questionswhich camera would you get?

vote-for20vote-against
vote-for11vote-against

Honestly, at the size 99% of the people out there print photos at, you'll never see a difference between 12 and 18 megapixel. With SLR cameras, you tie most of your money up with the lenses, and their value doesn't depreciate much, (unless you beat the hell outta them) whereas the bodies depreciate quickly even in excellent condition. So if you plan on shooting under a wide variety of situations, I'd opt for the more lenses, then upgrade the body in a few years. Canon is a good choice though. They've been leading the field in digital photography. (During the days of 35mm, I'd have recommended Nikon.) Right now, I've got an EOS 1-D mark II and an assortment of lenses. One of these days I'll get around to selling my old Nikon film cameras. They served me well, but I haven't used them since I went digital.

vote-for5vote-against

I completely agree with Woadwarrior. Invest in lenses. I've used Canon since back in the film days (I still have and shoot my AE-1s and Canon Rebel (film). My DSLR is the Canon Rebel XT and it gets the job done.

vote-for3vote-against

I have a Canon as well, more lenses are better. I'd recommend getting the "Nifty Fifty" as well. The "Nifty Fifty" is a Canon fixed focal 50mm f/1.8 lens. It's low f-stop is great in low light, and it's cheap, $99, new.

vote-for4vote-against

@mrmucox: Yeah, that one looked like a good one; I told my wife, after looking at all the accessories, that I felt like I could spend $10K just on all the fancy stuff you can get to go with it...

vote-for3vote-against

@gewoodworth: LOL only 10K? my parents spent over $12K just on 2 lenses. (A pair of REALLY nice 500mm. Same lenses are currently around $7,200. each) Depending on what you're shooting, $10k might not go very far. ;)