Abstract said:Lets get several things straight, because I don't want you to walk away with any misconceptions.
All cameras take photos, and the quality of the photos depend on how good a photographer YOU are. I can give you the best paint brush in the world, but can you produce the nicest painting?
You can produce the worst photos of all time with the best camera. No offense, but BakedBeans and several other members at MR would generally get better photos using an S3 than you can with a DSLR. Give me a nicer camera than the one I have now, and better lenses, and I'll still produce the amateur photos I'm producing today.
Photographers take the photos. The camera just catches whatever it is you are seeing.
Oh, and if you want to take macros, Nikon does this better. Even their P&S cameras are supposed to be great at this, from what I've read here.
DSLRs just happen to have greater, or lets say "finer, more precise controls" over certain settings (eg: shutter speed) than the S3. The learning curve for an S3 and any DSLR is almost identical because you have to understand what these settings are to use either camera in MANUAL mode.They're both cameras, and have the same physical limitations.
The main difference is in the lenses (and the controls). With DSLRs, you get a lens based on what you'll be photographing. It offers you the chance to get another lens that does the job better than the lenses you already own.
With the Canon S3, you get a very flexible lens that can zoom in and out a lot, and can be used in 95% of situations very well. It's a single lens that gets you good results. Your DSLR will also offer you lenses that handle 95% of situations very well, but you'll probably need 2-3 different lenses with different focal lengths to do so, hence the popularity of the S3.
A DSLR may have the ability to take better photos, but if you don't have money for lenses (do you have future plans?), then a 350D with 18-55 kit lense probably won't be as useful as the S3 is for you.
Then yes, get the DSLR.
A "kit" doesn't imply something negative. A kit is like a "starter kit" --- it's another word for "package". They package a camera and a lens together. Canon's kit generally bundles the 350D with the cheap 18-55 mm lens for those who don't have Canon lenses already and are starting out. If Canon wanted to bundle a camera and a GOOD lens together, they could.
What will you shoot?
If you're starting out, get a DSLR from the company that offers you the lenses that you think you'll want in the future. Canon does sports very well, but I don't shoot sports.
The main reason I bough a Nikon 5 months ago was because I knew what sort of photos I liked (landscapes and macros), after doing some research on companies and lenses, I already knew what lenses I eventually wanted (a wideangle lens, a macro lens, and the 18-200mm VR-II (Nikon's equivalent to "IS") for every other situation, a lens that Canon simply can't match right now). Olympus or Pentax also make great cameras that offer a LOT of features, and probably have the best price/performance ratio, so if cost is a concern, then....
From these 5 possibilities, I'd get the 18-55 mm, and the 55-200 mm. Even though they aren't great lenses, at least you have them when you need them. What's worse, a photo taken using a bad lens, or not being able to take the photo you wanted to at all?
The 17-85 mm lens, and the price you're looking at for the lens is probably brilliant. It would make a fantastic lens for general use......something to use on your DSLR most of the time. However, if you decide that you love shooting landscapes and macros, then you just spent A LOT more £££ on the 17-85 mm IS, which isn't the best for EITHER situation.
If you wanted to shoot landscapes and macros, you'd be better off getting the 18-55mm kit lens for general photos, 55-200 mm to shoot things far away, and use the £270 you saved towards a Sigma 105mm macro lens, and eventually a wideangle Tokina 12-24 mm lens for landscapes. You'd still have the 18-55 mm and 55-200 mm as well. (Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina offer cheaper alternatives that are sometimes 99% as good as the ones from Canon, Nikon, Olympus, etc)
If you find that you want to shoot macros and portraits, then you can use the £270 you saved to buy a single 105 mm f/2.8 lens from Canon/Sigma/Tokina, which can be used for both macros AND portraits.
If you find that you're shooting children's school plays, concerts, etc.... in low light situations, an 85 mm f/1.4 lens (or lots of other lenses) that lets a lot more light in (much more light than the 17-85mm) is better.
My point is that you don't even know what you want to shoot yet, so why invest in something now?
Better lenses?
And the fact about "better lenses" is that even if you were to take a photo using the 18-55mm rather than an expensive £700 lens, most people wouldn't even be able to tell you the difference by looking at the photo. You might be able to tell the difference if you took a photo of the same object using each lens, printed both photos out in a large format and held them side by side, but otherwise, don't worry about it. It's just that some lenses are better at not producing "flares", "chromatic abberation", "vignetting", etc, than the cheaper lenses. An expensive lens will also be slightly sharper, but whatever.
Wow! Thanks for being ridiculously helpful!
I've considered what you've written. Especially with regards to how Canon and Nikon are regarded as superior in different types of photography (sports vs macros/landscapes, like you say). Although it is always impossible to second-guess how your interests will develop, I can honestly see myself getting into macros (and, to a lesser extent, landscapes). This is what I've been shooting on my dads (very crappy and old) low-end P&S. I certainly won't be shooting any sports. In that case it sounds like I should be looking at Nikon; most probably the D70s or D50.
Looking around the web, I found the Nikon D70s with the standard 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 DX Lens for £616. This to me sounds like a good deal and perhaps my best option, although I may be wrong (if I am, please correct me!). The lens are very flexible in what they'll shoot (though no VR), not super expensive, and the body is of good quality. At some point in the future I would probably want to invest in a dedicated macro lens as I get more familiar. Also, living in inner-London, I'd love to just take my camera out and take some urban shots (whether it be architecture, graffiti, transport, people, etc) so I'm guessing investing in something similar to your 18-200mm VR-II at a later date would be good for that sort of on-the-go photography???
Thankyou again for all your help!
