Parks
I recently entered the DSLR world with only a rudimentary prior knowledge of cameras. For what it's worth, my selection and though process went something like this:
1. Did some initial basic research that told me a few things - (a) Canon and Nikon are the two dominant brands, (b) lots of pros, serious amateurs and hobbyists use both brands so neither is likely to be bad (c) I knew where to start looking in their lineups based on my budget and capabilities.
2. I started looking at the models at the bottom end of their lineups - for Nikon the D3000/D5000/D90, and for Canon the Rebel series. For some reason I took a liking to Nikon - call it looks, ergonomics, the colour of the box, the logo whatever - but it wasn't about the technical capabilities. This might sound odd but the fact is that as far as I could see as a new DSLR user, the technical specs between the two become a wash, so the deciding factor ended up somewhere else.
3. I had a bit of knowledge about photography before hand and thought that I would pick it up quickly so I didn't want to get something that I would grow out of too quick, therefore I didn't really look at the D3000 much. D5000 or D90 seemed to be more my thing. My budget didn't stretch to the D90 (if I was being realistic) and when I researched the D5000 a little more it appears that, being a newer model, it had received the benefits of trickle down technology from the D90 and on the technical side is actually very close. So the D5000 for me.
Of course the D5000 has some drawbacks, the major one being it doesn't have an autofocus screw drive so while any Nikon F mount lens will fit, only the newer AF-S series will autofocus. To me this didn't seem to be a big deal, as Nikon is introducing more and more AF-S lenses.
With lenses, I was very tightly budget constrained so I went with the kit 18-55 Nikkor, which these days comes with VR (Nikon's brand of image stabilisation). Just a few days ago I also bought the 55-200 Nikkor for about CAD$330 so now I have focal lengths covered from 18mm to 200mm for a VERY reasonable price. Are these top grade lenses? No but they are far from bad and just about unbeatable for the price.
Also, if I have a special requirement with lenses, my plan is to rent for those occasions. I did that about a month ago with an indoor supercross race here in Toronto. I knew for an indoor motorsport race I was going to need some good glass, so for the grand total of $45 for an entire weekend I was able to rent a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. Might seem like overkill on the little D5000, but it was the best thing I ever did - I couldn't believe how much difference quality glass makes!
My goal with this combination is to learn to shoot as best I can until I've reached the limits of this gear, at which point I will looking at upgrading. I figure that by then I will have the technique to take advantage of better gear (and the investment it represents), and I will also know what type of shooting I do most so I will be able to make a better choice about the next level of bodies, lens etc.
Long post, I know, and the point wasn't to convince you to buy a D5000, or a Nikon; my real points are:
(1) know what you want to do and know what your capabilities are;
(2) research as much as you can;
(3) don't get hung up on brands, it's not the deciding factor;
(4) look closely at the specs in the lineups for two reasons (a) as you've found out, it's rare that two models from different brands line up exactly; and (b) it's often the case that there are models that stand out in terms of value because of age and new model releases (the D5000 technically is about 90% of the D90 for about two-thirds the price because the D90 is now a few years old).
(5) buy the best you can afford, but don't feel limited by it because...
(6) the price tag or logo on the gear doesn't stop you from improving your skills and technique.
For the record, I don't think I would be any worse off if I'd have gone the Canon route.
