i'm a student and have been itching to get a good, dependable camera to start snapping stuff my eyes see but cannot record. I know nuts about what camera to get so i'm extremely hesitant about starting with a manual camera since i can't go pro anytime soon. also, cash restriction makes it difficult to "try-out" cameras - it's one or none. any ideas? would u rather a digital or manual camera given the choice, if u were tinking of goin pro/amateur?

Digital. Some great buys for entry level. Check out:

www.dpreview.com/ HERE

I would recommend going the digital route. It's just easier to experiment with, and the cost of printing is lower than manual. You can snap 10 pictures of the same thing, and only keep the one you like.

Then again manual also has its merrits.

so what are the merits of manual then?

Cheaper to buy. I imagine some proffesionals prefer it because they have used it for a long time. IMHO it is outdated technology, I wouldn't use it, but then again I am not a proffesional.

IMHO?

In My Humble Opinion... netspeak :-)

IMHO, go digital. Canon has a very good, better than entry level, camera - the Canon Digital Rebel for about $1000.00. It is a six megapixel camera. The best part is that it was designed to use Canon's 35mm EOS lenses. So, if you chose Canon, you can eventually get two camera bodies and use the same lenses. Canon lenses, the professional grade, are as good or better than Nikon, the ultrasonic lenses focus faster than Nikon if you are trying to shoot fast moving objects...like cheetah hunting or soccer players. I am sure Nikon has an equivalent. The downside to the Digital Rebel and most other Digital-35mm interchangeable lens cameras is that the technology used creates a multiplication factor of about 0.5 in the image...like a telephoto. So, if you use a 300 telephoto, you end up with a 450 telephoto effect. This is great for telephoto shots but is is a downside when using a wide angle lens.

The rebel is a very good camera, (from what I have read/heard about it) but you probably don't need to spend that much if you are only starting out. I think you would be paying for many features you probably wouldn't need, if you are on a budget I think look at something simpler.

is the Rebel the same as the european model EOS 300D?

PhilcUK: yes

i've read abt the Rebel n it's a wow kinda camera but way above my budget...by the time i convert the currency i'd be paying 1.7 times more than US$1000... *wince*

I have a Canon IxusIV 2.1 MP which I bought about 3 years ago. It cost a fair amount at that time but nowadays you could get something like it or better for not very much money (certainly alot less than a rebel). The main drawbacks it has are limited zoom and macro abilities, other than that it has served me well. Have a look in my gallery if you want to see some samples, remember I am an amatuer...

*grin* impressive. ur fav motifs: nature, castles, flowers. v v nice. i notice u like manipulating ur graphics alot n while it's hard to tell whether it's ur camera or the com dat does most of the work, u haf some reallie reallie nifty stuff going on there. =)

what else is there out there that is gd n not too expensive?

My advice is go digital. You will save heaps by not buying film and not paying someone to process the film. Its also easier to upload the pictures. Which one depends on your budget and liking.

http://www.dpreview.com/

This is an excellent site with very in depth reveiws. You should be able to make an informed decision by having a look here.