I'm ready to take the plunge and get a digital SLR camera. However, I'm not too sure which one to get, but I have narrowed down my choices down to the following:

1. Canon Digital Rebel XT (not the newer XTi)
2. Nikon D50 (old model)
3. Nikon D40 (newer model)

I'm partial to Canon's, but the Nikon's look nice as well. The only negative is that the D40 must use a lens that has an AF motor built into it as the camera doesn't have that internal AF motor, which means the lens could potentially cost more should I change it.

As far as pricing, the D50 would be the cheapest and the Rebel XT would be the most.

Anyone have experience with these cameras and can offer advice?

If the XT is the 8mp model, that would be a good choice, also the best on paper. I've taken some good photos with one of those.

But, that said, I'm a Nikon person and shoot 35mm film all the time.

It might be wise to go and have a play with each camera, and see what feels best to you. I sometimes place the 'feel' of a camera before image quality, because that doesn't matter without good composition.

Canon wins out in image quality all the time, but only slightly.

I have a 20D.

As for lens with AF motors in them, I pretty much thought that was the case with the XT and Canon too. All canon lenses I own have built in AF motors.

Out of curiousity, why not the XTi? It isn't that much more expensive and you get some more useful features.

Canon vs. Nikon is much like Accord vs. Camry. Both brands have their loyalists and there's little hope of finding an agreeable compromise. Personally, I prefer Nikon and I've used their SLRs for 15 years or so. So when it came time to pony up for a digital, the choice was easy. I just bought a D80 last week and all of my lenses fit albeit with digital-adjusted focal lengths.

If you haven't established any brand loyalty, it's definitely worth trying both brands side-by-side. I would also suggest finding a good camera shop and peppering the staff with questions. The big box stores are fine, but their staff's depth of knowledge can be a bit shallow at times.

I haven't used all of them, only the Rebel XT. However, I do like the way the Nikon's feel in my hand compared to the Canon. I also like the larger screen on the D40. I have seen and played with them in the stores, but still, I'm not quite so sure. I have had both Nikon and Canon point and shoot cameras. The Canon PowerShot I had died. But the old Nikon CoolPix is still kickin' albeit the batter life now is next to nothing.

I've looked at all 3 you've mentioned. The lab has the D50. Honestly I decided against all of them in the end for the following reasons.

XT - Cheap plasticky feeling, seems flimsy, worried it would break. That said it does take good pics, however the in camera processing is a bit soft, battery life so so. Screen is subpar, good autofocus, good light metering (has a bit of trouble with indoor lighting, but then most of them do), excellent viewfinder. Lastly, the kit lens is just a poor attempt from Canon and I would have expected better. NO DUST REDUCTION!

D50 and D40 there's not much difference between the two, the noise reduction is a bit better balanced in the D40, and like you said it does lack an autofocus motor in the body. Viewfinder is good but not as good as the XT. Good quality pics. Did not like the screen (resolution could be better), or the menus. NO DUST REDUCTION!

The problem with most of these SLRs are they are built around the body of old 35mm film cameras and not built from the ground up. You'll always have to compromise on something or the other.

I chose the Olympus E-500 2 lens kit. I just posted my first car pics from it in the Gallery (DA-clean your accord day) if you want to check the pic quality. The quality is on par with the XT and Nikons as long as you're not going into the higher ISOs (which was my compromise), superb screen, good battery life, and the kit lenses are a cut higher than any other kit lens on the market, no distortions...etc. The main reason I went with the E-500 was the ultrasonic dust reduction system, it's been reviewed and is the best working dust reduction system out there, unlike the 3 you mentioned who just ignore that ugly issue. Plus it was excellent value at 680 including tax, that's with 14-45mm and 40-150mm lenses (2X crop factor, so it's 28-300mm range). It's a four thirds system by the way with a full frame transfer CCD, that reduces electronic noise with looooong exposures, and it's noise reduction is well balanced. Oh and it's metering system is just spot on every time I've used it inside and out. One last thing is that the lenses communicate much more info to the camera than other brands and contain their own processors (firmware updatable while connected to your computer, yes the lenses not just the camera body) which is why I think you don't get any distortions from the lenses since the camera has in camera correction.

Hope that helped.

Happy hunting

Out of those three, I would go with the Rebel, it has a decent lens kit (ish) and has a very nice feel in your hand, its a lot more compact than any of the Nikons

I've looked at all 3 you've mentioned. The lab has the D50. Honestly I decided against all of them in the end for the following reasons.

XT - Cheap plasticky feeling, seems flimsy, worried it would break. That said it does take good pics, however the in camera processing is a bit soft, battery life so so. Screen is subpar, good autofocus, good light metering (has a bit of trouble with indoor lighting, but then most of them do), excellent viewfinder. Lastly, the kit lens is just a poor attempt from Canon and I would have expected better. NO DUST REDUCTION!

D50 and D40 there's not much difference between the two, the noise reduction is a bit better balanced in the D40, and like you said it does lack an autofocus motor in the body. Viewfinder is good but not as good as the XT. Good quality pics. Did not like the screen (resolution could be better), or the menus. NO DUST REDUCTION!

The problem with most of these SLRs are they are built around the body of old 35mm film cameras and not built from the ground up. You'll always have to compromise on something or the other.

I chose the Olympus E-500 2 lens kit. I just posted my first car pics from it in the Gallery (DA-clean your accord day) if you want to check the pic quality. The quality is on par with the XT and Nikons as long as you're not going into the higher ISOs (which was my compromise), superb screen, good battery life, and the kit lenses are a cut higher than any other kit lens on the market, no distortions...etc. The main reason I went with the E-500 was the ultrasonic dust reduction system, it's been reviewed and is the best working dust reduction system out there, unlike the 3 you mentioned who just ignore that ugly issue. Plus it was excellent value at 680 including tax, that's with 14-45mm and 40-150mm lenses (2X crop factor, so it's 28-300mm range). It's a four thirds system by the way with a full frame transfer CCD, that reduces electronic noise with looooong exposures, and it's noise reduction is well balanced. Oh and it's metering system is just spot on every time I've used it inside and out. One last thing is that the lenses communicate much more info to the camera than other brands and contain their own processors (firmware updatable while connected to your computer, yes the lenses not just the camera body) which is why I think you don't get any distortions from the lenses since the camera has in camera correction.

Hope that helped.

Happy hunting

Peniole,

What positive is the dust reduction system? Excuse me if this is rather a dumb or vague question, but I'm still new to this. Is this a benefit? And if it is, why are the other companies not implementing this into their cameras?

Since you can change lenses on a d-SLR, eventually dust will settle on the sensor since it is exposed to the air. These will show up as translucent blotches in your picture.

You can clean it yourself or send it back to the factory ($$$).

I clean mine myself. I use a rocket air blower which works for most dust. For welded on dust I have a sensor swab and methanol.

Peniole is making dust out to be a bigger deal than it is. It really is not that big of a deal, at least not for me, and certainly not for all of the professionals who use Canon cameras without dust elimination built in.

For the dust, just get a rocket air blower and you can blow out the dust yourself, change your lenses quickly indoors and keep your camera bag clean. If you see dust that really bothers you, clone it out.

The Rebel XTi and some Olympus dSLRs have a dust reduction feature where it uses ultrasonic vibrations to shake off the dust. Additionally the Rebel XTi's software automatically clones out dust from pictures. You can do that in photoshop if it's really a problem.

One more thing - if you look at the side of any sporting event, what brand do you see the pros using? Hint - white lenses.

Out of those three, I would go with the Rebel, it has a decent lens kit (ish) and has a very nice feel in your hand, its a lot more compact than any of the Nikons

I bought my 20D with the kit lens, which is okay.

However, now I have L lenses which are a world of difference.

Sorry to disagree but it is a big deal, the whole reson you buy a DSLR beside the larger and more accurate sensor is the ability to change lenses. Changing lenses at home and worring about dust blotches isn't something I'd compromise on, which means you have to be worried about changing lenses in the field. Read any photography enthusiast/professional review and they all bitch and moan about how companies are ignoring a very important feature. I'd rather not touch the sensor if I don't have to (ruin it and you might as well throw away the whole camera).

Peniole,

What positive is the dust reduction system? Excuse me if this is rather a dumb or vague question, but I'm still new to this. Is this a benefit? And if it is, why are the other companies not implementing this into their cameras?

Like EXLNAVI said, it shakes the sensor at high frequency to get rid of dust on the sensor, with a small sticky strip at the bottom to trap it. Most companies are ignoring the problem, Pentax recently introduced the K10D wth dust reduction, not a bad attempt at the problem, and they included an in body shake reduction in the mechanism.

Bottom line, Canons are overpriced IMO since they're riding on their previous rep. I would have got the K10D (if it wasn't out of my price range) it has far superior optics/sensor than any of the CMOS cannons EXCEPT the ones with the full 35mm size sensor (which cost around 3K) which is what those sport photgraphers use with the white lenses (not the XT and such).

www.dpreview.com
www.dcresource.com
www.imaging-resource.com

check them out plenty of professional full reviews.

I think Pentax is worth a look.

BTW if you go to Flickr, you can look up pictures by the camera that took them. Pretty interesting to see what shots were made with what camera.

Sorry to disagree but it is a big deal, the whole reson you buy a DSLR beside the larger and more accurate sensor is the ability to change lenses. Changing lenses at home and worring about dust blotches isn't something I'd compromise on, which means you have to be worried about changing lenses in the field. Read any photography enthusiast/professional review and they all bitch and moan about how companies are ignoring a very important feature. I'd rather not touch the sensor if I don't have to (ruin it and you might as well throw away the whole camera).


It may be a big deal for you, but it certainly isn't for me and definitely not for most dSLR users who are using Canon or Nikon and professionals who are using Canon almost exclusively.

I clean out my camera for dust roughly every 6 months, and I am quite a heavy user (I do studio portrait photography for hire) and I do change lenses quite often.

A bit of care and attention when changing lenses plus a hand blower will get rid of nearly all the dust problems.

Certainly, this big deal of a dust problem you make it out to be hasn't prevented most professionals from using Canon and Nikon which don't have dust elimination technology (except for the 400D Rebel XTi).

As for Olympus' and Canon's system (for the XTi) where they shake off the dust, the dust is still in the chamber. It will just re-settle on the sensor eventually.

If dust is really a problem it is better to blow it out rather than letting it settle in camera.

(I do studio portrait photography for hire)
If dust is really a problem it is better to blow it out rather than letting it settle in camera.

Not a big deal fr you doing indoor photography. Nature photgraphy not so clean.

Settle on the sticky adhesive strip (that is replacable) not floating in the chamber.

I agree with mwmcginn the Pentax is definitely worth a look. Might be the next K10 legend :thmsup:

Bottom line, Canons are overpriced IMO since they're riding on their previous rep. I would have got the K10D (if it wasn't out of my price range) it has far superior optics/sensor than any of the CMOS cannons EXCEPT the ones with the full 35mm size sensor (which cost around 3K) which is what those sport photgraphers use with the white lenses (not the XT and such).

www.dpreview.com
www.dcresource.com
www.imaging-resource.com

check them out plenty of professional full reviews.

Optics have nothing to do with it as those are determined by what lenses you stick on the camera.

The K10D is certainly a nice camera, but it ranks less than the 30D in dpreview's reviews.

Sport photographers also don't exclusively use full frame cameras. There are plenty that use Canon 20D's and 30D's because they are the only ones besides the 1ds mark IIn ($10,000) with fast continuous shooting.

Even the full frame 5D is only capable of 3fps continuous. The 20D and 30D can do 5fps.

Not a big deal fr you doing indoor photography. Nature photgraphy not so clean.


I also do outdoor photography.

See any dust in this picture? Neither do I.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/147/335920851_8afac59cb0.jpg

This is my dad:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/148/334654016_7dd4e6e1ea.jpg

I should have filled his face but I didn't have time to put the flash on.

Here's one more sample shot:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/56/142824040_dee5066377_o.jpg

Here's a few shots from mine if you're considering

...

and last... (just saw EXLNavi beat me to it, nice pics btw :thmsup: )

Optics have nothing to do with it as those are determined by what lenses you stick on the camera.


I meant the kit lens optics, don't patronise me EXLNavi please, you're paying for them aren't you? (unless you get the body only option and buy your lenses separately, which is considerably more expensive)

I'm ready to take the plunge and get a digital SLR camera. However, I'm not too sure which one to get, but I have narrowed down my choices down to the following:

1. Canon Digital Rebel XT (not the newer XTi)
2. Nikon D50 (old model)
3. Nikon D40 (newer model)

I'm partial to Canon's, but the Nikon's look nice as well. The only negative is that the D40 must use a lens that has an AF motor built into it as the camera doesn't have that internal AF motor, which means the lens could potentially cost more should I change it.

As far as pricing, the D50 would be the cheapest and the Rebel XT would be the most.

Anyone have experience with these cameras and can offer advice?
Hello-
I just bought the D50...so far, I'm very impressed with it.

For me, the choice made sense.
I was familiar with the Nikon system and I own two Nikkor "D" series lenses, so I wanted to make sure they could work on my DSLR.
My choices were the D50 or the newer D80... I saved a little money, "sacrificed" some megapixels...and went with the 50. :)
Plus, I found the D50 to be a little easier to operate in my hands(which are big)than the D40....I believe the Canon XT series are about the same size as the D40, IIRC.
If you're starting from "scratch"...as others have said, go and try a few models of different brands see which one works for YOU. Any good camera shop will be more than happy to explain the differneces between them!

Both Nikon and Canon offer quality optics...It is a lot like Ford VS Chevy.
I don't think you can go wrong with either.

FWIW- if you buy the Nikon D40, I believe the AF-S lenses will work on, say, the D80, if you decide you want to trade up in a year or so...

I meant the kit lens optics, don't patronise me EXLNavi please, you're paying for them aren't you? (unless you get the body only option and buy your lenses separately, which is considerably more expensive)

Why not get the body only. That's how the pros do it.

Buying a kit lens for me would be a waste of money, since I wouldn't use it.

The kit lens is cheap, an $80 item. Frankly it is a gimmick meant for novice buyers who can't imagine buying a body and lens separately. For them, a camera comes with a lens. That's not how it has to be at all.

You mentioned that the #1 reason to buy a dSLR was to change lenses, now here you say that the Canon is worse because of the kit lens. Why are you contradicting yourself?

There is plenty of good glass for Canon, some of the best in the industry in fact. You don't have to limit yourself to the kit lens.

It's also extremely naive to judge a camera by the kit lens.

I'm not contradicting myself because not everyone is willing to spend an arm and a leg, unless of course it's part of your livelihood and you're making money off of it. So why not buy a well rounded product with a well made (not a plasticky play toy as the canon 18-55 AF-S ) kit lens to begin with, then as you need more versatility add more glass to your collection.

Not all kit lenses are cheap and useless, go see some of the competitors and you'll see they're producing much better reviewed kit lenses.

And where did you get the idea I'm judging the camera by the kit lens alone? I think it's "extremely naive" of you to think that. The main reasons I dislike the XT and XTi are how cheap, flimsy, and plasticky the body feels. I made that clear in my very first post. Add to that softer than usual in camera processing (that's a metter of taste), unbalanced noise reduction, finicky lightmetering, and a high price. Otherwise it has a good CMOS sensor, but it just doesn't justify it's price and shortcomings.

Yes it's true canon has some of the best lenses around, that cost an arm and a leg. So does Nikon. So does Pentax. And so do Olympus. The difference is that a price conscious lens doesn't neccessarily have to be crap, something Canon doesn't seem to be able to do, unlike the other three competitors.

Hmm... This seems to be a heated topic...

I would like to say that I don't use SLR cameras for the lens interchangability.

For my Olympus SLR, I have one 50mm f1.8. My Nikon SLR has the kit 28-80. The 350D's kit lens served me well also.

The bodies of the bigger cameras are what I like - the bigger sensor, thus lower noise level, better low light performance, and overall quality. I prefer the battery life of dSLR's to the point-and-shoot models. I like the reliability of the viewfinder on an SLR (96ish% compared with as low as 75% coverage). Even the kit lens has a good deal of focal depth, which the point/shoot cameras don't. The tangibility of RAW files is definitely a bonus (I note that Canon are taking this off their cheaper models to make people buy SLR's).


(btw that photo competition up there is not the most spectacular thing I have seen...)

It was by no means a competition, I hadn't seen the previously posted pics, and I posted some of the first few pics I've taken to show some of what the E-500 pics look like. Pic1. detail sharpness, pic2. Lens bokeh, pic3. noise levels/noise reduction.

It was by no means a competition, I hadn't seen the previously posted pics, and I posted some of the first few pics I've taken to show some of what the E-500 pics look like. Pic1. detail sharpness, pic2. Lens bokeh, pic3. noise levels/noise reduction.


Does that bird have some chromatic abberations?

(I'm having a good look at the Olympus cameras lately......)

Does that bird have some chromatic abberations?

(I'm having a good look at the Olympus cameras lately......)

Not that I could see in the full size pic, I can send a full size one to you if you want. Sorry deleted that one before I saw your post. BRB need to change laptops to post that bird again.

A warning on the Olympus (it's a smaller four thirds sensor), so if you use a lot of high ISO shots I'd recommend another brand.

Ok here's the bird again... if you mean the tail strand on the left side of the bird, what appears on the top side is actually the beginning of more finer feathers curving downwards. There might be a pixel width of some CA top of the head.

Not that I could see in the full size pic, I can send a full size one to you if you want. Sorry deleted that one before I saw your post. BRB need to change laptops to post that bird again.

A warning on the Olympus (it's a smaller four thirds sensor), so if you use a lot of high ISO shots I'd recommend another brand.

Ok here's the bird again... if you mean the tail strand on the left side of the bird, what appears on the top side is actually the beginning of more finer feathers curving downwards. There might be a pixel width of some CA top of the head.

Ahh, good.

:)

I know where you're at. I agonized for the longest time on my dSLR purchase. They're so dang expensive. Reviews galore, and testing them in store (several times), sensor quality, noise levels, power consumption, button accessibility, menus...etc. the list is endless not to mention lens reviews from CA to distortion. At one point you realize you can't have it all, sit down and really think what it'll be used for, and compromise on the least feature important to you, and in the end it's more the person behind the camera than the camera itself that matters most ;)

For the longest time I wanted the K10D (out of my range) and the K100D seemed to be my final choice, that is till I found out about the E-500 and it really won me over (for what I use it for anyway). Happy hunting :thmsup:

Hmm... This seems to be a heated topic...

I would like to say that I don't use SLR cameras for the lens interchangability.

For my Olympus SLR, I have one 50mm f1.8. My Nikon SLR has the kit 28-80. The 350D's kit lens served me well also.

The bodies of the bigger cameras are what I like - the bigger sensor, thus lower noise level, better low light performance, and overall quality. I prefer the battery life of dSLR's to the point-and-shoot models. I like the reliability of the viewfinder on an SLR (96ish% compared with as low as 75% coverage). Even the kit lens has a good deal of focal depth, which the point/shoot cameras don't. The tangibility of RAW files is definitely a bonus (I note that Canon are taking this off their cheaper models to make people buy SLR's).

I like SLR's for pretty much the same reason.

However, since I do studio photography, I also like that SLR's have:

- PC sync port (not Personal Computer, but rather the trigger for studio strobes)

- Ability to mount external flash

- Ability to use primes versus zooms

I also shoot exclusively in RAW, which is why in-camera processing simply doesn't matter for me. The pictures get processed in Photoshop using the camera raw plugin.


(btw that photo competition up there is not the most spectacular thing I have seen...)

Wasn't a competition, it was just a few photos I grabbed quickly from my flickr to show no dust. :)

I'm not contradicting myself because not everyone is willing to spend an arm and a leg, unless of course it's part of your livelihood and you're making money off of it. So why not buy a well rounded product with a well made (not a plasticky play toy as the canon 18-55 AF-S ) kit lens to begin with, then as you need more versatility add more glass to your collection.

I agree, which is why I say to buy the body and lenses separately.

You also do not have to stick to Canon lenses. I personally have only canon L series lenses but there are many good lenses made by Sigma, Tamron et al.

Not all kit lenses are cheap and useless, go see some of the competitors and you'll see they're producing much better reviewed kit lenses.

I agree. But in this case, I would say that the kit lens would be the least of anyone's concerns when buying any SLR. In fact, I would not buy a new SLR with a kit lens, because I have enough good lenses already.

And where did you get the idea I'm judging the camera by the kit lens alone? I think it's "extremely naive" of you to think that.

Because you're telling people that Canon has worse optics because of the kit lens, which is just one out of the many lenses in the Canon lineup.

The main reasons I dislike the XT and XTi are how cheap, flimsy, and plasticky the body feels. I made that clear in my very first post.

I dislike that too, however the camera still works very good. My g/f has one and she has dropped it a few times and apart from a few nicks and scratches it works fine. The Rebel XT is still rock solid.

However, that is not true for other cameras such as the 20D and 30D which are not that much more expensive. They are much more substantial and they have a more professional feel to them. If I were the OP I would look at those as well.

Add to that softer than usual in camera processing (that's a metter of taste), unbalanced noise reduction, finicky lightmetering, and a high price.

Your dull, unsaturated, soft and mis-metered sample shots are certainly not doing justice to those claims.

In camera processing is really the last thing I'd consider, because I shoot all RAW, and I encourage anyone using a dSLR for serious photography to shoot in RAW and process in the computer. The results are simply better, and you can recover horrible shots quite easily.

However, I've found little if anything wrong with Canon's in-camera processing, which thanks in part to their DIGIC chip is one of the best among dSLR's, if not the best. In magazine reviews Canon nearly always comes out on top and that is no accident.

Yes it's true canon has some of the best lenses around, that cost an arm and a leg. So does Nikon. So does Pentax. And so do Olympus. The difference is that a price conscious lens doesn't neccessarily have to be crap, something Canon doesn't seem to be able to do, unlike the other three competitors.

There are many, many choices in lenses. Great lenses are expensive, I agree, but mid range lenses such as the 28-135 IS take great pictures, and even rival more expensive lenses such as L series.

Look at a friend of mine's blog at http://350xt.blogspot.com and you'll see tons of his shots he's taken with the Canon Rebel XT and 28-135 IS. He has a 30D now, but most of the shots he's posted on his blog are absolutely stunning.

By the way, most of his earlier shots (in 2006) were taken with that horrible in-camera processing you hate so much.

Anyway, equipment is only half of the story. Frankly, no matter what you have, the eye of the photographer is the most important thing.

Your dull, unsaturated, soft and mis-metered sample shots are certainly not doing justice to those claims.
Wow another insult, I'm devastated :boohoo: professional photographic career over, can't find will to pickup camera, must find other hobby, losing the will to live, medical research so boring :lmao:

:rolleyes:yours are masterpieces in sharpness, saturation, exposure, and focus, in that order, very professional:rolleyes: lighten up, so far you've doled out two direct insults, and insist on taking bits and pieces out of context.

If you had read before each one of those were taken for a particular reason and none are a well rounded photo. That's the first thing I try to do with a new camera, try to isolate the elements and see where my and the cameras limits are. At least we agree on the photographers eye, lets leave it at that.

EDIT: oh checked your friends blog, very nice work.

- PC sync port (not Personal Computer, but rather the trigger for studio strobes)

- Ability to mount external flash

I also shoot exclusively in RAW, which is why in-camera processing simply doesn't matter for me. The pictures get processed in Photoshop using the camera raw plugin.

This describes my P&S PowerShot G6... with a $5 adaptor on the hotshoe...


It's really just all about image quality, in the end.

I prefer the SLR's because of the amount of control you have over point and shoot. I currently have a Nikon N75 35mm film camera. I just have the lens that it came with, but I figure that I really need to get back into photography before I pick up any more lenses. I'd love to pick up a D80, but that's not economically possible at the moment. Hopefully I'll be able to get one sometime this summer.

I still need to get the film developed, but once I do, I'll scan the pictures and post some. I'm wondering if most of the pictures will have turned out like I hope they have.

I still need to get the film developed, but once I do, I'll scan the pictures and post some. I'm wondering if most of the pictures will have turned out like I hope they have.

Most Frontier labs should be able to scan the negatives for you... I haven't had prints with development in ages. I will print 8x12's if the photos are for a project, or just for the wall, though.

:thmsup:

I have a Canon XSi and really like it. I have the 2 kit lenses a 18-55 and a 55-250 as well I bought a decent 28-135 from a buddy. Like someone says go to a good camera shop and play with them a bit and decide. If it doesnt feel comfy don't buy it. When I went to buy mine the person spent the time with me and let me compare ans well as answered my questions. Beware though once you get into this it costs money. It gets addicting.
G

I do a lot of photography in my job and work with pro photographers all the time. Any of the three suggested bodies would be great cameras. I wouldn't get anything other than a Nikon or a Canon (personally, Canon is my preference, but I have just as much respect for the Nikons as well). But beyond that, any of their cameras will make you very happy. Remember, you're not just buying a camera, you're investing in a system, and both Nikon and Canon have top-drawer systems.

If it helps in trying to choose between the two, Nikon has the better flash systems, but Canon performs better under natural light, especially shooting under low light. Nikon's cheaper lenses are a little sharper than Canon's cheaper lenses, and overall their focusing systems tend to be a little faster. Canon's highest end cameras are a lot more advanced than anything out there - they've got fullframe cameras that shoot at 21MP, you've got to go medium format to get higher resolution than that (though for most people, anything better than 5MP will give you nice results, you only need more if you're planning to make posters or crop a lot). Canon's also got the fastest burst rates, up to 10 fps at 10MP. Nikon's entry level cameras are cheaper than Canon's.

I just purchased the Canon XSi today and so far it seems great. For those of you not aware, Best Buy is now matching online pricing and I was able to get an additional $150 off of the "sale" price. All in all, I got $200 off of MSRP.