would i be better off buying an SLR or a point and shoot that is equally high in megapixels?

An SLR. Next.....

hehehe

Phil talks too much...can ya tell. 8~D

Buy an SLR and I'll trade ya my point 'n' shoot even up for it. :~O

hey - a simple question requires nought but a simple answer :-)

An slr is definitly better. In most cases the sensor is bigger and better even though the acctual amount of pixels it produces is the same. Also on an slr you have the possibility of using better lenses then the average point and shoot. Glass makes a difference in the image quality aswell. Of course there are some good point and shoots out there that do have pretty good sensors and pretty good lenses on them, so you are going to get pretty good images that would be hard to tell apart from one that was taken with an slr, but then you also have to consider the possibilities of using different lenses (a wide angle one, a telephoto one, a macro one...). Although there are some point and shoots with external flash capibilities with an slr you always get that, and an external flash opens up all sorts of new fun. I also find slrs are often set up more for people that want to set their own settings so it is easier and faster to do on most of them giving you more controll and fun. Alot of these things i didn't think i would care about when i bought my slr, but as time has gone on i have bought a few more lenses, and a flash. I don't regret ignoring the guy at the store telling me that the point and shoot can do everything i want it to. Of course i have made some generalizations and not all point and shoots are the same, and not all slrs are the same. Also no photographer is the same. Not everyone needs to fork out the extra cash to buy an slr. You need to look at what you want to do with it and decide.

Whether it is a piont and click or point and click, just get something that allows you to control your aperture and shutter independantly. Oh, and if you're going to shoot you want a big Canon;-)

SLR = better but expensive

However, if you dont know what your doing, it isnt any use buying an SLR. You can get images just as good with a little point and shoot. (See my images, there terrible, but iuse an slr...the 2 mountain shots are not with a SLR, but with a point and shoot).

I wouldn’t have said that was particularly sage advice - all good DSLR's have full auto modes that effectively makes them a big point and shoot camera and at least if you have one you can grow into it as your skills develop rather than being saddled with an expensive aluminium fag packet that now falls below your expectations. So if you have the budget for it - go for the dslr. Just don’t get a Sony alpha, Nikon d80 or d200, that are all saddled with the same ropey Sony sensor. Unless you like lots of noise and colour banding in which case - knock yourself out :-)

It’s also worth bearing in mind a top of the range slr style compact will cost you as much as an entry level slr like an EOS400D so choose wisely.

okay, then what SLR would you suggest? I'm not really experienced but I love messing around with the settings and experiementing. I'm pretty hooked on Canon's in general, but may be willing to explore other brands.

(oh, and thanks loads for the help! i really appreciate this guys!)

what's your budget?

Just to get another perspective out there, remember that when phil says that D80 and D200 (im ignoring the sony cuz i also don't like it, but for different reasons:P) have noisy sensors you have to consider that it really only becomes a problem at higher ISOs. With that said it is probably something you should consider, but i wouldn't completly ignore those two just because they don't preform aswell with your high iso. They may have some other benifits that something you look at doesn't have that would accutally be more important to you. My D70 sensor, which also isn't very good (probably worse then the two already mentioned) doesn't bother me. For the stuff i do i rarely feel limited by my iso.

quite true. before you make any decision, read independent reviews and visit your local store to have a look see. if your planning a splurge you could also consider renting a few models too to try them out.

With the widest array of lenses and accesories, Canon was my choice. Get the 5D, it is the smallest full frame DSLR.

I doubt I could come up with the funds for a 5d. I couldn't got over a thousand right now. I'm still in college and looking at all the loans i'm going to have to pay back.

then a Canon 400D/Rebel XTi or Nikon D50 would bring you under budget albeit with a kit lens.

alternately, a fixed lens slr style compact such as the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50S will set you back a bit less than either of those two options but still give you an excellent camera with plenty of money to spare for accessories.

If your worried about cost, Canon 350D prices will drop now that the 400D is out, if you can find one that is...

how great is the difference going to be between canon's XTi and 350D?

quality-wise, i mean

8mp vs 10.1mp, new cleaning system, and larger screen (at the cost of the smaller lcd status screen the 350D has) and introduction of "picture styles" as opposed to "parameters" on the 350D, image quality would be only slightly better at best unless you crop a lot, and the money you save can go towards a new lens which has a greater influence on image quality anyway. well in my opinion anyway, best way would be to test them both out at a camera shop if possible

The most important difference between the 300D and the 400D imho is that the 400D can take 10 raw photos in a burst against the 300Ds 3. The 400D also has a newer faster focus system.

and a new low pass filter to help reduce noise at high ISO's :-) the new auto sensor cleaning/dust repeller is a big bonus - just ask anyone with an e-volt.

Adorama currently have both models in stock - with the 350/XT around $200 less than the 400D/XTi for the lens kit options. dont expect it to go much lower as stock levels are normally run down prior to a new model launch.

If you are looking for a model that is going out the nikon d70 is also a fairly decent choice (i am very happy with mine), and with the introduction of the d80 it will soon be discontinued and is already much cheaper.

indeed - like the Canon, the D70s kit is about $200 cheaper than the D80 kit.

I always have to tell people this because it's so underpublicized---

Take a look at Olympus!! The 8-MP E-500 is one of the best values in digital SLRs in existence, especially if you're looking for great photos out of the box. The two (yes TWO) included lenses cover great range and are much better than the kit lenses you get with canon/nikon for the same price.

Another big advantage is the integrated supersonic dust-cleaning system (they had it before Canon ever thought of it-- Oly users have never cleaned their sensors for three years, myself included, and this is a bigger deal than they make it out to be. Tests of canon's system in the 400D show it to be much less effective.)

Olympus is so underrated... but a wonderful value, and they take beautiful photos. Just something to consider... I'm only evangelizing it because I love my camera and it never gets enough attention. It's important to consider your own needs though and read reviews and TRY them before you buy. Good luck! :-)

I'm curious where you get that the two kit lenses are better than the canon/nikon kits?