best cameras for professional use/new photographers

I'm wondering which cameras are best for professional use, but are priced under $1,000?

$1000 is a big stretch for a pro body... seeing that the body is usually the cheap part - good lenses add up to well more than the bod...

You will most likely end up with a "prosumer class" APS sensor camera , not a full frame pro camera in this price range but the good thing is that there are several good cameras in the range for you. The line between prosumer and pro is certainly getting foggy...

Canon - go for the 20D - its a nice body that most (canon) pros carry around as a second or third body because it has a great long-life mechanism, it is lightweight (compared to a 1DS) and produces very nice images with good control. You can buy these new for about a grand... $650 used if you really look. If you want to stick to $1000 - don't stretch and be tempted by the 30D - the bigger LCD is not worth $400 extra clams IMO.

Nikon - go for a used D200 over the D70 or D80. You might want to ask a Nikon purist however to back up my opinion on that comment... I see a lot of pros carrying D200's but have yet to see a D70 or D80 in the field.... not sure if its because the D200 is "that" good or that those nikon guys are just cheap and don't upgrade models when they come out!! (LOL kidding of course!)

DP

Try a leftover or second-hand Sigma SD-10. The body is eminently suitable for professional use. It has an appropriate set of features, it appears to be suitably robust, and it can provide enlargements comparable to the most expensive SLRs on the market. The kit lenses are junky but they are serviceable and professional-quality lenses are available from Sigma for less than than comparable lenses from Canon or Nikon.

What is the best model of car? It depends on what your're doing with it.

That is true if the budget allows for choice but I don't think $1000 does. I don't know of any professional DSLR that can be had for so little other than the Sigma.

Well, he didn't even say whether he'd need a telephoto lens, or whether he'd need something for close focusing, or whether portraits are all that he'd be doing.

About the only uniform 'professional' traits are that a camera for professional use should be very reliable, with a good interface, so that the professional can focus on the job instead of fixing or fighting his equipment. A professional photographer who specializes in wildlife will have very different needs than a professional portrait photographer, who will have different needs than somebody who photographs jewelry. Somebody who shoots on outdoor hikes will probably care more about weather sealing than somebody who stays indoors. Somebody who shoots receptions and other frequently indoor events may care more about high ISO, viewfinder brightness, and low-light focusing ability than somebody who shoots golf...

$1000 actually stretches to two-lens kits with some systems, if memory serves, but if he doesn't actually need a telephoto zoom, he could do better. A Pentax K100D isn't actually that expensive for what you get, for instance. The Olympus E500 2-lens kit (14-45, 40-150) is well under $1000, but if he doesn't actually need a telephoto, then why should he buy one?

Thank you for your advice. It is VERY helpful. I was talking to a friend who suggested that for professional purposes, it would be wise to purchase a used high-end camera over a brand new low-end one, in general. Do you agree?

Awesome. Thanks for your mention of Sigma. That's one I hadn't considered. And, the suggestion that I consider purchasing a used camera keeps coming up, so I'm definitely going to consider that. Is it generally pretty easy to find used cameras in awesome condition? Are there certain components of the camera that should be inspected most seriously when purchasing an old one?

Well, I was hoping to use it to supplement my income, so eventually and ultimately it would be used to shoot miscellaneous events. I took some photography courses in college and simply loved being behind the camera; however, life took over and I haven't picked one up in several years, so my hope is to reaquaint myself with the whole experience and if I still enjoy it the same, make a living doing it.

Yeah, I'm starting to understand that. I'm thinking it's probably going to be best to extend my budget as much as I can and simply purchase a good used one.

Well, I'm not sure right now what my niche will be. I figure I'll discover it once I start playing around with my camera more and getting a better feel for what excites me. However, I do recall that I always loved journalistic-style shots; shooting candid images of people. I simply love capturing a moment. So, I really appreciate your feedback because I hadn't really considered how different the various photography experiences are and how the equipment caters to each. Furthermore, I think it also would be wise for me to consider a camera that works best in low-lighting situations, since I also enjoyed shooting under such conditions, in the past.

Ah, that at least tends to be affordable, since for that you don't normally need a long lens unless you're going papparazi-style, or shooting from the back of a crowd.

One note: -most- DSLRs use a smaller sensor than the more familar 35mm frame. So if you're looking at books of film photography and noting what focal lengths show up, or finding rules of thumb there, you'd want to adjust things slightly. Ex -- a Canon 50mm f/1.8 casts an image circle of a given size (or, perhaps, a rectangle within that image circle if there are internal baffles), but if you use it on a Canon 300D, the small sensor results in a crop similar to that of an 80mm lens on a 35mm system.

For street photography, you'd probably want a pretty short-to-medium telephoto; many 'kit lenses' cover this range reasonably well, if usually with slow apertures. An f/1.8 prime (or an f/1.4, but that's usually more expensive...) would let you use a very shallow DOF and might make night shots a bit easier, since you could get away with a shorter exposure time.

I'm not too familiar with the Pentax line-up, but they've gotten good marks for quality viewfinders, and lately they've been pushing some apparently pretty good deals including bodies with image stabilization tech already built in. It's going to be fairly hard to go wrong, 'tho, unless you add more requirements.

I use an Olympus E-1, which is very nicely engineered, but a bit long in the tooth and not the best pick if you'll be using ISO 1600 a lot, or if you want a fast normal lens. Perhaps the uglier bit is that there's no image stabilization yet, unless you pony up for the new Leica lens.