[KauvSTi]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...XS_a_k_a_.html

[Craig@SupremePower]

O to the T!!

[KauvSTi]

Is that a yes?

[remmib]

If you're looking for a cheap entry level DSLR, than it's good.

[Mr Tonka]

it' not what you would call feature rich, but the sensor and images it can produce are great in quality.

[john0213]

depends on how involve you want to be in photography.

the 1000D is one of the very good body to start with. In fact, Mega Pixel doesn't do a think in DSLR after 8 mega pixel. in actual print size photo, our human eye cannot notice the fine difference between 8 to 15 megapixel unless the print size is as big as a poster.

for one thing to be very careful when selecting body, the ergonomic of the body design in relation to your hand is extremely important. For instance, the design different between the 40d and 1000d is very apparent.

My suggestion is to get to a nearby electronic store and try the 50d and T1i, the two bodies will provide you the exact difference between the 1000d to 40d. My take that you should try it is due to the money factor, trying the actual body will give you a pretty good sense for you if the difference between the bodies will justify the extra money you pay.

if you really like the 40d, then get a used one.

[Juanto]

I've used the Rebel XS and if you go to DPreview then you'll hear the same thing but the way they changed the button layout is bad. They moved the iso button by the sutter and it's just not in my preference. I would go with a higher line, as previously mentioned a 40D would be good and a 30D would work but do remember that the camera does not matter as much as the glass so scope out what camera works for your hands and if you like how the menu works and so on and then get some higher quality glass.

[john0213]

yes, also keep in mind that the higher the mega pixel you get, the more noise you will get at the same ISO level. Therefore, 40d has better noise control over 50d. Furthermore, 20d-30d both out perform 40d and 50d in ISO quality by A LOT.

with my 40d, any picture pass 800 start becoming unacceptable. however, people have commented that their 20d or 30d can easily get upward of 1600 and still see perfectly smooth picture.

Take it the fact that mega pixel is not always a good thing.

However, the mega pixel count and calculation is different between a crop and a full frame format. Hence, in this case, a 40d CANNOT outperform a 5d in ISO because a full frame is using a proper 35mm sensor.

[Bimmer Nerd]

Originally Posted by john0213

yes, also keep in mind that the higher the mega pixel you get, the more noise you will get at the same ISO level. Therefore, 40d has better noise control over 50d. Furthermore, 20d-30d both out perform 40d and 50d in ISO quality by A LOT.

with my 40d, any picture pass 800 start becoming unacceptable. however, people have commented that their 20d or 30d can easily get upward of 1600 and still see perfectly smooth picture.

Take it the fact that mega pixel is not always a good thing.

However, the mega pixel count and calculation is different between a crop and a full frame format. Hence, in this case, a 40d CANNOT outperform a 5d in ISO because a full frame is using a proper 35mm sensor.

you have a lot of knowledge about camera's huh ?? i am definitively sending you a PM once i get the money saved up

[john0213]

In the current digital age, obtaining valuable information through internet is so easy. Unlike many years ago, photography, without internet, can be an art that is extremely hard to master.

If you spend the time into researching all the little info, then photography can not only be a very fun hobby, but can also produce some very satisfying result. I'm an info junkie especially when i am very involved into a hobby, and it is definitely extremely beneficial to learn all the little detail as these knowledge will help to build a solid ground when developing your photography skill.

if there is anything you need help, you are welcome to pm me any time!

[Andy M]

OP, I think Juanto's advice really rings true. Remember though, the lens is more important than the body. The body just processes the light that enters through the lens and captures the pixels that enter through the lens. A really good body with a crappy lens will still take crappy photos. With most DSLR's now, anything over 6 MP is pretty good and will take amazing photos with the right lighting and lenses.

e.g. I shoot with the D70 which I've had for a long time. I have a single lens that's 3 times the price of the body but I find the D70 sufficient because of the lens, not the body.

More importantly though, it's how easy to use to handle for the lens and the body combined. I went the Nikon route because it just felt better for me. And I can tell you now, sometimes, the best shots you'll get are when you least suspect it.

I won a photo contest once shooting with my cheapest lens. The photo was taken in the early morning after a rainstorm in Central America while I was waiting for someone outside. Pure luck and all I had was a $300 lens and the D70.

My advice to you is to go to the store and try it out. See how you like the controls, the focus rings, the grip, the weight, etc. Also, get the body by itself if you can and then save up for good quality lenses. For me, I prefer fast lenses with vibration reduction because I can shoot in dim lighting without flash. (this is my favorite one: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm) I make it a rule not to shoot anything with an ISO higher than 400. I find that ISO's greater than 400 start to show noise if it's a solid black background or another solid color.

Some useful links to look at before buying:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/
http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/