Looking at the Nikon D100. Would love to hear your thoughts on this. Are there any others out there in this price range that I should look at? I see the CCD is 23.7 X 15.6mm and it's 6.1 Meg Who has used it and do you think it's good? TIA Spike

Hi Spike, The Nikon D100 sure is an impressive machine... However, before you make any decisions, be sure to visit www.dpreview.com !!! Don't be too impressed by resolutions, however : a 6 Mpix cam is not necessarily superior to a 3 or 4 Mpix ! Some of my friends are using 5 Mpix cams and are struggling with the huge filesizes, so they tend to work at lower resolutions... I use a 2 Mpix (Canon Ixus), which i carry around each and every day and it's an excellent snapshooter; as well as a 3.3 Mpix Minolta with a very versatile lense (great for those A4 prints). In my view, don't spend your money on high res CCD's (you should do fine with 4 or 5 Mpix), but look at the quality of the "glass" (lenses, versatility, ...) and the type (and price) of storeage (CFlash, MStick, ...). Other considerations are : sensitivity of the CCD, autofocusing (very tricky with digital cams!), and your general "user profile" (but that goes with every purchase...) Still... the Nikon D100 is a very fine machine ! I hope I could help you out some...

If you're looking to drop 2 big ones for a digicam, then I'd suggest you also take a look at Canon's EOS D-60. I've looked at both, they're both fine cameras, and frankly I can't for the life of me pick a clear winner between the two. Dpreview's reviews are definitelly a must, however I fear they won't answer that question either ;) I currently own a 2.1Mpx Olympus C2100 UZ, and I've been thinking hard about wether I'd want to make the jump to DSLR. Cost is of course a HUGE component of my inability to make up my mind, discrepancy on information regarding lenses is another... cumbersome workflow (though there are tremendous benefits as well) is yet another. A huge one, of course is that I've been spoiled by the fantastic stabilized lens on my UZI, and while I'm convinced the D100 and/or the D60 would be on another planet, I fear giving up a 37 - 370mm range... which is what I'd be doing (yes the lenses are interchangeable, but the world doesn't lie still while you switch lenses). Buying (or lugging around) two cameras fitted with a wide to mid zoom and a mid to long zoom is not an option... though I've also thought of that (in that case one of them would be a much less expensive film body). So... well... Sorry I guess this didn't help out much, unless you consider someone else telling you that they're going crazy with the availability of choices to be a plus. Finally... I would think long and hard before going the DSLR route. If you're planning on doing semipro or pro work with a digicam then prolly those are the only choices. But if you're looking for a high quality piece of equipment that is both versatile and easy to take around, then I'd take a look at devices such as: Minolta Dimage 7i (or whatever the latest is called) Nikon 5700 And whatever Olympus comes out with to answer the Nikon 5700. (oh yeah, Canon too, if they decide to attack Nikon on that front). Alessandro

I have a Olympus 3030 (3.34 mpix)right now and it gives me great images that I can just push to 8X10 and still look good. The D100 does not come with a lens, So I can get what I need at that time. 1. I want to be able to do more croping in Photoshop and not while shooting. 2. Be able to get 11X17 images or outstanding 8X10s. 3. Better control of the camera. (focus, Zoom). 4. Have more info for zooming, panning when working with Video. The bottom line, I need more/better pixles... Also I love the feel of a SLR. One thing I hate about my 3030 is the feel and lack of control.

17 to 35 MM Zoom. (around $1,330.00) > 35 to 70 MM Zoom. (around $1,380.00) > 80 to 400 MM Zoom (around $1,430.00) People who buy the 80-400 VR get a discount for a year at your local mental hospital. Just have some shop show the new 80-200 2.8 and the 80-400 VR to you and you'll see the difference in quality right away. Waste of money...a weird attempt to match the 80-200 (?) and 100-300 VR type of lenses that Canon is doing quite well with. Go for what Alpha told you, but IF you can afford it and if you know you'll be able to get everything out of them, go for the 2.8 ED series, like the 17-35 and 28-80 2.8 ED, or replace the first one with the older 20 2.8 That'll get everything out of a good Nikon body. :)

I am a useless git so I'll just-- wave at the mod-Daddy :-) (*

This is great info Alpha and Rork, Thanks a ton Alpha, for the video stuff, All my DVD films are in 720x468 so this will give me a ton of panning and zoom from a still images. This is a great way to take a still image of lets say your front yard and do a full pan from left to right with great detail. Also a image of that size can be realy zoomed and hold the details. Makes for some great shots where you start with a close-up of a flower and over 10 seconds do a smooth zoom-out to the full plant. Very cool stuff. As for lens, great info as well. They wanted to sell me a $500 lens that I think was a 28-80 or something. I know this lens will be better that the fixed lens I have now, but your right, I should spend the extra now to get a good one. This 35 to 70 MM Zoom soulds like to ticket for me. Thanks for all you r time and help with this.