Well the website says it's worth around $449.99. What would you hold it up against? What are your reasons for getting it? I bet that if you elaborate on the subject you'll get greater response. I would love to help answering but I don't have the faintest experience with P&S's. Did you look it up on dpreview.com? Or FredMiranda?
I just want a camera that can take photos that look GREAT. $450 is my limit for a camera and this fit the price.
You can take great photos with any camera. Your reasoning for buying a dSLR is that you want a camera that takes great photos and fits your price range. Given that, I'd recommend a "prosumer" camera to you. They can take great photos without the complexity and learning curve of a dSLR. I'd look at the Canon SX10 or similar level P&S if I were you. If you have more specific reasons for wanting a dSLR, then by all means, what features are you looking for? Canon's XS and XSI are great cameras, and are dropping in price due to the T1I.
Taking great photos is as much about the person behind the camera as it is about the camera. Having the right equipment is, of course, an important consideration though. In that respect dSLRs are great, but you have to spend many hours learning how to get the most out of them - it's very easy to take bad pictures with a dSLR and less so with a super-zoom or P&S. It'd be easier to help if you've got some more information on your requirements, experience and willingness to really get to grips with your equipment.
The only reason to buy a digital SLR is if you have a specific reason for owning one, usually a desire to swap lenses to fit conditions, or a need for manual control over every detail of your shooting. If that doesn't apply to you, an SLR is usually a bad idea, because they carry some significant drawbacks. They're rather bulky, have a steep learning curve (they've got an automatic mode, but if you spend all your time there, the extra money for an SLR was wasted), are mechanically more complex, and introduce the possibility of getting dust on the sensor. They also typically lack a video mode, and many don't support LCD preview (Canon cameras do, but it forces you back to a less-accurate autofocus mode, once again making the extra money for a dSLR a waste). I'm going to second Stuey's recommendation for a Canon SX10. A friend has one, and it's an incredibly capable camera. The 560mm effective focal length gives you ridiculous zoom capability, which would cost you $2000 to add to an SLR, the macro mode could double as a microscope, and the videos it captures are better than what I've seen from some dedicated video cameras.
Level of experience = Close to 0 I've had one camera in my life and though it only cost me half of what I'm planning on paying for the next, the quality really sucked. I took a look at the SX10 and it looks nice. Much less complex, and cheaper I just wanted to make sure I have all the features, so when reading some guide, it won't tell me to do something my camera isn't able to. Thanks for the answers
with the new Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ38 just out you might be able to find one of last years Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28 at a cheaper price, doesn't have quite the zoom range as the SX10 but honestly doubt you would miss it, has an advantage of also allowing you to shoot in RAW which the sx10 lacks
I'm also looking at the same camera, but for me it is that or the Luminx FZ38. I'm however unsure which to get, as both have roughly the same initial price tag. I've played with a Nikon D40, and the quality from that I felt was brilliant, hence why I fancy a DSLR. I mainly want a camera for taking fancy photos of scenery, but also for upclose, detailed pictures of insects and plants. I'd want one that would do the best job at getting to grips with the details of photography, but yet have a great picture quality. Most of my pictures will be editted on a computer, and I'd want the ability to do good looking HDR photos. My photography skills are basic, but like I have said, I've played with a Nikon DSLR and thought it was great (played with the manual settings on it). So which do you think is best suited to me? Alex
Sounds to me like you're ready for a DSLR. You only need to ask yourself whether you'll want to be shelling out on glass for the Nikon. If you're not ready to face the costs of glass then don't go DSLR There are many P&S cameras that give you lot's of opportunity so if you're going to buy the cheapest of the cheapest lenses for a DSLR you might as well get a really good P&S instead. If you on the other had want to be able to take your photography further (technically) and you also really like the way the Nikon fits your hands then I'd recommend you get it
Well my budget sadly isn't much more than £300, however I saw the sony a200 on amazon for £300, so I'll pop into jessops to see if they have one I can play with, then I may get that if I like it. Sadly a new Nikon costs too much. I will then eventually get some new lenses to go with it. Alex
