR and decide that photography is not for you, sell it, no great loss(check E-Bay).
OK, I'll step off the Box and let someone else jump-in.
Have Fun

[Jim Larson]

8)

I have a very different spin on the film / digital thing.

First: How do you want your pictures? Do you want to view them on a screen (with a few printed), or do you want them in a photo album (with a few scanned)?

If you want *printed* images, you want a film camera. If you want *digital* images, you want a digital camera. Neither option is cheap. Film cameras require film and albums. Digital cameras require significant processors power, hard disks, compact disks => and the cameras depreciate quicker.

Two: The Canon "G" cameras are good. But they are still P&S cameras with short focal length lenses. Although the standard Canon exposure modes are present, the simple fact is that the wide lenses and small sensors on these cameras lead to deep depths of field. The ability to have shallow depth of field is what makes SLR photography great

Three: Someone said something about taking dRebel photos like advertised. Have you seen the football commercial? Shooting from the stands, I doubt a 1D with a 500/4L can take those photos! :wink:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Good points Jim,..

And personally I want dozens of images on a hard dive with the real "keepers" printed and framed :)

Not too concerned with photo albums myself,. but I know that many are :)

[Tom W]

Why on Earth is every one recomending film cameras on the Digital forum? Has the world changed it's rotation? :)

Look at the 300D-Rbel if an SLR is a must,. it's $1,000.00 with the lens.

Otherwise look at some of the more capable "SLR-Like" Digicams like the very afordable Fuji s5000 with a 10X zoom at only $400.00

But definatley go digital,. I don't even know what film looks like :D

Although Morning came too early today, as it often does on work days, I doubt if the earth's rotation reversed itself overnight. :)

I think that the reason people have been recommending film is the cheap entry price - to some, $1000 is a great big hunk of money. New or used film equipment can be had for a good deal less than that. And, if its compatible like Canon's AF series is, then the buyer can evolve into digital at their own pace (and I readily admit that is my own course of action).

That said, somebody else brought up a good idea as well - buying a new or used digital P&S camera. I'd have to caution that one should get something on the order of the G-series that offers a good deal of manual control. Its hard to learn about exposure if the camera always does all the exposure control. While I like my S-400 and carry it with me often, it has almost no manual control. It will take a great picture on occasion if I handle it properly, though.

[Jim Larson]

That said, somebody else brought up a good idea as well - buying a new or used digital P&S camera. I'd have to caution that one should get something on the order of the G-series that offers a good deal of manual control. Its hard to learn about exposure if the camera always does all the exposure control. While I like my S-400 and carry it with me often, it has almost no manual control. It will take a great picture on occasion if I handle it properly, though.

I will take my earlier comments a step further.

The Canon "S" (S40, S50) series point and shoots are worthy of consideration.

Unlike the "G" series, these cameras are SMALL and fit in your pocket.

Yes the "S" lacks the cool, powerful, flip out screen. Yes they have smaller lenses and lack the Hot shoe. But the "S" cameras take RAW photo's and have full manual control.

I frequently take both my 10D and S40 on trips. There are many occassions where it is just not wise to pull out a 10D with a 550EX flash attached. :roll:

[new girl on the bloc]

go digital young man! is my best (experiencial) advice. I have been interested in photography for a lot of years. My first love was a kodak 126 when i was about 12. that little gem took some great photos, or should i say, i took some great photos with that instamatic camera, since i think that it's the person peering into the lens versus the camera that takes those spectacular photos. not to discount a decent camera however.

i bought a canon sureshot a few years back and took some pretty impressive photos of the taj mahal with it. i upgraded from that to a pentax zx7. it's a great slr but it's been collecting dust since i got my first digital, a toshiba 2.3 mg a couple of years ago. i got it in a serendipitous way, a class action lawsuit against a toshiba laptop that i had. they gave me a 'freecard' to use to buy their merchandise. i'd already traded in my toshiba for a dell laptop so i had no use for most of what they had to offer. so i bought a digital camera. let me add that i was never very interested in going digital. i'm a kinetic type and like to have an actual photo in my hand so was not crazy about the idea of having them on my pc screen. i was also concerned about the cost of printing them out.

but that sweet little serendipitous event changed my life in re to photography. as i said, my pentax, which was fairly new when the toshiba came into my life, is collecting dust. i did use it for a photo class that i took a few months ago, a course that i ended up dropping due to it being mostly a darkroom technique class. i do not do well with those b&w chemicals and found myself short on patience with trying to learn how to develop photos. i kept marveling at the swift and seamless darkroom development process of my digital - just plug that usb into the camera and the pc and let 'em roll. i had also bought a canon i960 while i was in the class and kept thinking about the ease of printing my own photos as i struggled to find the correct grayscale in the darkroom.

i bought a g3 in april and have taken some awesome shots with that. it is true that despite it's frustrating limitations, one can really get a feel for the digital world. and then a few weeks ago I got a digital rebel though i've had little chance to play with it yet.

o.k., i'm getting a bit long winded here to simply say that digital has really enhanced my skills and artistic abilities in a way that a regular slr could not. i take shots of anything and everything and experiment like crazy. i could not have afforded to do that with film and processing. i also loathe the whole record keeping process with recalling what worked and what didn't with the slr. again, with digital you know exactly what works and why (seconds after the shot) and you keep shooting and experimenting until you get it right!

digital has really opened up my world and i am loving it! :lol:

[agentm]

This is what happened to me:

I first bought a small Canon Ixus about 4 years ago. A very cute camera but QUICKLY realised that I was limited with what I can do. So a year ago I bought the G3. Truly a great camera and I took fantastic shots with it. It also tought me allot about digital photography and the settings and possibilities available. The G3 has amazing picture quality.

But I wasnt there yet. Now I want to move into more serious photography and therefor I need some lenses and filters. So Im saving now to buy a EOS 10D with lenses. Are we ever satisfied is the question? I think in my case I might just be.

Go for the DSLR.

[Fotochik_CA]

I disagree with the whole if you want printed pictures thren you should use film. I am a wedding photographer printing pictures upto 16x30 and I shoot digital and then I send my digital files to a lab where they make prints. Same paper same everything as what they print film on. Just because its digital doesnt mean it has to be printed on your computer....
I think film is great too I just dont think it is better ....By going digital I save close to $400 per wedding that I shoot. That is the sum total reason I switched but my quality has not been lessened because of it[/quote]

[Tom W]

I will take my earlier comments a step further.

The Canon "S" (S40, S50) series point and shoots are worthy of consideration.

Unlike the "G" series, these cameras are SMALL and fit in your pocket.

Yes the "S" lacks the cool, powerful, flip out screen. Yes they have smaller lenses and lack the Hot shoe. But the "S" cameras take RAW photo's and have full manual control.

I frequently take both my 10D and S40 on trips. There are many occassions where it is just not wise to pull out a 10D with a 550EX flash attached. :roll:

I agree with you there, Jim. I didn't mean to "diss" the slightly larger "S" series. I simply overlooked them. They do offer manual control, unlike my Elph. If the S-45 shares lens/sensor components with my S-400, then it should be a decent, capable camera.

As for me, I didn't buy the S-400 to compete with the SLR, but to augment it. But it has been competitive enough to convince me that my next SLR will be have to be digital.

[Morden]

I am late to this thread, having not used this forum for a while, but....

I have both a 10D and a G2. Despite the obvious superiority of the 10D, I still use the G2 a great deal; it isn't very big, it isn't very heavy, it takes very nice photos. Additionally, it uses the same batteries and flashguns as the 10D / D60 / D30. Nice!

[MrKickalot]

Here's my 2 cents....speaking from experience.

I bought a TI in April of last year thinking I was going to "learn" how to take good pictures. YEAH RIGHT!! I read books and articals and tried a few things but after about 5 rolls of crappy pictures (experimenting) it hit the shelf. Along came the DRebel and I got one the second week of November. I have learned more in 2 months (and 2800 pictures later) than I ever would have with the TI!! I had bought a Canon 75-300 for my TI which moved to my DRebel camera bag now!!

My suggestion if you can float it on the budget is DRebel w/18-55($999), 512MB CF card (just bought one for $115), and one of the low end 300mm lenses(either 75-300 or 100-300, about $159). I know everyone in here is going to say and I know it, that lens is junk, BUT if you don't have the money for anything else right now it at least gives you a ok lense with some range. I just built a cart on B&H of what I listed and the total for all of this is $1294. This would give you a great start into learning, plus you get a feel of what you like and don't like taking pictures of. I thought I wanted a lens with lots of focal length (like the 50-500) for my next lens but after seeing what I enjoy taking pictures of I am leaning toward a 70-200 f2.8.

Let the beatings begin for recommending the Canon 75-300

Just an opinion!!