Are you wanting to blow these pics up to large sizes, or are you looking strictly at digital or smaller prints?

If you're not looking to blow something up, I'd look at a used high-end but older model, like a Canon 1D Mark II. Those are still outstanding cameras, but well within your price range.

houstonwhodat is absolutely correct about the lenses though. You could have the best body money can buy, but if you put cheap glass (or god forbid plastic) in front of it, it's just not going to matter. Photography is bending light, so you want a good piece of glass bending it. Everyone has their preferences; I prefer Canon glass to Nikon.

Seriously?

Fire Me Boy and Simply Red both up and not a bite?

:huh:

We've met before, haven't we?

"Look, I know we've had our disagreements..."

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_A5kWE8EKJE...nard+nimoy.jpg

Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here now.

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__...Hantrooper.png

No, not going to be blowing up the pictures...just normal use. So, by getting a used, higher-end model, I'd be losing some resolution, but gaining speed? And that should be fine because I would only need the increased resolution if I was going to be blowing up the photos?

Yes. The Canon 1D Mark II is an older body, but it's a rock star, IMO. It's about 8Mpx, so you're still getting images that are roughly 3264x2448. Shoots 8.5 fps, ISO extends to 3200. There is no built-in flash. If you want to use a flash, I'd buy one anyway - the built-in flashes suck.

http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-Digi...990968260?r=FE

Ugh, so many armchair experts in here.

I would strongly suggest going with a "super-zoom" type camera instead of a DSLR. These offer amazing features and basically all manual controls you get with a DSLR without having to carry around an enormous bag and switching lenses all the time. Canon has a 80% market share for a very good reason, virtually every single product they make is superior to anything else on the market. Think about how competitive the camera market has become and for Canon to still have that kind of hold on the market only happens for very good reasons.

Also consider what your typical shooting environment will be and how many lens changes will be required. Unless it will become a major hobby for you later on, I don't see any reason as to why you would want to invest in a DSLR + glass (by far the biggest cost of any DSLR) at this point, it will just be more hassle than it's worth for you at the moment.

Save half your money and buy this:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerSho...ef=pd_sim_p_56

/former finance manager for a major camera manufacturer for 4 years if that matters (not Canon)

He said he wanted something he could grow into. That's not a P&S, if you ask me. :shrug:

Canon T2 or T3 is tough to beat for the money.

NO

You only need 2 lenses to shoot just about everything in life with some exceptions for specialty stuff like macros.

Nikon 24-70mm 2.8
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...mm_f_2_8G.html

Nikon 70-200mm 2.8
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...mm_f_2_8G.html

You'll be spending some cash for these lenses but you'll never buy another lens.

You can try to find one used at a reputable camera store.

Note; Don't forget if you're shooting digital and in DX mode not full frame then your lenses are magnified 1.5 times.

So a 200mm lens is really 300mm.

I can vouch for the Nikon D5200. It is outstanding! With a 18-200mm Nikon lens, it is by far the best DSLR I've ever owned.

I don't think he has $5K to spend on lenses, dude.

That's professional gear, similar to $3K full frame Nikon you recommended earlier. Although it's better to take photos when you have the best gear, I'm not sure he wants to drop $7K+ on a set up at this point.