I'm seriously considering getting into photography, and i'm not exactly sure what camera to get. I'm looking at Canon SLR's, but i'm not totally sure if i want to go digital or not. I'm leaning more towards something of the Canon Rebel line, i know a few people with the Rebel TI and they love it. I'm not looking to spend thousands of dollars, i just need a good entry level camera for serious photography. I want to be able to set my own exposure time and shutter speed, but i also want it to have automatic settings until i figure things out a little more. Auto-Focus is optional, but i'd like to have it for those quick photos. Any advice you can give me is appreciated.

Canon would be what your looking for then...I think. Jinx

A basic non-digital set-up can be pretty inexpensive, until you figure in the costs of film and processing. But a cheap film camera can be a useful back-up to a digital set-up. You can get film pretty well anywhere. Of course, I started in the days when digital photography wasn't even a dream (uphill, both ways, in the snow) and so I may have a bias against relying on batteries.

Even though I'm a Canon-ite, you really can't go too wrong going with either Canon or Nikon. Just make sure you check the features of the cameras to make sure it can go into Manual mode (as well as Auto). Some of the simpler SLRs have sacrificed control for ease of use. Great if you just want to point, shoot and not really think; but sucks if you want to take full creative control. I also think it's a good idea to start out with a film camera and not digital. While digital can be cheaper in the long run (heck, if you shoot a lot it can be a lot cheaper than a film camera pretty fast), it is a lot less forgiving than using print film. The reason for this is that print film has a much higher "exposure latitude" than digital cameras. Think of exposure latitude as the maximum difference you can have between the deepest shadows and the brightest highlights. Shooting digital is almost like shooting slide film (which has the smallest exposure latitude of all 3). If you have experience with cameras, then it may not be much of a problem, but if you are new, it can be very frustrating in the beginning. I remember wanting to kill whoever invented slide film for the first month after I started learning to use it. All that said, from what I've seen, the Rebel Ti is a very good camera body. Tons of automatic features, but the ability to go into full manual. It will do almost anything, with a few exceptions, that you'll want to do at an affordable price. I think I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that I don't like the silver color, but that's just me. :) If the Ti is the class of camera you want, try going to a camera store and checking it out firsthand along with the Canon Rebel K2 and Nikon N70 or N80 and see which one you like the feel of. Their feature sets are very close to one another as well as their prices. The Nikons give you a little more shutter speed on the top end (1/4000th of a sec vs. 1/2000th on the 2 Canons). -=>Donald

yep...I agree with Donald...cos He's my Bestest Friend :]

Hmmm ... Donald is right in what he's saying bowingtomymaster :) ... but if you never used analog cams, i can't see any reason why you should start with that right now. And if you did, one more reason to go digital.

I'm using a digital rebel and i'm happy with her .. as are a lot of other people i know (look into the gals of Kropot or RedundantlyAbundant, Zuulan and many others). The Nikon D70 for sure would be a great choice too .. depends if you're more into wide angle (Nikon) or tele-lenses (Canon). The Nikon is a little bit more expensive - though a little bit better as it seems.

But if you don't want to spend one hell of money (into lenses), you could also consider buying one of the new 8 MP-Cams as the Sony F828, Minolta A2 or that Canon. They can't really compete with any D-SLR with good lenses, but if after buying your D-SLR there's no money for lenses, you won't be happy with that decision too. In that case, think about the Sony or her competitors .. 1000 bucks and that's it.

But if a quick AF is important to you (as it is to me) don't ever forget, that nothing can compete with a SLR (be it Canon or Nikon) with a good lens ... :)

As Antonia already told - analog can be (a lot) cheaper - in the beginning (lenses are the same, but that analog body is 1/4 of its digital brother ... sigh). On the other hand - digitally i try ten times to get that image of that launching swan .. one of em will hopefully be ok, the others will be deleted at no cost. Not the best way to really learn things, but a great way to save money. Would you really try 50 shots of one sunset with an analog cam?

Just my 2ct :)
Tom

Well...it's the expense in the first place that i'm worried about. I don't have thousands to spend on a camera...nor do i have 1000 for a sub-par digital camera... I'm not really concerned with film and processing, film is comparitavely cheap and an easy thing to ask for for birthdays, christmas, etc, and developing isn't THAT bad... I think digital would be really nice to have...but until i can get a d-slr for 2-300 bucks, i'm gonna have to go analog. Plus, it's always nice to have hard copies of your shots in case something crashes. coughwindowscough

@Slakker - Definitely go where your wallet takes you. Just for myself, if I were just getting into photography I would much rather spend $300 on a film camera with lens than spend $1000. Especially if I wasn't sure if it was something I was going to stick with. Just remember, no matter what people tell you, the camera does not make the photographer. I've seen great photos from a photographer using a $7 35mm disposable camera and pure crap from guys using an $8000 D-SLR. @Tom - I don't think I follow the "wide angle (Nikon) or tele-lenses (Canon)" thought. What do you mean? -=>Donald

Over the years, I've seen claims that $camera-maker has the best $stuff for $job, and it's quite possible that Canon and Nikon do different things better. Whether the differences are significant for an ordinary user is another question. Whether my opinions on current stuff are worth anything, since I'm using a camera and light-meter from 1957, is also another question. There's one advantage to starting with film -- there is a lot of good used hardware which is being sold cheap.

An advantage to starting with digital: Instant gratification. If you're one of those that learn by messing up every way possible (like me) digital is better because you can immediatley see the results. Another advantage: It's expensive, but a large CF card will let you get hundreds of shots without changing or otherwise worrying about film. When I carried a film camera, also had to worry about carrying film. But it is a lot more expensive (at first) to get the same functionality with digital and film. Worth the price difference? Up to you... (I started with a practically all manual film SLR and now in love with digital.)

I have used everything from an old Brownie box camera [sold a mag cover of a shot from it for $75. when I was 16] up to studio cameras. My suggestion is b4 you spend big bucks for anything... go for used equipment. You can get some very nice equipment at the larger camera outlet stores or ads from the back pages of photography mags, and if you are just beginning you need to learn the fundamentals first. Automatics are nice, but IMO you don't really learn serious photography with them. Going used allows you to not only pick up your basic camera, but with the bucks you save over new you can pick up some accessories to go with the camera.