I've not yet got my first DSLR. I've been doing photography for years now, but with P&S's, even though some were quite advanced. So, I know most things about photography. Yes, I know I'm buying into a brand, although yes, there are lenses from Sigma, Tamron, etc... I know it depends on glass as well. But here's my question. Is it worth investing in a semi-pro/mid level DSLR? I don't want to have to update in at least the next 3 years. Because apparently prices for entry levels will drop, but mid levels wouldn't so much... I mean, in terms of Image Quality, they'd be around the same. I'm aware that ergonomics is another difference, and so is fps, exp, etc.; but what other features are there? Are they sturdier? Will they last longer? I don't exactly want a camera that becomes old stock after a while. Would mid levels be compatible with lots of lenses? I've recently been considering a lot of cameras, ultimately narrowing down to the Pentax K20D, Canon EOS 450D (Rebel XSi) and Nikon D90. Nikon D90 seemed, and seems, so perfect. Only thing; the HD movie mode is bad and makes the price go up. I'd consider it if I weren't so unsure about whether it counts as an entry level or mid level DSLR. Also, apparently the VR lenses aren't as good as IS. Still, that last one isn't that important. It's mainly the price, too. Canon 450D is a bit of a grey area for me. It's, compared to the others, cheap, produces fine image quality and can go up reasonably to 1600 ISO without creating a lot of bad side effects. The IS lenses are apparently great, and the program offered is excellent. So you see, I don't want to unnecessarily pay for the D90, just for a better screen and movie recording. I'm aware, however, that this has only 9 pt, against 11 pt, but this has 14 bit proc. and from what I've seen, produces a lot sharper images. However, if this is too much of an 'entry level' and will become 'old stock', I don't really want to get it. Pentax K20D is a bigger grey area. I don't know how the image quality matches up to the others, and the ISO noise is contrasting and quite odd. I'm not sure if it's better or not. Live View is terrible, and I don't want to really have to pay for something that is bad, but since the K20D is fairly cheap, I don't mind. 11 pt, unsure about bit proc. and program offered... 6400 ISO, like on the D90, is useless, but I wouldn't use it any way, so it's of no concern. In built SR (Shake Reduction) and it's, from what I can tell, a mid level camera. Pentax doesn't have much glass, but it does have glass, and there are other providers for lenses, anyway, so that doesn't matter at this stage. Pentax's Live View is terrible, and there's no real point of it being sealed up seeing as I'm not going to buy special lenses, or at least accessories to protect the lens, other than a simple UV filter. Ergonomics don't matter at this stage. Please don't tell me to hold them. The Pentax is heavier, but if it's worth investing in... I'll pay for the D90 if the ISO and IQ is much better, or at least if it's worth investing in. It's really about IQ, ISO noise and long term. I'd probably only buy at end of year, so it would probably drop, but still, I'm planning ahead.