OT- Digital SLR

I have a Sony Alpha200, and it's worked pretty well for me. It's a bit large/heavy, but I got it for a very good price on eBay. My sister is more of a photographer and has a Canon and loves it.

In my experience, I don't think I would have used a video function, but live view would be nice at times. Occasionally it's a little bit of a hassle to have to look through the tiny eyepiece.

Since I don't own either of the two, my only piece of advice is to not worry about the mexapixels as much as the other features/quality. My sister's camera is only 6 MP, and the photos it takes look just as good as my 10 MP unless they're blown up above an 8x10. Worry more about getting something with a good quality lens.

While I don't own either (my Pentax is my baby), I have used both a few times. I found the Canon to feel much better, both in terms of physical bulk and also their menu system compared to the Nikon.

I am also a novice, with a few classes under my belt, and I just moved up from a film DSR to a D5000 over the holidays. I'm very happy with it. It's pretty sophisticated, and has a bit of a learning curve with the various advanced controls, but it can just as easily be used as a pre-programmed point-and-shoot with a little more creative control. I recommend a good third party guide (David Busch's Guide is great) along with the camera.

I can't foresee myself using much video, and Live View is nice, but the tilt screen is cool and prices are pretty reasonable if you shop around a bit.

It's my first DSLR, and I'm still learning about all the various settings and capabilities. I've never used a Nikon or any other DSLR, so I don't have any basis for comparison, but so far I don't have any complaints.

It can shoot video in HD, but the frame rate at that resolution is only 24, and most of the reviews I've read say that you're probably better off shooting in the non-HD format so you can get a higher frame rate. I haven't shot any video yet so I can't speak from experience there.

BlockM is right about the megapixels vs. other features. Since I'm a graphic designer I frequently need to use my photos at a full-bleed 8.5 x 11 or 11x17, so the 15MP the T1i has is distinct advantage. If you're never going to need to do that, then a better lens than the standard Canon kit 18-55 lens is probably a good idea.

If you haven't already done so, visiting these camera review sites can be helpful:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/

http://www.dcresource.com/

http://www.dpreview.com/
In depth reviews of all the popular DSLRs.

Though I'm supposed to be duty-bound as a Canon shooter to tell you to buy Canon, the truth is that either one is capable of taking fine photos. I think there are two relevant thoughts when choosing between the two brands:

1)Are there significant differences in feature sets -- does one camera have something the other doesn't? If one has a feature the other doesn't and it's something you want, that'll make your decision easier.

2)How do they feel in your hands? How do you like the button and menu layouts? They're set up differently, and chances are you'll prefer one over the other.

The first question can be answered easily with research on the internet, but the second requires you to go to a store (preferably a camera store -- they're more likely to have knowledgeable employees) and get your hands on the cameras to see what you think. I'd highly recommend doing that.

I do want to echo two very good points from BlockM: megapixels are overrated and lenses aren't.

As to megapixels: they're great for marketing purposes (OMG our numbers are bigger!), but at a certain point they're really not that important for most purposes, especially for normal consumers (as opposed to pro shooters). The quality of megapixels is considerably more important than the number: a marginal 15mp sensor is less desirable than a good 8mp sensor. So it's okay to have the megapixels, but don't base any purchasing decisions on that number.

As to lenses: they're what actually brings the image into the camera, so they're the key piece of the photography puzzle. A top-of-the-line camera body paired with a bad lens will produce worse pictures than an entry-level body paired with a good lens because the body can't see anything on its own.

That said, you probably don't need to worry quite as much about lenses since it doesn't sound like you're doing this for a living. If you're just enjoying photography as a hobby, you don't necessarily need a great lens -- just a decent lens.

Finally: I've found it useful to read a bunch of user reviews of gear to look for patterns -- if several people mention the same good/bad point, then it's something to consider. To that end, I read the reviews here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

You should be able to get a pretty good perspective on the gear's real-world performance there. Again, though, I'd go to a camera store and get the gear in your own hands before making a final decision.

Hi bcsblue,

I was in the exact same boat as you were. Comparing the D5000 and the T1i I came out with the conclusion that the T1i is the better camera (you can read a couple comparisons here: http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/30/canon-eos-rebel-t1i-impressions-head-... and here: http://gizmodo.com/5234607/canon-rebel-t1i-vs-nikon-d5000-entry+level-ds... )

However, I actually ended up finding a great deal on the Nikon D40 (less than $400 with the kit lens) and am exceptionally pleased with it. It doesnt have the megapixels of the higher cameras but this makes pracctically no difference unless you are printing pictures larger than 30". It also doesn't have a video mode. For me, video was going to be a pretty important feature but frankly the D5000 and the T1i video modes are not as good as they should be (the Nikon's with the Jello effect http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7ntnASJnNM and the T1i which only does 20 fps 1080p). Because of this I decided to wait for the next generation Canon 550D which will most likely have 30 fps/24 fps 1080p.

In the end the D40 takes incredible pictures and I was able to use the money I saved to buy a couple lenses. I'd much rather have my D40 with a few lenses than either of the above with just the stock lens.

Another good resource is www.kenrockwell.com see his Recommended Camera section (he also goes for the D40) http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

It depends on how much you really want to spend and what you are looking for. My girlfriend is a wedding photographer and prefers Canon products. The Mark II is one of the best available.

We just bought my Dad the Nikon D3000 for Christmas (the deal came with an extra telephoto lens and case). A more budget-friendly version of the Nikon D5000 (with obvious quality differences), but we figured he was going to use it for standard shooting plus some vacation pics. He seems to like it.

Both the Nikon and Canon look like good deals. As others suggested, maybe go a camera store and test-drive both for a bit to get an idea which one best fits your hands and expected usage. As much as I hate to admit it, I have smaller hands for a guy my size (that's what she said!), and when I look for cameras and other electronics I sometimes find that buttons are too small/far-spaced for easy usage. Something to consider.

Great, thanks for the good info. Ill dig around online a little more. From what I have read most people think these 2 cameras are very comparable. I got lots of best buy $ for Christmas, the Nikon D5000 is about 100 dollars cheaper.

Also, how important is it to have a better lens. Both come with a 55mm , there are some packages for 150-200 dollar more that come with a 200mm lens and a bag. Is this something I should get right off the bat, or wait a while and get a better lens?

If you want a phenomenal review from a CAMERA site, go to DP review.

Not engadget or gizmodo. Those are tech sites and review hardware, they're not camera sites. Nuck is right though on saying you should look at reviews as well.

And I definitely agree with Sgt. I still havn't bought a camera as I don't have employment as of yet..... But spring for the lenses. Not the megapixels.

I'm looking at the T1i and the Pentax K-x. The K-7 if you really want to spend the cash. The nice thing about the Pentax line is that the IS is body mounted, not lens mounted, so you're not paying for it every time. I'll say that the T1i feels a little small to my hands. If I had bought it online, I don't think I would have complained, but I want to get my hands on a Pentax to see how it feels.

If you look at the Pentax review, go to the compare to page and it will give comprehensive lists of all features and what they feel is better. I will say that I've read that the K-x has possibly the best sensor in its price range, even if it's not the highest pixels.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxkx/page21.asp

Even if you don't want the Pentax, it's a good review that compares the cameras well.

edit:
And you can get a 2 lens kit for the pentax which is a 18-55 and a 50-300mm super tele lens. Supposed to be decent for kit lenses. I've read Olympus has the best kit lenses. Super incredible deals are usually offered on kit lenses. Something nicer is a good idea, particularly if you want to be a serious photographer, but I would get whatever they have available in a kit, and when you decide what you want, sell the kit lens for what you payed for it and get a real lens