which Digital SLR?

[Erica Blue]

Budget

* Want to spend no more than $800 for a camera a lens if possible.

Size

* Digital SLR

Features

6 MP and up is fine

* Zoom 35mm-80mm should be good

* How important is “image quality” to you? 10

Do you care for manual controls? Yes I need them

General Usage

* What will you generally use the camera for? For concert photos, macro shot of flowers, studio shots of people.

* Will you be making big prints of your photos or not? Possibly

Will you be shooting a lot of indoor photos or low light photos? Low light at concerts

Will you be shooting sports and/or action photos? Bands in motion.

Miscellaneous

Are there particular brands you like or hate? Nope,not really have a Canon AE-1.

Are there particular models you already have in mind? Nikon D40, Pentax 100d, Canon Rebel XT, used Canon EOS 20D. Maybe Canon Rebel XTi if I have to go that high to get what I want

(If applicable) Do you need any of the following special features? (Wide Angle, Image Stabilization, Weatherproof, Hotshoe, Rotating LCD) Image Stabilization may be good for the low lighting, and all DSLR's should have a hotshoe i imagine.

[sbnr]

Nikon D50 by far unless you can afford the excellent Nikon D200.

You might want to consider the Pentex K10d [I think that's the one].

Canon 20D is also excellent and and they are on clearence!!!

[SpecialK]

You might want to consider the Pentex K10d [I think that's the one].



Nope, body only is over budget by a hundred or so :-(

If image quality is "10" (whatever that means) you will want to skip the "kit" lens" from any manufacturer as they are "fair" performers.

You might consider the Pentax K100D body only (about $450),
http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/scms_docs//extended.buymoresavemore.pdf

and the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 Macro version lens (about $375). That puts you over budget but you'll always go over budget :-( That would get moderate wide, moderate telephoto (barely) some low light capability, and fairly close for flowers. And in-body stabilization means any lens will benefit from it. Not much burst shooting (3 to 5 shots) as it has a tiny buffer - though your specified subjects don't really require shooting a stream of shots. And, you'll want to use the tungsten setting instead of auto white balance in household light unless you shoot RAW, in which case it does not matter.

The D50 is also nice and can be found at a reduced price (competition form the new Nikon D40) while they last. No stabilization, unless you buy a lens with VR (Nikon's term) in it. Better burst and AWB, though.

[swgod98]

When working in low light, you might want to consider a camera that you can actually see the settings on when it's dark. So, look for a camera with a top LCD display with backlighting (20D), or a camera that uses the rear LCD for setting changes (XTi, D40). Not necessary, but it's something to consider.

I would get the 20D by far over the others listed (but, do keep in mind it is also the largest by far). If you can find a D50, it's a good camera with great low light performance. But, so are the XT and XTi.

If you try to buy the D40 without the kit lens, you'll be hard pressed to find a (IQ 10) lens to use with it. Almost definitely will bust your budget.

btw, I think IQ 10 is a bit unrealistic to achieve on a budget. But, who knows...a 10 to you might be an 8 to someone else ;)

The K100D is an option for it's built in IS, but the high ISO performance isn't quite up to the levels of some of these others. It's a compromise.

With the 20D, you will go over budget by far.
With the XTi, you will go over budget by far.
With the XT, you might make it under budget, depending on lens.
With the D50, you might make it...
With the K100D, you might make it...
With the D40, you won't make it...

All given that you must not purchase the kit lens and instead buy a separate (IQ 10) lens for your low light needs.

[sbnr]

I meant to say the K100D.