I have the original EOS rebel Digital. Excellent photo quality and control, but by going SLR you loose the ability to shoot video with it.

The ability to use the older lenses makes it a no brainer if you want SLR. Nikon and Canon are close enough in quality and features that its worth going Canon to keep that telephoto lens.

I do find that I carry my wifes smaller camera more then I carry the SLR however.

SLR - go canon digital rebel. is it worth it over the smaller digitals, that is the real question and I'm afraid I can't help there.

Get a new Cannon. I have ni idea if the old accessories will be compatible, or not. If not, sell them on ebay. I have used these guys for years and never had a problem with them.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

I am still giggling at "size doesn't matter". ROFL.

Rachel, don't get an SLR. It is a major price jump, and decent lenses are expensive. I use a Nikon D-70, because I shoot film in two F-100 bodies and have lots of really nice Nikon lenses. Otherwise, I would buy Cannon.

You can definitely use all your old lenses with one of the new Canons. If you get one of their consumer model DSLRs, like the new D40 (or 40D, I forget), then there's going to be a "crop factor" with the lenses. Your basic 50mm lens will work like about an 80mm telephoto lens. This is great if you do mostly telephoto shots, a pain if you like to shooter wider angle stuff, like in your house of your dogs. Other accessories, including flashes, probably won't work, or won't work well.

Best source for camera reviews, bar none, on the web is DPReview.com. I'm in a rush now, but I'll write more later. If price is not much of an object, I strongly recommend the Canon 5D. If price isn't any kind of object at all, get one of the 1D series.

"Also, size doesn't really matter to me,"

Yeah, Sure, that's what they all say! ;-P

Will a DSLR take better pics? Not necessarily. What it will do is give you more control over exposure, bracketing, and so on. If you're not going to play with the creative ability of it, it's pointless, get one that will fit in your shirt pocket and you'll be happy. And it will be easier to run with when Sunny finally revolts against the silly outfits.

I did purchase a Pentax DSLR for the same reasons you're considering the Canon - a large collection of filters and legacy lenses. The prices have fallen greatly, I paid just over $500 for mine with the standard lens plus a 75-200 zoom.

Don't worry too much about megapixel ratings. Unless you're planning on making huge prints after severe cropping, anything over 6MP is pretty much overkill.

If you decide on a Canon DSLR, the Rebel XT's come in just under your price point. For some reason the black version is priced higher than the silver most places. I guess it's the "consumer vs. Pro look".

The XTi is a bit higher.

If buying online, check beachcamera.com. I've had great service from them, including almost instant shipping.(hopefully my boss doesn't see this... I work for a major electronics retailer and I can't get as good a deal with my employee discount. Part of my job is training associates on technologies, including photography.)

Rachel,

Just get a rebel XT. It is compatible with everything you have, and the photos are phenomenal.

I actually shoot models and crap like that with mine and sell them. All of the photos here are taken with my Rebel XT: http://www.istockphoto.com/fuzzmartin

Oh, and I bought all of my stuff off of Amazon and you can save a ton compared to some of the other sites on the market.

You can get an EOS 30D body for under $500 and use your old lenses. You get a good solid 8 megapixel digital SLR camera for that price.

There are better ones, but price seems to be the big issue. The new 40D is coming out pretty soon, but you're going to spend three times as much.

Hit the Canon USA website for some comparisons:

http://www.usa.canon.com/

The absolute best camera you can get is:

The one you will carry with you and have ready when you want to take a picture. Megapixels, SLR, Point & Shoot, color schemes, yadda yadda yadda, none of it is important if your camera is sitting at home in a bag.

I used to do a lot of studio photography. I've had just about every camera known to man or beast. Now, I carry a 5 megapixel Fuji something-or-another. It's little, lightweight, takes abuse and makes great pictures. I also have an old 2 megapixel Canon. It also takes great pictures. Megapixels don't matter.

My advice: get something small, lightweight, with lots of "optical zoom", and an actual viewfinder. (Trying to find your photo by looking at the back of the camera on a bright sunny day is a real pain, so a viewfinder really comes in handy.)

If you're really dead set on getting an SLR, get any one you want. They are all great and will take better pictures than most of us are capable of envisioning. You can't make a bad choice in digital SLRs.

Rachel,

I know approximately DICK about cameras, but I do have a friend who is all artsy and shit. I'm pretty sure he has a Nikon D40. Judging from his pictures, it takes some pretty damn good shots. Or maybe he's just got that Asian blood of taking good pictures.

Camera: http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25420
Pictures: http://flickr.com/photos/stephen_wong/

I'll have to send my hubby over. He's a photographer type person.

It's been touched on, but I think it needs to be expanded on a bit: Focal Length Conversion Factor.

The CCD (the light-sensitive surface) in a typical digital camera is smaller than a 35mm film frame. This effectively makes your lenses longer, since the digital camera is effectively "cropping down" the 35mm frame the older lens was originally designed for.

For example, the EOS 40D's conversion factor is 1.6. That means that a 50mm lens (a "normal" lens on a 35mm film camera) will behave like a 50mm * 1.6 = 80mm lens (mild telephoto) when you put it on your nifty new 40D.

So, your wide-angle lenses won't be so wide anymore, but your telephoto lenses will be "more telephoto".

Another thing: some lenses might not autofocus on the new cameras, but I don't remember if that's more of a Nikon issue or Canon issue.

Eric

We have the older version of this one. But ours is only 10x optical zoom (which is awesome itself) and 6.1 mp. I love it. I haven't read the manual yet to teach myself how to take night pictures and low-light pictures, but it takes awesome pictures for the lighting and settings I know how to work, great action shots, excellent closeups (now that I know how to do those), blah blah blah. I eventually want to upgrade either to the one I linked to (oh, and that one does full manual settings when you want to use those, plus video with sound) or this one, which is a smaller SLR, easier to carry around, with awesome features, 2 lenses, automatic dust remover, and presets for when I don't feel like being manual, and keep my old one around for video and such.

Have y'all noticed how OFTEN Rachel Lucas TELLS us to do stuff for HER?

Huh?

If it's not one thing, it's another.

[Which is pretty logical if you set your mind to it.]

******************

First she wants us to handle HER drainage problems.

Like THAT'S been on our minds all day.

"Gee, I wonder how Rachel is draining today."

"Me, too. I'm beside myself with worry."

"What do you mean, 'beside myself'? How is that possible? Sounds figurative to me."

"Hey, fuck off with the literary criticism."

"I was just askin."

We're supposed to drop what we're doing [In my case, I can't exactly drop it. I could let it GO for a short time, though.] and run out and hire consultants, contractors and architects to get her water running right.

I say, Solve your own drainage problems, Rachel Lucas.

Get a catheter and run it down your pants into your boots! Aisle 11B at Lucas Mart.

**********************

Then WE'RE supposed to come up with a catchy pseudonym for her perfect boy friend.

Do YOU have time for this chore?

Is anyone really THAT invested?

"Oh, I am, boy howdy. What shall he be called. Oh, what SHALL he be called?"

I don't care a fig--or even several figs and half a banana---WHAT she calls her perfect boyfriend.

Ned, Mel, Moishe, Clamydia, Jeroboam, Mr. Big...

WhatEVEEEER!

Okay, so Rupert.

You got Rupert.

Leave us uhLONE.

****************

Then she wants advice on haberdashery.

"Which shoes go with my new party dress?" she demands to know.

http://www.uglydress.com/itsmaxsizmic.html

http://www.uglydress.com/bacofmaxmicm.html

We all agreed that one of these was the best choice...

http://www.rakemag.com/today/yoivanhoe/archive/clown%20shoes%2012.jpg

http://www.rakemag.com/today/yoivanhoe/archive/clown%20shoes%2014.jpg

But is this sufficient imposition on our time and good nature? Nooooo...
************************

Now it's a dang camera!!

Hey, Racel Lucas, ever heard of going to a CAMERA STORE and asking someone who WORKS there?

Oh, no, that's too easy.

Ask US to schlep around town making inquiries.

And what's the big reward for all our efforts?

We'll see Sunny in lingerie.

Hoopdeedoo!

Hey, if I want to see a dog in lingerie, I'll ask my wife.

Ouch.

Ow.

Hey, that hurt, dang it.

Put down that scissors.

Shit!

Is it bad when you can see your kidneys?

The first question is whether you want a small, simple camera, or you want the ability to swap lenses. If you want to be able to swap lenses, and don't mind the bulk and weight, get the SLR. The next question is whether you want to use your existing accessories. If so, get the Canon. If not, more research is needed. I have owned Canons for a long time, and love the Rebel XT I bought so I could use my other lenses. I have both that and a compact (also Canon). The compact just doesn't do it for birding, hence the SLR. The compact is great because I have it with me more often. I agree with the earlier reference to dpreview.com - a great site.

I can send you photos if you wish, but it won't really help - you can get great photos easily enough, it's which kind you want that matters - distant birds, sports photos, landscapes, family shots, etc. How you want to use it determines which you should get.

Canon Digital Rebel.

I got an XTi - it's around $900, but since you've got lenses already (yes, they ARE compatible and interchangeable), you would only have to purchase a body, and that would probably run you around $600 or so.

I freakin' love mine. It functions pretty much like a film camera, but you can preview your photos. You use the viewfinder, flash, etc, the same way you would the regular EOS.

This is such a loaded question. With the information you've given there is no way anyone can accurately give you what you want.

Gregarious is probably the closest though. If you want something you're always going to carry with you Casio makes a great portable camera that's small enough to take everywhere you want. The best part about dslr's is the near lack of shutter lag. When you click the button the picture takes, none of the click wait a second and then picture. Considering all the pictures you're going to take of your dog (hopefully) you're going to want as little shutter lag as possible so a dslr is probably the right choice. In terms of dslrs there is basically Canon and Nikon for flexibility and a few others like sony (the alpha) and pentax. The Nikon d40 with a kit lens, which if fairly good, is probably the closest to your price range and is not at all a bad camera. The rebels aren't bad but they don't feel as solid as the Nikons. Also, IMO black is worth the price premium because they look much more professional. The reality is unless you plan on going full out Photo nazi, there isn't a big enough difference between the canon and the nikon to justify having to rebuy a lens.

All this photography talk is turning me on. This is exactly the kind of stuff I want to hear about, thank you all sooo much. Keep it coming!

So far I'm leaning towards getting the Canon DSLR several people have mentioned. Either that or the Nikon d40; I will have to do some price comparisons.

To answer more specifically the question of what I intend to do with the camera, my favorite thing is close-ups, portraits, etc. Of my dogs but also people.

One thing I hate about my current camera is that even when using the "close-up" feature, any picture I take of a person within about 5 feet has at least a little of the fish-eye thing going on. Like, their nose looks bigger than it really is and so on. Know what I mean? I want a camera that'll take close portraits and will FLATTEN out the face properly. I don't know if that's possible in my price range. ???? In the past, I used the telephoto lens for this purpose, but had to put my subject pretty far away to achieve it.

Keep talkin to me.

After a lot of research, I opted to ignore all the Nikon SLR stuff I have in the closet and got one of the early 8mp Canon's ... the Pro-1. I'm quite happy with it ... but ... truthfully, I use the compact off-brand (European - Traveller - from Aldi's) 20 to 30 tijmes as much. When I'm tooling down the road on the sickle, it's easy to reach into my pocket, haul out the compact camera, abd snap on the go ... the Pro-1 takes too much set up for anything but serious work.
My advice always is ... cameras - at least consumer cameras - are a personal choice and I'd recommend going into Circuit City, Best Buy or whatever you have for an electronics superstore nearby (as I recall, there's a Fry's over towards Ft Worth) and try them out. Since you can see the results immediately, wander in with a CF and an SC card, and take a bunch of pictures and see how you like the look and feel, and then spend time at home looking at the results.
As with your Fuji ... it's going to be with you for quite awhile ...

All this talk and nary a mention of the Kodak Fun Saver with Built-in Flash? It' reliable, durable and yellow!

Snobs.

I like my little Kodak Easyshare DX7440. It's got some interesting manual controls even if the lens isn't the greatest. I can take it with me anywhere and it always makes nice pictures. Decent optical zoom, too. Just be sure and get the computer dock to go with it, so you don't have to fumble with cards, cords, or battery chargers. Another benefit, I don't look like a Japanese tourist when I'm carrying it...

All this photography talk is turning me on.

Then how about this, gurlie:

f-stop
aperture
shutter speed
exposure
flash

Gawd, I can't believe how adolescent I am! Well, maybe I can.

The reason for the flattened dogface is the wide angle lens. If you use a longer lens and stand further back, all will be well.

A 50 mm lens (or that value in a zoom) translates to about the equivalent of an 80 mm lens when used on the Canon Digital Rebels, which should be perfect. That's a traditional portrait size. Longer than that would be great for canine pictures in the doggie park.

Of course, another "advantage" of Digital SLR is the ability to buy more lenses - longer, faster lenses, wider range zooms, IS for Image Stabilization, Canon L-series lenses for professional quality, ... It's only money!

Ok, any dslr will do the portrait stuff you want because the lenses are interchangeable you can pick up a 80mm lens and with the crop factor of 1.5 it turns into a pretty good focal length for portraits. http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm This guy is a pretentious twit but he has a pretty solid review of the d40 with pictures and he also shoots canon. Nikon and Canon people will always tell you what they shoot is better. It's a brand loyalty thing, you almost never find someone who shoots both. One plus for nikons is they have a community generated webpage www.nikonians.com that people ask and answer questions about all the time and the last time I checked Canon didn't have close to this in the amount of one place with tons of information. I personally would lean toward the d40 but I'm a nikon guy

My sister recently got a Nikon d40, you can see her pictures here: http://heylucy.typepad.com/sijbrich
My brother has a d50 and is really into playing with all the settings and has some pictures here: http://heylucy.typepad.com/dean

I hope to someday follow suit and upgrade to a dslr camera, but in the meantime my little Olympus C-50 has served me well for the last 4 years. It's small enough that I always have it in my purse, and you can play with the settings to some degree. Pictures here are mostly craft projects (http://www.flickr.com/photos/heylucyloo/), so don't make fun of me, but the pets set gives you an idea what it can do when it comes to taking pictures of your dogs: http://www.flickr.com/photos/heylucyloo/sets/72057594056435467/

With your existing equipment and photo-geekness, you won't be ill-served by a Canon DSLR.

(I intend to buy a Pentax, myself, but that's because, like Fargus, I already have some K-mount lenses... and the K100D has on-sensor image stabilisation and takes AAs, which is huge for me.)

On the other hand, if you want something more far more portable but still decent, and cheaper, I can heartily recommend one of the Canon Point-and-shoots.

My ancient (maybe three or four years old?) PowerShot A520 has a wide-to-tele optical zoom (roughly from 35 to 150mm equivalent), uses normal standard AA batteries, and takes thoroughly acceptable pictures with a lens that's wicked fast for a P+S (f2.8). And fits in my pocket.

Modern models do even better, with:

A bit more resolution; I wouldn't go to the top end of pixel count with those small sensors - you sacrifice quality/noise to pixel count, and 6MP is enough for good, large prints.

Faster lenses (At least one of them has an f2.6, which is plenty sufficient for people not doing available-light indoors or at dusk/dawn).

More cleverness in the circuits.

(As far as your portrait fisheye thing, I've never really noticed it with my A520. This is something you want to try in person at a store, probably. I'm sure the Canon DSLR kit lens is low-distortion enough to not be a problem; it might even be anamorphic.)

(And you want really turned-on camera geekery? I'm refinishing and pseudo-restoring a 75 year old Speed Graphic 4x5. How's that for hardcore?)

Hi, Rachel.

You should definitely try out the Rebel XT. It's one model old (the XTi is the new kid), so it can be had for as little as $400 body only.

Also look at the Canon 30D (not D30), as it's replacement (40D) will be available next month. You can probably find the 30D on clearance (or used from a pro) for decently cheap. A used 30D should still have plenty of life left in it.

To get a close up portrait with good facial features, you need a short telephoto. Anything between 70 and 105mm is popular for portrait work.

All Canon film SLR lenses work on the DSLRs, too. If you get anything from the Rebel or xxD series, you can also use Canon's EF-S lenses, which are smaller and lighter than their EF counterparts because they only have to cover the Rebel's APS-C sized CMOS.

For sample photos, go to www.flickr.com; each camera will have its own photo pool you can check out.

The part where you said you don't want a DSLR if it doesn't take substantially awesomer photos just registered.

That depends entirely on you. If you were the type who tended to stay on green box mode (or any of the "basic zone" modes marked with little icons), then you might look into the Canon S3 IS (or S5 IS - same camera, basically) which has one heck of a zoom lens and takes great pictures.

Also, the Canon G7 is a compact camera with very high quality images; it's the favorite of pros who don't want to carry their DSLR 24/7 but still don't want to miss any pictures while they're out and about. It doesn't have the video mode or as much of a zoom as the S3 or S5, but it's also a lot smaller.

I am a completely novice photographer, but I got great advice (and inspiration) from Rob at www.peeniewallie.com. He told me what to look for in a camera for a beginner, and his advice was helpful. Check out his site. He takes some amazing photos!

I have a Nikon D50 SLR that I absolutely love. I'm a relative newbie to the whole photography thing but I was a member of the high school photo club (albeit that was nearly 30 years ago) so I do know enough to be dangerous.

My kidlets each have some kind of Canon little shirt pocket dealio that takes video and all that stuff. That camera works very well to...I took it up to the EAA airshow in Oshkosh and got some video of the F22 Raptor blasting holes in the sky...quite the camera.

Generally, from the posts here, I'd say you can't go wrong with whatever choice you make. Since you have some lenses and things that you want to carry forward it would be good to consider that when you make your purchase but I'd have to agree with Gregarious in that the one that you have with you to take those impromtu shots is the one that is the best fit for your lifestyle.

I'm looking forward to the results of your decision on the plaintive expressions of the dogs.

If you have a Canon EOS lens already, you might as well stick with Canon. Canons and Nikons are even par, no matter what fanboys from either side say. You have a $300 lens already, so there's no sense in wasting it by getting a Nikon.

I did all my camera research about 6 months ago and wound up with the Sony Alpha, but I could have just as easily gone with the Canon. And my Minolta SLR lenses are so old, they don't work on anything new. I blogged about my camera conversion here.

Here are a few shots I took the first day out shooting with the behemoth. Here are some other scenery type shots, and here are a couple of people shots.

And here are a whole lot of wildflower shots taken with the old digital camera.

People, read her damn requirements. Looking at the 30d is God awful advice. It's an 1100 dollar camera when her budget is "600$ maybe a little more" Give camera advice that fits in that price range. I suggested the d40 because it is 550$ with a pretty solid kit lens and you pick up a memory card and you're still under 600. The pentax isn't a bad camera but you lose some versatility by not having Nikon or canon and it's 750$. The sony alpha, which has the same features as the pentax and uses old minolta mounts is 700$. If the plan is to spend 600$, a rebel xt and a nikon d40 are your two dslr options. If you want to go a few hundred higher the market completely opens up but at the end of the day for dslr's it's the lenses. A d40 with a great lens is going to take the same picture as a camera 500 dollars more. If you don't plan on using every option better cameras have, then don't get one. It's little stuff 99% of people won't see. I definitely wouldn't spend more than 200, maybe 300 on a non slr type camera. they all have the same flaws without the flexibility. THere is definitely a place for them but if you want to jump your budjet to 800$ then still get a d40 or rebel xt for good pictures where you have more options and then a small digital for less than 200 that you can keep in your purse to caputre those random moments where you wish you had a camera. Unless you plan on going full out photo which which cost you a lot more because lenses are expensive, I see no reason to pay more than the 550$ for the rebel or the nikon. The others are good cameras but it just doesn't seem to me that they're what you're looking for

I recommend that you get the Canon Digital Rebel XT with the standard kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm). I'll start out saying that I am a Canon fan, so I do have that bias. However, you already noted that you have a telephoto lens that fits your old Canon, so that is an important consideration that I think outweighs any slight differences between a Nikon or Canon DSLR at the same pricepoint.

I recommend a DSLR because even if the base camera with kit lens does not meet all your needs, you are likely to be able to buy additional accessories that will get you to where you want to be. DSLR's have a lots of options (lens, flash, filters, etc.) that you don't usually have with a point and shoot camera.

You mentioned that you have a telephoto lens from your previous Canon camera, but I'm assuming that you also have the original kit lens. Is that true? You can also use that kit lens with your new camera, unless of course you want to sell your old camera (you may be able to sell the body only, but that may be quite difficult considering the market for such a camera at this point). I'm not sure what lens you originally got with the camera, but last I knew, the kit lens for the Rebel 2000 was a 28-80 lens. This overlaps with the Rebel XT kit lens (18-55), but does give you some extended telephoto range.

Some have recommended getting the body only and using your existing lenses. I don't recommend that because that would eliminate your wide angle options. Assuming you even have the above mentioned kit lens from your Rebel 2000, with the 1.6 focal length adjustment factored in, your old lens would yield an effective focal length range of 45-128mm. The Digital Rebel XT kit lens yields and effect focal range of about 29-88mm, which gives you a nice range from wide angle to telephoto.

If you don't have the old kit lens (or don't want to use it), you would be severely limited by trying to use just your telephoto lens (I'm assuming it is a telephoto only, i.e. it was not a wide to telephoto zoom lens).

If you could live with the old kit lens for a while (again no wide angle availability), you could save up for the much better EF-S 17-85 IS lens, but that is a very expensive lens (most serious photographers consider the price worth it, due to the superior glass quality, optical image stabilization and the extended telephoto range, making it a very flexible lens).

One thing you mentioned was better indoor pictures. There are two considerations there. IF the light in the room is very bright (not likely in most home situations, but more likely in commercial establishments), you can possibly get away with taking pictures without flash. A DSLR will almost certainly do much better than a point and shoot in this situation. The sensor is typical much larger in a DSLR, which makes them better when it comes to light sensitivity. They typically offer the ability to shoot at 800 or 1600 (even 3200 sometimes) ASA. If a point and shoot camera offers those options the pictures usually turn out extremely grainy. I have a Digital Rebel XT, and although I don't use the 1600 ASA option very often (since it does have significant noise) it still yields a better quality picture than most point and shoot cameras offer at 400 ASA. During the day, if you have a decent amount of sunlight coming in through the windows you may be able to get some decent non flash shots of your dogs (at 800 or 1600 ASA) if you can get them to stay still for a second.

As far as flash pictures go, the built in flash on the DSLR is likely to be a little better than most point and shoot camera's, but the difference may not be that noticeable. Really, in my opinion, built in flashes suck, but certainly they are better than no flash at all. The advantage of a DSLR of course is that you can decide to add a real nice flash unit at a later time. Add a high quality flash diffuser (I highly recommend the Gary Fong diffusers) and you will be able to take some really nice flash photos. Even without the diffuser, a "real" flash will significantly improve your flash picture quality.

Oh, and consider spending the extra few bucks for the black body. It's purely a cosmetic difference, but the black body really does look nicer in my opinion. Obviously, you can compare pictures of the two on many websites, and decide for yourself which you prefer. The difference in price should be minimal (Around $10 or less).

Scott - looking at the 30D is not "god awful advice." She's already got an EOS lens or two and with the 40D out now, a used 30D can be had for less than the $600 price limit - you've just got to check out the right places. www.fredmiranda.com, www.photography-on-the.net, and (of course) eBay are good places to look for used equipment.

That being said, I expect that most people would be just as happy with a brand new Rebel XT for even less (I've seen body-only XTs as low as $400 on sale lately).

Yep, sounds like you're in the "two camera" zone now. If you want really good portraits, get the DSLR with a good 80-100mm lens. Get the $100 point and shoot for the normal photos. Any 6mp DSLR will do fine, unless you want to blow your photos up past poster size.

Awesome. thanks everybody soooo much. I'm starting the actual shopping as we speak.