You must get a DSLR. Now.

[Greg K.]

There is no excuse anymore: b&h photo (www.bhphotovideo.com) is now offering the Pentax *ist DL for the mind-blowing price of $339.95 (body only). That is, after a $100 Pentax rebate.

:faint:

[Dan Murphy]

It does say 'out of stock'.............

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=388085&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

I would like an SLR, but certain P&S features keep me there.

Looks like a good price though, good heads up. :thumbsup2

[Greg K.]

I took my Pentax to WDW earlier this month...here's two examples of what this little baby can do...

At the Board Walk...
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f46/gkandra/bwalknight.jpg

And inside the Contemporary...
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f46/gkandra/monorail.jpg

[Laura]

Waiting for a dSLR with a full-frame sensor and in-body IS. ;)

That Pentax is nice, though. I love your pics! :)

[jann1033]

wow, very cheap price

imho though, cheap or not, dslr isn't the way to go for everyone and with some p&s having really good quality it's nice people who don't want to mess around with a dslr can still get a nice end result. my step father loves to take pictures but can't even figure out a basic digi p&s...a dslr would have him so frustrated, not the point of a "hobby" :rotfl2:

[Kelly Grannell]

Waiting for a dSLR with a full-frame sensor and in-body IS. ;)

That Pentax is nice, though. I love your pics! :)

in-body IS is not as effective as in-lens IS. The longer the tele-end, the less effective the in-body IS would be. It's physics.

Full-frame sensor. I have two of them, it's overrated unless you really need to take medium-format-like resolution.

back to topic, at that price for a Pentax ist*DL, there is absolutely no reason to go with P&S.

[Anewman]

in-body IS is not as effective as in-lens IS. The longer the tele-end, the less effective the in-body IS would be. It's physics.

Does not need to be as effective, if it gives me one stop at 300mm(35mm equiv) I would be happy. That could be the difference between 3200ISO or 1600. But all photo tests I have seen show that it is very effective at 300mm, remember at tele you are talking about holding the camera still for thousandths(or hundredths) of a sec VS tenths of a sec on the wide end.

Obviously Canon will never addopt in body IS.


back to topic, at that price for a Pentax ist*DL, there is absolutely no reason to go with P&S.

Just to name a few, just because they do not apply to us does not mean they do not exist.
1. Price, there are still hundreds of P&S cameras below the price of the DL
2. Size, there are hundreds of P&S cameras smaller than the DL
3. Video, there are some that actually use the Video in their cameras.
4. Live preview, some prefer it.
5. Disposability, for most one DSLR is all they will ever purchase. Not so with P&S.
6. Intimidation factor.

[Kelly Grannell]

nope, Canon would never do that for two reasons.

1. economic: they can sell the IS lens with higher profit margin
2. perfomance: at 300mm, my 70-300 can still have 3 stop advantage PLUS I'm using ISO 3200. :) Considering the subject is relatively still, it's an equivalent of ISO 12,800 with a 1-stop advantage in-body IS.

PS: cameras with in-body IS are more expensive than the ones without. However, the lens prices for camera with in-body IS is not necessarily cheaper than the IS lenses available.

1. Price, there are still hundreds of P&S cameras below the price of the DL
2. Size, there are hundreds of P&S cameras smaller than the DL
3. Video, there are some that actually use the Video in their cameras.
4. Live preview, some prefer it.
5. Disposability, for most one DSLR is all they will ever purchase. Not so with P&S.
6. Intimidation factor.

1. true
2. true, but people needs to be educated that smaller camera = smaller sensor = bad low-light image quality. Just look at the number of questions asked on this forum alone about how bad their P&S camera taking indoor / lowlight pictures.
3. true, but they need to have their head examined. Any family ocassions (or any ocassions) that's worth recording is worth re-watching and be preserved as high-quality as possible. None of the current P&S comes even close to DVD quality, let alone miniDV.
4. this is a misconception, how more 'live' can a preview be than looking through a viewfinder? :)
5. there is no need for disposability and waste and the eventual impact to the environment when they use a camera they're satisfied to begin with (just look at how many threads complaining about shutter lag and startup lag)
6. there is no intimidation in using dSLR. That's why the manufacturers create the "green zone".

Just playing devil's advocate here.

[Anewman]

PS: cameras with in-body IS are more expensive than the ones without. However, the lens prices for camera with in-body IS is not necessarily cheaper than the IS lenses available.






You can get a Minolta 7d(camera) with a 70-300mm lens for less than the Canon 70-300mm IS lens alone.

You are right, "not necessarily" but there are times.

And with new models featuring IS in body coming out soon...



1. true
2. true, but people needs to be educated that smaller camera = smaller sensor = bad low-light image quality. Just look at the number of questions asked on this forum alone about how bad their P&S camera taking indoor / lowlight pictures.
3. true, but they need to have their head examined. Any family ocassions (or any ocassions) that's worth recording is worth re-watching and be preserved as high-quality as possible. None of the current P&S comes even close to DVD quality, let alone miniDV.
4. this is a misconception, how more 'live' can a preview be than looking through a viewfinder? :)
5. there is no need for disposability and waste and the eventual impact to the environment when they use a camera they're satisfied to begin with (just look at how many threads complaining about shutter lag and startup lag)
6. there is no intimidation in using dSLR. That's why the manufacturers create the "green zone".

Just playing devil's advocate here.

Never said those reasons would apply to you(or me), but to some they may all be very VALID reasons.

[Kelly Grannell]

:goodvibes hence I wrote "just playing devil's advocate" :goodvibes because I actually agree with you :banana:

[WillCAD]

Just to name a few, just because they do not apply to us does not mean they do not exist.
1. Price, there are still hundreds of P&S cameras below the price of the DL
2. Size, there are hundreds of P&S cameras smaller than the DL
3. Video, there are some that actually use the Video in their cameras.
4. Live preview, some prefer it.
5. Disposability, for most one DSLR is all they will ever purchase. Not so with P&S.
6. Intimidation factor.

1. True - but if you buy a new P&S every two years, you spend a lot more than you would if you bought an SLR that lasted you for 6 years. Adn for that 6 years you'd have WAY better photos with teh SLR than with any P&S on the market.
2. Also very true, though I think some people have unreasonable expectations when they want a camera to be pocket-size but do the same stuff that a bigger camera can do. More capability = Bigger size, even in today's micro-transistorised shrinky-dink culture. Besides, my hands are too big to even be comfy on the Canon 350D, which is partly why I bought a 300D.
3. Not if they want GOOD video. That's like saying you don't need to own a P&S camera because your cell phone has a camera built-in - BIG difference!
4. Refer to Kelly's response re: head examination.
5. Refer to my response to Point #1.
6. Sadly true - people see something with more than 3 buttons on it and they think you need to be a rocket scientist to operat it, when in reality most DSLRs have fewer buttons, dials, wheels, and other controls than your average family car.

[Anewman]

1. True - but if you buy a new P&S every two years, you spend a lot more than you would if you bought an SLR that lasted you for 6 years. Adn for that 6 years you'd have WAY better photos with teh SLR than with any P&S on the market.
2. Also very true, though I think some people have unreasonable expectations when they want a camera to be pocket-size but do the same stuff that a bigger camera can do. More capability = Bigger size, even in today's micro-transistorised shrinky-dink culture. Besides, my hands are too big to even be comfy on the Canon 350D, which is partly why I bought a 300D.
3. Not if they want GOOD video. That's like saying you don't need to own a P&S camera because your cell phone has a camera built-in - BIG difference!
4. Refer to Kelly's response re: head examination.
5. Refer to my response to Point #1.
6. Sadly true - people see something with more than 3 buttons on it and they think you need to be a rocket scientist to operat it, when in reality most DSLRs have fewer buttons, dials, wheels, and other controls than your average family car.

B4 everyone starts agreeing or disagreeing with those reasons, this is not the point.
I Understand exactly what you are saying and have been into DSLRS well b4 the craze.

Point was in reply to Kelly stating that "at that price for a Pentax ist*DL, there is absolutely no reason to go with P&S.", for some(maybe not you) there are still reason(regardless of us agreeing with them) to purchase point and shoot cameras. I just purchased a point and shoot Panasonic a couple weeks ago, reason= I was not going to allow my 16 year old daughter cary around a DSLR in purse at all times(required for yearbook staff).

[Kelly Grannell]

yup yup! I even still have my A95 and A345 for discrete picture taking and 300D for my daughter (7yo) equipped with The Kelly lens.

[WillCAD]

yup yup! I even still have my A95 and A345 for discrete picture taking and 300D for my daughter (7yo) equipped with The Kelly lens.

Your 7yo DD uses a 300D with a Kelly lens on it? She must have arms like the Governator!

Anewman is right on about one thing - some people want or need a smaller camera, and the 300D sure ain't one.

Hows about posting a few of your DDs images? I've seen some 7-year olds take pretty good pics.

[Dan Murphy]

......1. true
2. true, but people needs to be educated that smaller camera = smaller sensor = bad low-light image quality. Just look at the number of questions asked on this forum alone about how bad their P&S camera taking indoor / lowlight pictures.
3. true, but they need to have their head examined. Any family ocassions (or any ocassions) that's worth recording is worth re-watching and be preserved as high-quality as possible. None of the current P&S comes even close to DVD quality, let alone miniDV.
4. this is a misconception, how more 'live' can a preview be than looking through a viewfinder? :)
5. there is no need for disposability and waste and the eventual impact to the environment when they use a camera they're satisfied to begin with (just look at how many threads complaining about shutter lag and startup lag)
6. there is no intimidation in using dSLR. That's why the manufacturers create the "green zone"......I will try and shape up and get with the program.

[YEKCIM]

I'm sure to get nailed by several of you, but I'll stick my neck out and put in my $0.02 anyway.

I have been wanting a dSLR in the worst way for quite some time now, and was going to buy one earlier this year, when some unforseen expenses "downgraded" my purchase to the Fuji S5200. I had a blast with the Fuji on a recent trip to WDW and am very pleased with the bulk of the shots I got, some of which are posted to a couple of threads on disboards.

I have still been toying with dSLR, and considering the Pentax DL. In the midst of all the ruminating and soul searching, it dawned on me that I probably am better off with a "do it all" ultrazoom, superzoom. bridge, or whatever you want to call it. It's always ready to go, no lens changing, etc...ready to shoot when I am. The S5200 filled that bill quite well, especially at the long end of the zoom (380mm equivalent) although I would like to have had a little wider view on the "wide" end than 38mm (equivalent). It's not perfect, and I do not mean to characterize it as such, and it is not on a par with even an entry level dSLR in many respects, but it *does* meet my current needs.

I realize, too, that a dSLR would afford me larger sensor, lower high-ISO noise, ability to accessorize (lenses, flash, etc.), but at a price. I may eventually fall for the allure of the dSLR sirens, but for now, I'll just stick with my 5200 and keep my eyes peeled for an upscale replacement, at some point.

~YEKCIM

[handicap18]

How about this,,, if you think your going to spend $400-500 on a new P&S you really should consider the Pentax dSLR. Those P&S that are that high priced really aren't going to be much smaller than an slr with the "Kelly Lens". Megapixels might be more, but that is nixed because of the actual sensor size. Zoom will be bigger on the P&S, but when you taking pictures of your family and kids, most wont be at 300mm. Since your sensor is already bigger, you'll still get a picture if you crop. And 70-300mm lenses can be had for relatively cheep money if you want one down the road.

I will definately agree that SLR's are not for everyone. Hence more P&S models are available than dSLR models. This will always be the case. If you were considering purchasing a new digital camera and only wanted to spend $200 or so, then P&S is for you and you wouldn't be looking at the S3 IS or the equilivent. Therefor the dSLR arguement is really null and void.

As for all the buttons and dials, well there are more dials and buttons on a digital P&S than there ever were on a film P&S. Most of those dials are the exact same on a dSLR plus maybe a few more that even a lot of dSLR users don't use.

[YEKCIM]

Thanks for the insight, Kyle. As said, I am happy with the results from my $225 P&S. In fact, I was surprised at how good they turned out. I've thought some about the DL+"Kelly Lens" option, but don't want to be limited to 180mm (equivalent, if I've done the math right) on the tele end. Right now, I'm at 380mm at full tele, and I use the cam at that focal length quite a bit. I know there is an 18-200 out there, but I understand that the IQ ain't all that great. I'm intrigued by several features of the upcoming Fuji S6500fd, but some "official" samples I've seen posted on the Fuji site look really soft to me, and have given me pause. I'm in good shape at present with the 5200, and not in as big a hurry to replace it as I was.

We've got a family vacation to the Blue Ridge Parkway in VA and NC planned for October, and I'll be fine with the 5200, assuming I get it back from the shop (balky power switch) by then.

Main reason for posting was to offer a slightly differing viewpoint for others who may be contemplating a camera purchase, and need to clarify their camera needs.

~YEKCIM

[Anewman]

I'm at 380mm at full tele, and I use the cam at that focal length quite a bit. I know there is an 18-200 out there, but I understand that the IQ ain't all that great.

Main reason for posting was to offer a slightly differing viewpoint for others who may be contemplating a camera purchase, and need to clarify their camera needs.

~YEKCIM

Well the IQ of the 18-200 may be considered "not great", but that is compared to other SLR glass. When compared to point and shoot glass it would blow most out of the water. Same with the tamron 28-300mm(equiv to 480mm) lenses that are looked down upon, that is only compared to SLR glass.

Your viewpoint is very valid and I am sure your viewpoint greatly outnumbers the DSLR OR DIE crowds point of veiw, but most of those tend not to hang out in "photography" forums.

[JR6ooo4]

That's why we got the "rebel Jr" which is realy called the S2 (or 3). I bought the DW a small pocket size, think it was a canon 650, and the lag was biiiiig. So we compromised with a mid size model. Just the camera alone will fit in a pcoket. Well a winter coat pocket, ehheheheee. But it is silver, ewwwww? The pentax is coool black!

MIkeeee

[YEKCIM]

Thanks for the additional insight, Anewman...

I fully expected to return from WDW, wishing I'd had a dSLR or at least a better P&S than what I have. I was surprised to find that the images I returned with were of substantially better quality than I expected. I've had the 5200 since March and I'm glad I had it that long, as it has taken me a while to learn some of the nuances of the machine. I realize that it is not the equal of any dSLR, and is not quite at the level to which I aspire, but for the cost to benefit ratio, I'll take it.

Actually, I have found "the" camera for me, in doing some research for my still-film-but-yearning-to-go-digital freelance pro photograher wife, the lovely and talented Mrs. YEKCIM! That camera is...drum roll, please...the Nikon D200 with 18-200 VR lens, which is apparently as scarce as hens' teeth at present (the lens, that is). However, $2400 is not, in my wildest imagination, a possibility, so I'll keep my sights set much lower.

~YEKCIM

[Kelly Grannell]

But the S5200 is not a true point and shoot, it's a bridge camera. Meaning: better performance than the usual point and shoot.

[handicap18]

Actually, I have found "the" camera for me, in doing some research for my still-film-but-yearning-to-go-digital freelance pro photograher wife, the lovely and talented Mrs. YEKCIM! That camera is...drum roll, please...the Nikon D200 with 18-200 VR lens, which is apparently as scarce as hens' teeth at present (the lens, that is). However, $2400 is not, in my wildest imagination, a possibility, so I'll keep my sights set much lower.

~YEKCIM

The new Nikon D80 (set for official announcement on or about Ausust 7th) might be more up your alley then. Should be about $500 less than the D200 ($1099/1199 vs the D200's $1699) but with the same sensor (10.2MP). They is also speculation that they'll announce a few new lenses (hopefully the 70-300mm VR), but we'll see soon enough. Many Nikonians are getting fed up with the availability of the 18-200mm VR. Order it now for a Valentines Day gift. (yep taking as much as 7 months for people to get their's)

[Kelly Grannell]

There is also speculation that they'll announce a few new lenses (hopefully the 70-300mm VR), but we'll see soon enough.

That's what I read from the Nikon internal report. It's their answer to Canon 70-300 IS.

The only problem for me now is that Canon is still not releasing its 18-200 IS. Maybe they're afraid of production problem? (ie. too much of a shortage considering Canon dSLR is dominating about 60% of the market vs Nikon's 25% -- even with that Nikon still can't keep up with the demand).

[YEKCIM]

Thanks, Kyle. I've been reading about the D80, as rumor has it named, for the past few days on dpreview. I really made the D200/18-200VR comment, tongue in cheek, as there is absolutely NO way that is ever going to happen. I have a birthday (#52, ya young whippersnapper!) coming up in about a month, and I have put the D200 and lens on my "wish list" as an amusement for Mrs. YEKCIM. I'm sure she will get a kick out of it. She scoffs at anything that does not say, NIKON, as not being "pro", even though my 20 year old set of Maxxum 7000i's has served her well for the 14 years we've been married! I would gauge the D200 as being "almost" pro, and certainly enough camera for her very limited professional needs. She has need of something in this class; I clearly do not, although a man *can* dream, can't he??

Also, Kelly, thanks for clarifying exactly what kind of camera the 5200 is; I guess I tend to think of it as a P&S due to the relatively low cost. It's certainly been worth every nickel.

~YEKCIM

[mhutchinson]

This is all too funny. :lmao: .. I have been thinking about picking up a compact digital that will fit in the pocket of my cargo shorts ( or maybe even a shirt pocket) much easier than a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM lens does :rotfl2: when I am not using it :rotfl:

:rolleyes1

[Tazicket]

We just picked up a ist*DL back in mid-June (before the price cut and rebate! argh!) and love it. Sure it is bigger than a P&S, but I like having a little something extra to hold on to while taking photos - I'm not scared that I'll sneeze and break it in half! :rotfl:

And on AUTO mode, even a complete idiot can figure out how to aim and push the button down halfway to get the autofocus and then press it down fully to take the shot.

And for us, we were so tired of the lag time between pressing the release and the picture actually being taken that there was no way we were getting a P&S ever again. We're loving the Pentax so far. :thumbsup2

[Kelly Grannell]

Your 7yo DD uses a 300D with a Kelly lens on it? She must have arms like the Governator!

Anewman is right on about one thing - some people want or need a smaller camera, and the 300D sure ain't one.

Hows about posting a few of your DDs images? I've seen some 7-year olds take pretty good pics.

Here are some pics taken by her using 300D + The Kelly
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c72/kgranell/abde72fa.jpg
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f159/landakmedia/Disney%20Catalog%20and%20Illustrations/cc78b165.jpg
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f159/landakmedia/Disney%20Catalog%20and%20Illustrations/9474e968.jpg

30D + 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Too heavy for her hence the slanted framing
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c72/kgranell/1aa74bc9.jpg

[rtphokie]

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c72/kgranell/abde72fa.jpg


Where was this taken?

[Kelly Grannell]

USO just outside MIB ride

[WillCAD]

Well Kelly, it seems that your DD has inherited her mother's eye.

I love that duck shot!

[makinorlando]

Maybe I'm just cranky this morning, but it somehow the OP makes me feel that those of us without a dSLR are somehow "not worthy". I know that was really not the intent, but that was my first reaction...

I may not be able to get some of the shots that require a higher ISO, (which I did not even "get" when I bought my S2 six months ago....) but I think I'm doing pretty well!


Don't get me wrong, now that I know what I know... I want a dSLR, but if good sense prevails I will wait for a bit longer..... (then again I have not been known for always using good sense!)

[fitzperry]

That's what I read from the Nikon internal report. It's their answer to Canon 70-300 IS.

Any idea what the price point will be on that?

[Kelly Grannell]

Mak,

I don't think that's the intention. I personally think the intention is to raise awareness that now one can get a dSLR at the same price as a high-quality point and shoot and it is a perfect opportunity to do so while stock and rebate last.

[jann1033]

Maybe I'm just cranky this morning, but it somehow the OP makes me feel that those of us without a dSLR are somehow "not worthy". I know that was really not the intent, but that was my first reaction...

I may not be able to get some of the shots that require a higher ISO, (which I did not even "get" when I bought my S2 six months ago....) but I think I'm doing pretty well!


Don't get me wrong, now that I know what I know... I want a dSLR, but if good sense prevails I will wait for a bit longer..... (then again I have not been known for always using good sense!)

not to worry, you do a good job with what you have now and that's really the point isn't it?

i love my rebel but lets get real...is it really 4x better( roughly the difference in what i've spent vs what a s2 costs) than a p& s if i plan on using it on auto all the time? imo no. i like it for me but i can think of many many many people who wouldn't like it, nor want to spend that kind of money to take a snapshot of the kids playing in the backyard...course since this is a photo board people are more than normally interested in photography but i mean in the real world most people are perfectly happy with a nice little P& s...it's nice the dslr are becoming more affordable but sorry, just don't see why everyone would run out and buy one since we all know the spending doesn't really stop with the body and kit lens :lmao:

i do have to say i felt kind of freakish when we were at the Toledo Zoo last weekend and it was me with my rebel and a billion others with their little p&s and some guy literally yelled "LOOK that's one of those dslrs!" and the crowd turned my way...if they had only seen the out of focus results...:blush: :rolleyes1 :rotfl2: ( did see a few more later, 2 with giant back to back lenses that my husband literally turned around and gaped at , probably fearing that would be my next purchase :teeth:)

[Kelly Grannell]

Any idea what the price point will be on that?

Sorry, no pricing to be seen anywhere in that report.

[Greg K.]

did see a few more later, 2 with giant back to back lenses that my husband literally turned around and gaped at , probably fearing that would be my next purchase :teeth:

Or perhaps he was suffering from a common male malady.

Lens envy.

:blush:

Sorry. :teeth:

[fitzperry]

Or perhaps he was suffering from a common male malady.

Lens envy.

:blush:

Sorry. :teeth:

Oh, that's not exclusive to males. ;)

[Anewman]

Maybe I'm just cranky this morning, but it somehow the OP makes me feel that those of us without a dSLR are somehow "not worthy". I know that was really not the intent, but that was my first reaction...

I may not be able to get some of the shots that require a higher ISO, (which I did not even "get" when I bought my S2 six months ago....) but I think I'm doing pretty well!


Don't get me wrong, now that I know what I know... I want a dSLR, but if good sense prevails I will wait for a bit longer..... (then again I have not been known for always using good sense!)

makinorlando, you are one of the best photographers on this forum. And you would be so even if you shot with a $50 disposable digicam.

Buying a DSLR will not make someone a good photographer, just as the lack of DSLR does not equal a bad photographer.

My best friend gave his wife a RebelXT for xmas(based on my advise)...
Lets just say it has not made her a better photographer(I am trying to be nice).

[saratoga_socks]

I have a P&S and a DSLR
P&S are lighter and easier to carry.
DSLR is bulkier and heavier but does not have a shutter lag which is a very BIG plus to me.
If I attend parties or conventions I will bring my P&S but if I want to take good pictures I will use the DSLR
DSLR also have become more affordable. Get one and try it.

[ExPirateShopGirl]

ok, I give...

What's DSLR? I figured out P&S (point and shoot) and I can clearly see from your posts that DSLR is better... so what does it stand for and what would someone pay for a good starter DSLR and lense?

[saratoga_socks]

ok, I give...

What's DSLR? I figured out P&S (point and shoot) and I can clearly see from your posts that DSLR is better... so what does it stand for and what would someone pay for a good starter DSLR and lense?

Digital Single Lens Reflex
Canon & NIkon brands offer good starter cameras
Also Pentax & Olympus.

[Kelly Grannell]

from one of my blog articles

I've bought a dSLR but my pictures are the same as my point and shoot

Well, maybe that's due to the fact that you can't take pictures to begin with. Just like a music-company's slogan used to say "Our products won't make your music better, but they will help you to create it faster".

Owning a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, albeit a good one. Just like anything else (cars, audio system, recording gears, power tools, sewing machines), these things are just tools.

I've created (and sold) pictures taken with a lowly Fuji A345 (a $200 3MP P&S camera) and sometimes I can't sell pictures taken with a 30D and L-series lens (a $4,000 combo of lens and 8MP dSLR).

It's all about the photographer and how she (he) knows her (his) equipment.

Take your time to learn about the camera operations, buy photography magazines, look at other people's pictures. After more than 14 years dabbling in photography, I'm still learning everyday.

Remember, dSLR gives you the room to grow. Embrace it, get out of the "green zone" gutter and try to experiment.

posted by Landak @ 3:37 PM

[handicap18]

ok, I give...

What's DSLR? I figured out P&S (point and shoot) and I can clearly see from your posts that DSLR is better... so what does it stand for and what would someone pay for a good starter DSLR and lense?

dSLR = digital Single Lens Reflex. This is the type of camera that can change lenses. You see through the view finder what the lens though a series of mirrors that reflect the image though the lens to the view finder.

SLR's have been around for many many many many years. Digital versions have recently become more affordable so they are a big item now. Prices range from $350 (with rebate) to upwards of $5000 for just the camera body (with all kinds of prices and makers (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, etc...) inbetween). Lenses range in price from about $75 to tens of thousands of dollars. A typical average amerture photophrapher will spend upwards of $1500 to get their setup, this might include the camera body, a few lenses, speedlight flash and other accessories. Though there are many that will stick with just the body and a basic all purpose lens and be perfectly happy (you can get started for about $500-600 for entry level models). dSLR's have a bigger sensor chip than a P&S camera. One of the big advantages of dSLR's is the use of a higher and cleaner ISO (basically film speed ie, 200, 400, 800, etc...) (cleaner meaning less noise or grainyness to the picture). It also has an almost instand start-up time and virtually no shutter lag. Basically with a dSLR a user can take 3-5 pictures before a P&S user can take 1. You press the shutter it takes a picture (just like in the days of film), no waiting for the camera to do its thing (whatever that thing is) before it actually captures the image.

[makinorlando]

makinorlando, you are one of the best photographers on this forum. And you would be so even if you shot with a $50 disposable digicam.

Buying a DSLR will not make someone a good photographer, just as the lack of DSLR does not equal a bad photographer.

My best friend gave his wife a RebelXT for xmas(based on my advise)...
Lets just say it has not made her a better photographer(I am trying to be nice).

Thanks for you kind words and thanks Kelly too!

I should not have Dis'ed before coffee this morning!