Can't resist jumping in even though I'm still a slowly improving amateur who prefers four wings with 6 legs (or 8 legs with no wings, or even no limbs at all). In no particular order, and with no attributions (sorry):

>> how/where do you post photos for others to view?
> I would like to mention pbase at $23 a year for a posting
> option.

I third pbase. Best thing is that it's a good showcase, and easy on visitors. flicker, smugmug, etc have such revoltingly obtrusive interfaces that I can't stand to stick around long enough to actually look at the photos, no matter how good they are.


> No offense intended to anyone, but it seems to me there's
> been too much emphasis on equipment over the past few
> years.

Photographers have been gear heads since it was invented. I grew up surrounded by gear wars--brand vs brand, 35mm vs medium format, 645 vs 120, Kodachrome vs Ektachrome vs Velvia... I won't admit just how long ago. :-)


> I'd only recommend getting the really expensive stuff if
> you find yourself limited by what you already have.

Yes, but. If you're sure you're serious, it can also be wasteful to spend money on something intermediate that you're going to need to upgrade sooner that you expected. When I was trying to decide between the canon 430 and 580 speedlites, the most common comment I saw about the 430 was, "it's very good...but now that I know more about using a flash, I really wish I'd spent the extra money for the 580 because now I have to buy one anyway." If the majority of photographers whose work you like say that features x/y/z are close to essential, it's worth paying attention. It's one of the bigger reasons why I went with Canon instead of Nikon--at least at the time, Nikon had no low/middle range bodies with mirror lock up, which is very useful for macro, and absolutely essential for micro. Canon's isn't nearly as convenient as it should be, but at least it's there.


Random thoughts:

Buying used can be a good way to save money if you buy from someone reputable with a good return policy. BHPhoto and Adorama both have good reputations. I haven't bought used bodies/lenses from them yet, but I have bought used accessories from both, and they've been as described.

If you think you want a particular lens/body but want to try one out first, there are lots of rental places. If you can go in with a friend or two for a week's rental the price on most items becomes inexpensive. I haven't done it yet, but probably will this summer. Photo blogs/forums should have recommendations for reliable companies. I think there's somewhere in seattle, too. If you think you're going to want to rent lenses regularly, such as for birding vacations, stick with canon and nikon; most rental places seem to have all or most C and N stuff available, but little or none of the other brands.


Canon vs Nikon vs the others:

All else being equal, buy what your friends are using. You're paying for a system, not just a camera, and you want as much access to that system as possible. Both Nikon and Canon make a range of good bodies, and have large ranges of lenses from cheap fair ones to expensive excellent ones, and lots of accessories, both name brand and third party. If you use what your friends use, it can greatly increase the number of lenses and accessories available to borrow!

Try bodies out and see what fits your hands. If it isn't comfortable to hold, you won't use it enough to make it worthwhile. I have small hands, but when I tried a Canon Rebel vs a 20D, the bigger 20D was so much more comfortable that I immediately dropped the Rebel as a possibility despite muttering ouch at the price difference.


A couple tradeoffs between point & shoots and SLRs that I haven't seen mentioned explicitly:

Raw vs jpeg. Only a few P&Ss let you shoot raw format. Once you've shot raw, and spent a little time processing it, you will never want to waste time and shots on a jpg again. Much more latitude to adjust white balance, exposure, and more after the fact. If you do get a P&S, get one that can do raw if at all possible.

Sensor size:

* Given the same number of pixels, a bigger sensor will have bigger, better, pixels than a smaller sensor. A bigger pixel can gather more photons, which means less image noise and more shades between black and white. Fewer pixels at a similar sensor size is why Nikon is currently ahead at image noise game (that will flip flop--repeatedly. Canon and Nikon with Olympus yapping at their heels are poster children for why the lack of a monopoly is a Good Thing.) [It was a slightly different tradeoff for film--with film, the grain size (pixel, sort of) was constant, and a larger frame gave you more 'pixels'.]

* Big sensors do wide angle more easily than small sensors; small sensors do macro and telephoto more easily than big sensors. This is why P&S cameras have 25x zooms and SLRs don't, why many macro/nature photographers like the 'crop' bodies such as the Canon 50D compared to the 'full frame' 5D, and why many landscape photographers are still using medium format.

* Small sensors have more depth of field (depth of what's in sharp focus) other things being equivalent. Bigger depth of field is often an advantage, and often a pain. If you want to blur out a background to make it less distracting, you need a small enough depth of field, and P&Ss often can't do it.

A few years ago I cobbled up a film/sensor size comparison chart that may amuse some of you <http://tardigrade.net/corkboard/RelativeFilmSizes.tiff>. The 2/3" size is typical for the high end p&s such as a G11, lower end p&s are even smaller. 127 film was a standard consumer size back in the day, Instamatics were sneered at for their tiny 126 film size, 645 and bigger was common, and even into my time, there was some residual arguing about whether 35mm film had acceptable resolution for printing even though the SLR convenience and versatility was very desirable. Versatility won--for some kinds of photography.
--
Allyn Weaks allyn at tardigrade.net Seattle, WA Sunset zone 5
Pacific NW Native Wildlife Gardening: http://www.tardigrade.org/natives/
Not counting bacteria, one out of every four species isn't a parasite.