What Digital SLR do you perfer I am looking to upgrade

[Hardrock]

You want to go pro without buying pro gear? (Hope this isn't trolling)

You need a MINIMUM of a D300/D300s or 7D depending whether you want to go with Nikon or Canon. The D200 is too outdated, you would get better results from a D5000. Then you will need to get good glass (lenses) as you can't give professional results with kit lenses. To get a decent start, I would say you need a minimum of $3k invested into your gear, but even that is not much. Most pro's have well over $10K into their setups.

You can't expect that asking "What do I buy to become a pro" will get you anywhere. (Besides a courtroom with your clients). You need pro level gear, but more importantly you need pro level experience/knowledge of how to use that gear.

Im sorry but I totally disagree! You do not need a minimum of a d300 or 7D. I do agree about the glass (which is the most important part). Check out Juza Nature Photography that was taken with a 350D which is like 7 models behind the 7D. I think most people would take a lesser body and good glass rather than a great body and a kit lens or cheap zoom! I think you shoud make you choice around the glass. Figure out what glass you are wanting and budget around that. Out of all the Canon models you choose there is not a huge difference (there is obviously some) but I would buy the best glass I could and settle for the XSI. Just my thoughts!

 

[gsgary]

You want to go pro without buying pro gear? (Hope this isn't trolling)

You need a MINIMUM of a D300/D300s or 7D depending whether you want to go with Nikon or Canon. The D200 is too outdated, you would get better results from a D5000. Then you will need to get good glass (lenses) as you can't give professional results with kit lenses. To get a decent start, I would say you need a minimum of $3k invested into your gear, but even that is not much. Most pro's have well over $10K into their setups.

You can't expect that asking "What do I buy to become a pro" will get you anywhere. (Besides a courtroom with your clients). You need pro level gear, but more importantly you need pro level experience/knowledge of how to use that gear.

Im sorry but I totally disagree! You do not need a minimum of a d300 or 7D. I do agree about the glass (which is the most important part). Check out Juza Nature Photography that was taken with a 350D which is like 7 models behind the 7D. I think most people would take a lesser body and good glass rather than a great body and a kit lens or cheap zoom! I think you shoud make you choice around the glass. Figure out what glass you are wanting and budget around that. Out of all the Canon models you choose there is not a huge difference (there is obviously some) but I would buy the best glass I could and settle for the XSI. Just my thoughts!

If he wants to shoot good sports shots he will, 350D won't cut it

 

[Josh220]

You want to go pro without buying pro gear? (Hope this isn't trolling)

You need a MINIMUM of a D300/D300s or 7D depending whether you want to go with Nikon or Canon. The D200 is too outdated, you would get better results from a D5000. Then you will need to get good glass (lenses) as you can't give professional results with kit lenses. To get a decent start, I would say you need a minimum of $3k invested into your gear, but even that is not much. Most pro's have well over $10K into their setups.

You can't expect that asking "What do I buy to become a pro" will get you anywhere. (Besides a courtroom with your clients). You need pro level gear, but more importantly you need pro level experience/knowledge of how to use that gear.

Im sorry but I totally disagree! You do not need a minimum of a d300 or 7D. I do agree about the glass (which is the most important part). Check out Juza Nature Photography that was taken with a 350D which is like 7 models behind the 7D. I think most people would take a lesser body and good glass rather than a great body and a kit lens or cheap zoom! I think you shoud make you choice around the glass. Figure out what glass you are wanting and budget around that. Out of all the Canon models you choose there is not a huge difference (there is obviously some) but I would buy the best glass I could and settle for the XSI. Just my thoughts!

The 7D is about the equivalent of a D300s.

I stick to my previous statement based on the wide variety of demanding situations he wants to shoot. Unless you are Ken Rockwell you can't use the lowest model for everything. There has to be a balance between the body and your glass. Lenses are more important but it gets to a point where you need to get a better body. What good is the best glass if you are shooting it on a little plastic body that weighs as much as the lens hood?

 

[manaheim]

You need more business sense than gear to "go pro".

That said, good gear limits you less than "less good gear", which is important for ANY photographer... and not just the pros.

 

[Village Idiot]

You want to go pro without buying pro gear? (Hope this isn't trolling)

You need a MINIMUM of a D300/D300s or 7D depending whether you want to go with Nikon or Canon. The D200 is too outdated, you would get better results from a D5000. Then you will need to get good glass (lenses) as you can't give professional results with kit lenses. To get a decent start, I would say you need a minimum of $3k invested into your gear, but even that is not much. Most pro's have well over $10K into their setups.

You can't expect that asking "What do I buy to become a pro" will get you anywhere. (Besides a courtroom with your clients). You need pro level gear, but more importantly you need pro level experience/knowledge of how to use that gear.

It depends what you're shooting. Give me a Canon 300D, some lights and a nice prime and I can do "pro" portrait work. You don't need the latest and greatest. It helps in some lines of work but saying some one needs the newest camera a manufacture offers is bunk.

That was part of my point. I think you missed the last part.

...but more importantly you need pro level experience/knowledge of how to use that gear.

And yes, it does depend what you are shooting. You can get good portraits with a setup like you mentioned, but to shoot all types of images including wildlife, you would need much more than a basic body and a prime. He needs long, fast glass.

Right...but not a 7d/D300/d700. Overread uses an older rebel body and gets some awesome shots.

 

[Village Idiot]

You want to go pro without buying pro gear? (Hope this isn't trolling)

You need a MINIMUM of a D300/D300s or 7D depending whether you want to go with Nikon or Canon. The D200 is too outdated, you would get better results from a D5000. Then you will need to get good glass (lenses) as you can't give professional results with kit lenses. To get a decent start, I would say you need a minimum of $3k invested into your gear, but even that is not much. Most pro's have well over $10K into their setups.

You can't expect that asking "What do I buy to become a pro" will get you anywhere. (Besides a courtroom with your clients). You need pro level gear, but more importantly you need pro level experience/knowledge of how to use that gear.

Im sorry but I totally disagree! You do not need a minimum of a d300 or 7D. I do agree about the glass (which is the most important part). Check out Juza Nature Photography that was taken with a 350D which is like 7 models behind the 7D. I think most people would take a lesser body and good glass rather than a great body and a kit lens or cheap zoom! I think you shoud make you choice around the glass. Figure out what glass you are wanting and budget around that. Out of all the Canon models you choose there is not a huge difference (there is obviously some) but I would buy the best glass I could and settle for the XSI. Just my thoughts!

The 7D is about the equivalent of a D300s.

I stick to my previous statement based on the wide variety of demanding situations he wants to shoot. Unless you are Ken Rockwell you can't use the lowest model for everything. There has to be a balance between the body and your glass. Lenses are more important but it gets to a point where you need to get a better body. What good is the best glass if you are shooting it on a little plastic body that weighs as much as the lens hood?

Ken Rockwell is a joke.

A little plastic body is as good as the person that's using it. Pre-DSLR film photographers didn't pray and spray 6400 ISO film at 10 fps, yet some how National Geographic and other wild life publications were around before the late 90's.

 

[Josh220]

There's nothing wrong with them, I had a D60 for my first dslr. They are just limiting.

 

[cameramen]

i would strongly recommend D300 or 7D... although those are not on your list, but i'm saying if you could get it either is excellent as an upgrade. if you had to stick to your list i think the t1i is a better choice (i was debating on that before but i didn't get it).