Either way you decide to go, you can buy a refurbished camera and lens direct from Canon or Nikon and save a few bucks.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs...10051_-1_29252

http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikon...oryID.43896400

Depends on what you want to do. DLSR will make you buy lenses, filters, etc ... if you want to spend money and want the learning curve Rebel is the way. Otherwise I'd recommend the new 'all inclusive' Panasonic or Canons that don't require lense but also produce high quality images.
If you like a particular kind, before you buy go to flickr and search images taken by that device and see how you like them.
Posted via Mobile Device

Find what you want above bidget, then head to keh.com and find one used in Ex or Ex+ condition.

OK

I'm a professional photographer.

What do you want to know?

Canon/Nikon are about the same. Canon is a little faster for sports, Nikon has the best flash systems and colors to me.

* Buy only Nikon/Canon lenses. It's all about the glass.
* Don't buy anything with a plastic body


It all depends on what you want to do with your photos.

It's hard to get anything worth a damn for 400.00

Nikon D-800 with vertical grip is all you'll ever need.

Interesting, because my main use would be to take pictures of my daughters during their gymnastics events. However, for the entry level price range I'm looking at ($600 - $800'ish), it seems like Nikon shoots faster and has more AF points (which I've read is important for fast-moving pictures). Do you agree with that, or do you think the Canon entry level units are better for sports?

Indoors with subpar lighting you're either going to need to bump up to 3200 ISO or you're going to need a fast lens. Youll be able to stop the action with either cam.

I am not really a particularily skilled photographer but a nice camera can make anyone pretty decent. Here are a few we took with our Canon. My Peter Lik impression came out okay but I think we would have needed some type of wide lens to get the exact effect.

No - you need to buy AF-S lenses with it, but almost all of Nikon's lenses work with the camera and auto-focus.

+1 on dpreview.com

I shoot the NFL every year in drastic light conditions.

If you're gonna shoot sports you need something that can handle at least 8 frames per second.

And you also need something that does not have a lot of noise at high ISO's (2000-3200)

You need to be able to have a shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second shooting at 2.8 with no flash.

Canon shooters love their fast focus but when the lighting is dim they get more noise than the Nikon shooters do.

When you notice the photographers on the field, all white lenses are Canon and the blacks are Nikon.

You can't go wrong either way, but I love my Nikon. I get some amazing images and the resolution is crazy.

If you can't afford a real expensive body put all your money into lenses.

Don't buy a variable aperture, get a fixed aperture and try to always buy a lens that can open up to 2.8.

Your lenses are interchangeable with your different bodies so buy one brand and stick with it for life. I'm still using lenses I bought 20 years ago. The bodies are going to be obsolete in a year anyway, just like computers.

For anything photographic go to:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

http://www.kenrockwell.com/

http://www.sportsshooter.com/

You'll never notice the difference in the speed.

My Nikon shoots 8 frames per second. My buddies Canon shoots 10 frames per second.

Both are plenty enough.

When I get done shooting a game I usually have almost 2000 images to sort through.

dpreview has some great info, for sure.

Personally, in your price range, I would look for a lightly used or refurbished Nikon D90. One thing that you might want to consider is whether or not you will want to use some of the older, classic Nikon lenses. The older Nikon lenses used a screw-drive AF mechanism which was driven by a motor in the camera. These are often designated AF or AF-D. The newer lenses are the AF-S type which use an integrated focusing mechanism in the lens itself. Some of my favorite lenses are still the older, heavier AF and AF-D lenses.

For example, for indoor/outdoor sports, you can get a nice 180mm f/2.8 for $400 or so on the used market. Built like a tank and fast. But it is in AF or AF-D only.

The old adage you will see many times is to spend the money on the glass, and not the body. So if you have a choice between a $200 lens and $500 body or a $500 lens and $200 body that suits your needs, go for the lens. Also lenses are like guns - if you get the right deal, you will not lose money since the good ones generally do not lose value.

Also look at B and H photo in New York if you decide to buy new. They are very reputable and have great prices.

I won't bore you with too many details, but the tl;dr is to consider how you may want to expand in the future and buy based on that. Good luck!

This review - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d3200 - says the D3200 shoots 4 frames per second. Would that be fast enough?

I love my Nikon D3100 and I'm wanting to get another lens for it. I only have the 18-55mm lens that came with it. I mostly shoot landscapes. Any suggestions?

I wouldn't buy one.

"I like to remember things my own way. How I remembered them, not necessarily the way they happened."

Four would be pushing it on the low end, but you could do it. You just wouldn't have as many usable shots.

I disagree with houstonwhodat's assertion that you need 8 fps or better. Maybe for NFL when people are moving extremely fast. But I shot college sports for years on 5 fps and had no shortage of good shots to use.