Cool, thanks for the info! I find myself always coming back to the Canon, so maybe it was meant to be

Thanks again.

 

The Sony 828 is really not in the same league as the Canon 10D/300D (aka 'Digital Rebel' and 'Kiss' in Japan). It is closer in match to the Canon Powershot Pro1 which is a fixed lens 8mp camera. There are pros and cons to both fixed and SLR lens tools (and please remember that the camera is only a tool, like a paint brush). Fixed lens cameras have the advantage of having the lens affixed to the camera. That may sound redundant but it's actually a big deal because SLRs don't have this seal, the lens and body can be separated. With film, this is a non-issue but with digital your sensor does not advance with every frame so any and all dust stays inside your camera and can eventually be visible in all your shots or even damage the camera. It's not a small issue either -- the Canon 1Ds has (I believe) 82 seals, primarily to keep dust out. So for this reason alone I generally recommend that non-serious photographers stick with fixed lens cameras because they offer a great deal of control and now come with pretty good glass.

You pretty much can't go wrong with the digital SLRs right now. I'd point you towards the Canon Digital Rebel (300D, etc) and Nikon D70. The Nikon is the better (and newer) camera but I prefer Canon's glass and camera interface. If you're asking then the 10D is almost certainly not worth the premium over the Rebel. The Rebel is the same camera with crippled software so you lose some fine control to exposure and white balance.

Sony 828: (review) (samples)

Canon Pro1: preview

Canon Digital Rebel: (review) (samples)

Nikon D70: (review) (samples)

 

Sure you just had to go and make me start thinking again. I really don't know which way to go. I am in no way a professional photographer, but I would like to learn how to take better pictures. So you might say I am looking for something to grow into. Do you think the Canon would be a good choice to start from?

 

Absolutely. The 300D will give you breathtaking image quality -- that CMOS sensor is just about as good as it gets at 6mp (the Nikon is slightly better though). What you give up for paying $500 less is a little bit of durability in the body and some fine controls. You have to weigh whether you need those extras. For me, the answer is 'yes' but I don't know too many people serious enough to warrant the extra cost.

Here are the samples from Canon with no adjustment:
http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eosdigital/eos...l_sample-e.html

 

I dont think you need an SLR if your not really into serious photagraphy. You would never use it to its full potential. I have a 5MP Sony DSC-V1 and I still dont use it to its full capacity.

 

^^^ I agree.

If I wasn't clear I was trying to say to seriously consider the Canon Powershot Pro1 and Sony 828. I personally lean way towards the Canon out of those two, but YMMV.

 

I'd go for the DSLR, lots of good ones out there right now and the prices are dropping. The key however, is learning the basics of photography. This holds true for film or digital.

I'm currently shooting with the Nikon D100, (the whole kit is for sale BTW!). My neighbor is a pro that shoots Canon and has offered to let me use her very expenisve glass. So, I'm looking at the 1D I think.

 

I've got an f828.. I think it takes pretty decent pictures.
I bought it because I'd rather not spend hundreds of dollars on lenses. This camera will do what I want it to do for now.



and here are some pics of a couple friends from a recent meet.



my girl