Thank you so much for the help and i'm sorry for the newbieness! After looking at the other two camera's you recommended and I'm really liking the pentax.
I understand now that the d90 and the pentax are above the beginner level but do you think it would be too complicated for a newbie to use? I guess i'm kind of looking for camera I can grow into rather than one that I will automatically be able to point and shoot with, if that doesn't sound too crazy lol
All of the cameras you are looking at will allow you to grow; you can shoot with the same amount of control with the D3000 just like you can with the D3x.
The lower end models are designed with new DLSR shooters in mind. They have more "auto scene" features, which decide for you things like shutter speed and aperture for scene type that you select (like with a P&S). However, you don't need to use them and can use the standard A/S/M settings just like on the higher-end models. The entry level models have more in-depth menus and help features (I believe that the D3000 has a feature that actually gives you tutorials and decision-making support right in the camera). They are smaller and easier to carry, but still capable of great pictures. The suggestion of paying more attention to your lenses is sound; the entry level DSLR's of today have better image-making potential than the prosumer cameras of 5 years ago.
Some things you give up when getting an entry level (D3000) versus an enthusiast level (D90) or prosumer (D300s) include less focusing points, older focus tracking technology, more menus and less dedicated buttons, usually an older-generation sensor, lower image quality at higher ISO's, lower frame rate, less robust body, no focusing motor in the body (restricts lens choice), reduced control of off-camera flash. Are any of these omissions show-stoppers?
I started on a Nikon D50 four years ago, shot with it 2-1/2 years, and then moved up to a D300. Could I have gone straight to a D200 (prosumer at the time)? Probably, but even after having the D50 for 2-1/2 years and learning the basics of photography, the D300 was a big step in terms of complexity and capability. Going right to the D200 would NOT have been fun, as I can could see the camera getting in the way of the picture-taking. Could I have gone right to a D70 (enthusiast level at the time)? For sure. It was basically a souped-up D50. Although the D90 is more complex than its ancestor the D70 (as it also has video), it would not be totally beyond a new person's grasp. What kept me from getting the D70 was strictly budget; not only did I want a body, but a couple of lenses, so I had to compromise on the body. I still have one of those lenses, and use it regularly. The other was replaced with a faster one in the same range.
The entry-level Nikon lenses that are often paired with the D3000 and the D5000 are actually pretty darn good. Much better than the "kit" lenses of yesteryear. Knowing how I progressed, if budget is an issue I'd consider getting a D3000 with an 18-55DX and a 55-200DX. In addition, as women tend to have smaller hands, the smaller cameras, like the D3000 may feel more comfortable in your hand than the D90. In any regards, before getting ANYthing, go and shoot them. Go to a camera store, pick them up, play with the menus, take the lenses off and on, etc. I had my choices narrowed down to two brands; once I picked them both up the decision was made. One I loved the feel of, one I hated (personal preference).
Good luck with whatever decision you make!
