[Gordo323]

I am going to buy an entry level SLR camera.
Looking at:
* Nikon D3000
* Canon EOS Rebel XS
Both are under $500 and come with the same basic lenses/accessories.
I know there is some camera knowledge on this forum because I've seen the pictures posted, if I try a camera geek forum, I know I'll never understand the gibberish that they speak.
I prefer the cut and dried responses I get here, so let's hear them please

[dunerunner]

If you are looking at the Nikon D3000, I'll assume you are looking for a Digital SLR.

So...here is a good deal at Ritz Nikon D3000 DSLR Camera Two-Lens Outfit (18-55 VR & AF-S DX 55-200mm F/4-5.6G ED) - 25462-2156-9793 - RitzCamera.com

[Gordo323]

Yeah thanks Dune, They have both cameras in stock at my local Walley-World and am going to buy one tomorrow morning, don't know nothing about DSLR and am looking to get out of the point and shoot Sony I currently have

[lonyaeger]

I've always been a Nikon guy, I currently have a D90. But I know that Canon makes cameras that are equal in quality. You can't go wrong with either, except that the Canon will accept more brands of non-proprietary lenses than the Nikon will. But I would give the edge to Nikon's Nikkor lenses themselves.

[lonyaeger]

Originally Posted by Gordo323

Yeah thanks Dune, They have both cameras in stock at my local Walley-World and am going to buy one tomorrow morning, don't know nothing about DSLR and am looking to get out of the point and shoot Sony I currently have

SLR (Single Lens Reflex) means more than anything that what you see through the viewfinder is exactly what you're going to get in your photo. On non-SLR digitals, that's not the case, so it's much harder to frame the photo exactly as you want it.

[lonyaeger]

Oh, and also....a DSLR will afford you the flexibility of changing lenses further down the road where a non-SLR will not.

[DrumJunkie]

Bought the wife a Canon a while back...12MP I think. She does portraits as a side job.It's pretty much digital version of her 35mm and all the lenses are interchangeable so it seemed the best way to go. It does a real good job but to be honest I have not seen many others to compare it to.

[gatopardo]

I'd go for a Canon any day of the week, pictures are better, its easier to handle. Nikon is a good camera but if you take photos in low light you'll detect more artifacts, (Artifacts are small orange and yellow freckles in the dark)
Here is the proof:
Look at any mayor sport event, everyone is shooting a cannon, see all those white zooms? Canon, is what professionals use.




Rest my case, Gato.

[Gordo323]

Thanks Lon,
I hake a Nikon Monarch scope on my Savage, so I was leaning in that direction cause I love it!

[cpttango30]

I say spend a little bit more and get the D5000. I have it and it is by far the best camera I have ever owned. I have a Pentax ZX-30 18-80mm lens. It takes great photos if I want to shoot film (Which I never do anymore).

I don't think Canon uses a proprietary RAW format. Nikon uses a NEF RAW format that you have to use the Nikon software for. Not a big deal in the beginning but it may come that way.

I looked at the Canon XS, XSi, T1i, Nikon D3000, d5000, d90. If I could have afforded it I would have went D90. I instead went with the D5000 which has many of the same stuff as the D90.

Any of them are going to turn out amazing pictures even in Auto mode.