G'day,
I would recommend the Canon . I have the Canon EOS 30D with a 17-85 lens, it has an image stabilizer incorporated in it .
Canon have various models but I chose to stick with a metal body unit as more of a solid unit . I figured with where I was traveling like central Australia etc. that life could be hard at times . I didn't want to be stuffing around with interchanging lenses in dusty conditions like I did with my old Minolta 101 so went with a middle of the road system.
The 30D is still around and should be easily within your budget, it was superseded when the EOS 40D came out - pixels aren't everything , it is the processor that counts . The 30D is 8 megapixel which will print high resolution on A3 size easily . on some websites the 40D is nearly down to your budget .
Second choice would be Nicon but I like the operation of the Canon and it has been the bench mark for a long time .
Have fun making your decision ! Let's know how you get on .
Nah forget the Canon and go for a basic Nikon D40 SLR. Don't take my word for it, Check out what Ken Rockwell has to say here:
Recommended Cameras
I wore my first SLR out at school and got 20 years out of the next one. But following Ken's advice when I bought my third SLR was absolutely awesome. I bought a Nikon F80 film camera the top end of the amateur film cameras. The body cost me $500 and I put a 24-85mm lens on it which is simply awesome! The lens cost me about $800. It was a big step mentally to go with Nikon after using a Minolta for 20 years... And I was certian at the time it was the best choice.
So when I started to think about upgrading to a digital SLR, I read what Ken had to say and throwing in my printing industry experience which saw me dealing with scan and photo resolutions every day, I had to agree with Ken. The D40 was abetter package than the D40X which had slower flash sync and higher minimum Film speed tbecasue it had more pixels tro deal with!
I have only ever blown up 2 photos in my life beyond 10 x 14" and came to the conclusion that he was right. You don't need more than 6 megapixels as that will get you to a 12x18" photo without loss of quality. Spend the money on the lenses, not the camera body. The D40 comes with a 18-55 mm lens and that is equivalent to my 24-85mm lens on a film camera. Yes the $800 lens is better than the cheapie but it is pretty hard to pick the difference. I've taken my camera to weddings wher pros use the Canon (becasue it has a softer focus) but I reckon the Nikon beats the pro's pics in terms of clarity. However, the D40 might be hard to find because the shops sell on megapixels not picture quality as that is what everybody is hodwinked by.
So then get the little Nikon SB-400 flash. I am so pleased I bought this one and not a big one. It outperforms my big old Metz by an amazing margin! I am so pleased that I did not spend the big $ on an SB-800.
So in your budget, I'd get the D40 with it's 18-55 mm lens, the SB-400 flash and you should have about $800 to spend on one more lens. I'd get the 70-300mm lens myself (becasue I have the 24-85) but that blows your budget by $100. I would choose this lens because I think my next SLR might be a full frame sensor rather than the DX format. But just starting off, I'd go the AFS-DX VR 55-200mm lens for $349 and you'll have heaps of cash left over...
The first thing I did when I got my D40 is set it up the way Ken told me.
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. Here is a couple of pics fomr a recent NZ trip:
Think about how hard the lighting is in this pic to get the right exposure, but the Nikon has a database of 30,000 photos in its fiirmware to get this right!
And one of the V8's (wish I had a longer lens)
and these ones on my film camera with the 24-85 lens on th efirst roll of film I put through it:
Finally if you wonder why you might consider an SLR over a compact digital camera have a look at these two boring photos of my bathrrom reno which we have nearly finished:
My wife's new Olympus Compact FE-3010
Nikon D40 with SB400 flash and standard 18-55 DX lens
You should be able to see the additional sharpness in the second pic around the edges of the sink and the tap. The light is a bit softer because I bounced the flash off the ceiling. A comparison between wedding photos between any compact camear and the SLR pics just blows you away!
Anyway, I got carried away. Just spend a few days reading Ken's web site and choose between the Nikon and the Canon. A wedding photographer in Feb this year told me everybody has swung back away from Canon to Nikon as they are the best today... So who knows. Eithe rbrand yo won't really go wrong.