The little 18-55 lens it comes with is a bargain too, very sharp.

The Nikon kit lens puts the Canon ones to shame, much higher quality.

Help me out guys...
Dont want to spend 700 bucks on a camera but I want something awesome. Talk to me.

not a changable lens but very good walkaroud cameras are the Panasonic LX3(24-60mm) and Canon G11(28mm-140mm) both have fast lens (f2 &2.8 respectively). both are desiged to give you the control of settings like an slr but in a  compact/rangefinder style body

Help me out guys...
Dont want to spend 700 bucks on a camera but I want something awesome. Talk to me.

OK so youre looking for a starter camera. Big question:

Do you want to take up photography as a hobby, or are you just looking for something which will give you more versatility in your holiday snaps?

If the former then my recommendation is 100% buy an entry level DSLR from any of the major manufacturers with a twin lens kit. In Pentax (because I know them best rather than because Im trying to push them, I would look at every brand in your position) youd be looking at a K-x with 18-55 and 55-300mm lenses for ~£650. In image quality terms you litterally cant go wrong, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax and Sony all make excelent cameras. In my personal opinion Canon lens quality leaves a lot to be desired but even their worst offering will make any compact look like a beer bottle. The most important difference between the brands is ergonomics, which means the best way to choose is to find a bricks and mortar store which keeps them all and try them out. A great camera should get out of the way and let you take the photograph, so it should be comfortable to hold and use. Obviously different people have different size and shape hands, so while my Pentax K10D is the most comfortable camera Ive ever used, you may not like it, a larger Nikon may fit your hand better.


On the other hand if you just want an automatic snappy camera with a bit more oomph, bridge cameras are your friends. Serious used to have a really nice Panasonic Lumix with a ~12x optical zoom. These are cheaper, smaller and lighter than DSLRs but they lack the interchangable lenses and the ultimate control of a system camera.

Any camera can take awesome pictures Sam, its up to the photographer not the equipment.  If its the camera you want to be awesome rather than the pictures perhaps a Leica M9?

The D40 is recommended because it is cheap and easy to use and gives very good results, whilst allowing you to have more control as you learn more. Anything more expensive just has bigger quicker controls really.

The D40 is discontinued ?

I just ordered the D3000. A replacement for the D40. Check it out, tell me your thoughts (I can still cancel if I need to).;

 

what he said. I dont know the Nikon model range well, but it looks a competant if rather basic camera from the spec sheet. 10MP with no live view or video implies to me that it could well be the same sensor as is in my K10D, I know Nikon used that sensor in several cameras at one point. If so then it should perform well.

With an SLR the image quality is 90% lens and 10% body/post processing, and the Nikon mount will give you plenty of options for good lenses to strap on the front. Their kit lenses are better than Canons so should give you a good start.

Yes, sort of, but only because the D3000 appears to be compromised to keep costs down.

If you dont want to pay $700 for the D5000, Id still say get the D40. You seem to be put off by the fact that Nikon are discontinuing it - you should be aware that the camera makers are turning over their digital models every two years - so in 2 years or less the D3000/5000 will be discontinued too, just not as good value as the D40. There is more depreciation in camera values than Ford Scorpios. You could spend the money saved on bigger and better lenses like the 18-200 zoom, which is fantastic.

Things I have found frustrating in digi cameras, compact or slr, are slow processing speed, slow reaction to controls, and small piddly viewfinders or displays. The one thing these cameras can do that film cant is allow you to take a picture and straight away check if its wrong, shaky, too dark, etc. Anything that gets in the way of that frustrates. Its more important than the absolute image quality of the camera because if if you get simple things wrong youll never get to that quality. The better cameras do all of the above better. Dont forget, its not the camera that takes the picture but the photographer exercising his technique and skill. What sensor is in the camera doesnt matter because beyond a certain point, every modern camera gives good technical image quality - this has nothing to do with how good your pictures are. I could have the best Java programming manual in the world and I still wouldnt be able to do it;)

So on that basis is the better processor of the D5000 worth the extra $200? It has other important things like the colour fringe correction of the newer better Nikons, and better high ISO quality (for pics in low light). Never mind the video or the flippy screen, these are salesroom features.

Crucially, will the extra money help you take better pics than the D3000 or the D40? No, because thats up to how much you know about driving your camera, and the D40 will get you the same results. The real next step up is the D90, because it has a much bigger rear screen and much faster reaction to scrolling controls, with dedicated buttons for the useful adjustments.