[essvee]

From the sounds of it (I dont mean this offensively) you've got alot of reading to do on the subject.

So lets start from the top, the difference between an SLR and a point and shoot.

An SLR, or single lens reflex camera is essentially a direct equivalent to a film camera, with the exception that instead of using rolls of film, there is a digital sensor in place. There are actually many high end slrs that have what are called interchangeable "backs" meaning you can use either film or digital. This digital sensor provides you with the same amount of features you could find from using different kinds of film. Different ISOs (sensitivity to light), the range of tones and colors (adjusted via the likes of photoshop), etc. While a point and shoot will simulate all the functions of a real camera, all the bits on an SLR are true and mechanical, which means it doesn't depend on software loading to take a photo. You're probably familiar with what is called "shutter lag" on a point and shoot, where you press the shutter button, and a moment later it takes the photo. With an SLR, because of its mechanical structure, that moment is usually less than a tenth of a second, making it very easy to capture any moment.

Another difference of course, is the lenses. On a point and shoot youll have a small sensor, and, in most cases, a fixed lens, meaning you can't switch them out. On an slr, in the case of modern nikons and canons atleast, you'll have whats called a "bayonet mount" where different lenses can be attached and detached from the camera. This opens you up to a world of optical possibilities, including shooting a beetle on a flower (macro), a child at play (portrait), and a space shuttle launch (telephoto-zoom). The quality of these lenses is in general far superior to any fixed lens point and shoot camera system.

Now as I've mentioned lenses, its important to point out, as has been mentioned, the lenses you use will be more important than the camera. This isnt just a perception of stjoe, its a pretty well known fact in the camera world. When you get an SLR, you're buying into a "lens system." That being all the lenses that fit your camera. You'll find that you can easily spend 10x more on lenses than you spent on your camera body. This isn't to say that you should look at the lenses available and pick a body from there; you'll find that either competitors offer a myriad of excellent glass. What I am saying, is understand that buying an SLR will cost you alot more than just the body in most cases. Lenses, flash, tripods, cases, etc.

Now that we've given you a primer, I'll say my piece on the options you have.

Essentially its Canon vs. Nikon. So what are the differences?

Well, canons offering is quite massive, in the different cameras it has and all of its accessories. Canon also develops their own image sensors, but in general their cameras and lenses are considered slightly more expensive.

Nikon, while having a smaller offering, what they do offer is generally high quality. The cost is lower, and they look to outside manufacturers for their image processors.

This is really all there is between the two companies, so the best I can recommend is to head down to your local electronics/photography shop and get a camera in your hands. The canon rebel line would be perfect for you in that it is geared for the photo-enthusiast consumer. Its a light, small body. While others in this thread have said its cheaply made, I'd say thats far from the truth. As I said its made for the consumer, so they made it as small and light as they could. I don't know anyone who has ever had a rebel case physically fail on them.

Something else that was mentioned is megapixels, which is a myth I cant stress enough. You don't need ten. Hell, you barely need 8. You can print a good quality 30x40in with only 6megapixels. However, the more megapixels you have, the nicer the camera will be to imperfections in the image. An overexposed, out of focus image at 10mp will look better than the same image at 6mp, you dig? So for the sake of what you're looking for, I'd say stick around the 8mp range.

So there you have it. I personally have been shooting on a professional level for a couple years using canon gear. I've shot film/developed by hand, and I continue to do so as a hobby, but for commercial purposes I use digital for its cost effectiveness and instant results.

Oh, by the way, the kit lens that comes with the rebel xt is shit. Good for learning, but once you see the image quality from another lens you'll see the quality difference is quite apparent. You might be better off just buying the body, and picking up the kit lens on ebay for $30 or so just to help you get used to the camera.

Any more questions, or if you want samples of what canon or nikon gear can do, let me know.