Folks, I'm finally at the point where I'm considering getting a REAL camera ... a digital SLR. It's a big step from the disposable film cameras I've been using!

So ... I'm open to suggestions, and advice. Apart from makes / models ... anyone have suggestions as to what accessories to get, and where to buy them?

A lot depends on what kind of pictures you are going to take. I have a Canon Sureshot A400 that goes for about $100 retail (probably a lot less if you shop). It zooms 5.9 to 13.2 with auto focus, flash and exposure. It is a bit smaller than a cardboard Kodak so it goes in your pocket easily. I am not sure what the max pixels is but I get good "cropable" pictures at medium resolution. It will take a 2g SD card but I shot 2 weeks of vacation pictures on a 256 card.
I know I can buy a nicer camera but this is about all I need and if it fell overboard tomorrow I wouldn't feel like I lost a small fortune.

It depends on how "real" you're looking to go. In my humble opinion, the rumored Mark II version of the Canon EOS 5D will be the sweet spot. It may well be announced at PMA this year. The existing EOS 5D is also very nice. The 24-105mm L-Series lens is a good starting lens to match up with it.

In a more affordable price range, the EOS 40D is very nice.

The best of the current SLR offerings is the EOS 1Ds Mark III, at about $8,000. Plus lenses. (That's not counting medium format SLRs. They're expensive.)

Nikon has been out of the running in digital SLRs for several years, but they recently got back in the game with their latest two introductions. Their new full-frame camera has astoundingly-good low-light performance, but considerably less resolution than the Canon offerings.

I use a 10 mega pixel with 2MB card. I set it to the highest resolution and use the largest picture size possible. This does make large files that can be downsize as needed. This allow me to zoom in with clearity to read the wire size right off the wiring. It is an Pentex Optio A30. It has stabilazion and takes good night, low lit area. I have used Cannon S40 and S60 in the past. The battery goes low fast when using the flash and the night, low lit pics are not the best of quality unless you have surgeon hands. Otherwise they tend to turn out blurry.

If you are like me you will want it to be small, to fit in your shirt pocket. When it is small, you will take it with you instead of leaving it home or in the car. Then you won't always be saying "damn, I wish I had my camera!"

I got an Olympus FE-230 at Best Buy for a couple hundred. It's smaller than a pack of smokes, and takes great pics.

Get a small case and an extra battery.

No particular suggestions but I have found this website to be useful when it comes to cameras.
Good luck!

I use a Sony VCR, N 50, DCR-HC -40E camera with memory duo stick 8 MB.

Photo's can be made 150 kB to 1.3 MB range which is more than adequate for 4x6 photo's.

Most photo's i have posted to ECN are done with that camera.

Important factor for any camera is a good lens. That one has a Karl Zeis lens.

Then my wife uses a Panasonic DMC-FZ8, 8 MB camera which takes very good photo's. For the internet they need to be downsized to 200 kB for reasonable speed of transmission.

bigrock... thats an excellent website.

I also use these guys for quality reviews for cameras and pretty much all electronics.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4370-6501_7-111-111.html?tag=dir

The only thing I can think of is to make sure the camera has a battery indicator. You would think they would all have them but a relative said their digital camera doesn't. I checked the camera and then looked through the instruction manual and found they were right. Can't remember the make/model though.

Noticed an oddity while reading this thread... Pretty sure he asked about a digital SLR, which won't fit in your pocket--unless the term was misused. SLR are the "professional" type cameras with removeable lenses.

noderaser, I also noticed that he's getting a lot of answers about digicams rather than SLRs.

A good place for reviews about SLRs is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/

A good place online to buy from is http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

Sharp eyes, nod .... I'm planning on a camera with removable lens, built in meter, view through the lens, etc.

I've used the 'little ones,' and have found them wanting. I'm just more comfortable with the 'old style' camera, I guess.

Well that what happens when you ask a bunch of sparkies a photography question. With a little Super 88 tape, you can put amy lens on any camera. My apologies.

Did I mention my Pentex had a 16.3 zoom? What ever that means.

IMHO, SLR is obsolete. It was a powerful (if expensive) technique required back when the photographer used a viewfinder, but now that the viewfinder and film are one-in-the-same and the viewfinder is a 3" LCD on the back of the camera, it's rather pointless.

There are plenty of other cameras out there that give you SLR-like features for a whole lot more convenience and less cost. You can get frames that take lenses but aren't "SLR". But, do you really need to add lenses if your camera has 15x built-in optical zoom? The Sony Cyber-shot DHC-H5 I use at work offers pretty much everything an SLR does, but has the 12x lens internal, which makes it a ton more convenient. I don't like it, though- too bulky. I'd much rather prefer a full featured (eg includes manual aperature and exposure controls) point-n-shoot camera that fits in my pocket, even if I have to make do with 3x optical zoom.

My dad used his 2.0mp fuji with 6x optical zoom all the time, he loved that thing and really got into photography, so he bought an $800 7mp SLR. Yet, he still only ever uses his 2.0mp fuji because the SLR is too much of a pain to deal with.

I was under the impression professional photographers still use and prefer SLRs many of which are digital SLRs.

SLR is superfluous in a digital camera, but old habits die hard, I guess. You simply don't need an optical viewfinder in a digital camera, and thus don't need a complicated SLR mechanism. There was a tradeoff in battery life for a while that gave an advantage to having an optical viewfinder so you could turn the LCD off, but with the advent of lithium-ion and more efficient electronics, even that isn't much of an issue anymore.

I keep the LCD off on my camera unless I am really serious about what I am shooting. It does eat most of the battery usage.
My el cheapo Canon does zoom the optical viewfinder along with the lens. It is a fairly good representation of what you get. About the only time I use the LCD is when I am not sure what the autofocus will actually focus on or when I am holding the camera up in the air, shooting over something.

I disagree, the display on the cameras is no match for the final product and no match for seeing the real thing.

As far as the 'complicated SLR mechanism' I see lots of old SLRs working fine, I have already thrown out more then a few digitals because of failure.

JMO, Bob

Canon has now made their PMA new-product announcements. Still no EOS-5D Mark II. (But the existing EOS-5D is still an excellent camera.) They did announce a new reduced-frame camera, the Rebel XSi. It appears to be quite a decent entry-level SLR.

I recommend looking at http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm

In particular read his discussions of 'point and shoot' cameras versus SLRs. He is a professional photographer, and uses both, everything from $150 point and shoot cameras up to the top of the line DSLRs.

For many things, you simply cannot beat a point and shoot. The thing is there when you need it, is cheap (so you are not worried so much about damaging it), and will get the job done.

But for some things the DSLR simply cannot be beat. In a nutshell, the DSLR will give you much more flexibility and much more creative control, in a more expensive and delicate piece of hardware that is larger and more difficult to lug around.

Viewfinders:
While the ability to view the image through the sensor obviates some of the benefits of the SLR, the resolution of the back panel LCD is still no where near that of the viewfinder. You simply cannot quickly evaluate things like precise depth of field using that LCD, but you can get it quickly though the viewfinder. The viewfinder works in low light that would take a 30 second integration time to even get an image, etc. There are still many situations where the back panel LCD simply cannot serve as the viewfinder. That said, using the LCD as viewfinder is so useful that it is showing up as a feature on the highest end DSLRs...and is pretty standard on point and shoot cameras. The best quality image sensors are not fast enough to use as the viewfinder system...but when you spend 20K on the sensor, you don't worry about saving the 0.5K on the mirror system

Image quality:
Larger sensors give better image quality. DSLRs have larger sensors and better quality even at lower MP counts. That said, the image quality of a point and shoot is generally good enough for the application. If the only thing that you care about is image quality, then forget digital and go straight to the 4x5 inch view camera with slide film If you are making photos for web use, then the quality of a point and shoot is more than high enough.

My favorite type of photography is 'ambient light' work, where I take pictures in dark spaces (home at night, theater, outside) without using any additional lighting. I use a Nikon D80 and a 50mm f1.4 'prime' (as opposed to zoom) lens.

For most people and most applications, zoom lenses are more useful and convenient. But zoom lenses are 'slower' and thus mean more situations where you need to use flash or faster ISO.

-Jon

I found myself in the same situation as Reno, and decided to take the plunge into the DSLR world. I have several friends that are professional photographers, and after much discussion with them on what I wanted in a camera versus what I wanted to spend I decided to purchase the Canon 40D. It has been well worth the money! It's amazing at how much control you have with one of these "prosumer grade" cameras.

I nearly bought the Canon Digital Rebel XTi. It is a nice camera for the money, at about half the price of the 40D. That would have allowed me more money to spend on a lens, but I opted to spend more on the body now, and get a better lens later. The one statement I kept getting from my friends was, "The picture will only be as good as the glass you take it through".

I should note, that if you are buying this type of camera, you should be very interested in photography as a serious hobby. These cameras are somewhat complicated/intimidating if you are used to point and shoots. Although they do have Automatic modes, they are a serious waste of money if that is all you are going to use it for. I would be prepared to read a couple of large books/manuals and take some photography classes to get the benefits of the camera.

I decided to purchase the camera as a kit. It came with a cheap starter lens, which will get me by until I can save up some money to purchase a real lens. For those that don't know, a camera kit of this range is about $1500 and that doesn't include a memory card or bag. As far as the lens comment, a QUALITY lens will be more than the price of the camera.

As to the LCD viewfinder comments, they do not compare to viewing through the lens. I would agree that they are the only way to go for everday use.

Sorry to go on for so long, but there is so much that can be discussed about this subject. RENO, feel free to PM me if you would like to talk more about the subject. I am by no means a know it all, but I have done a fair bit of research in the past few months.