Sandeep,

The lowest price end of the Nikon range is the D40, sold with an 18 - 55mm
lens.  You can get very good results with such kit, and there is a 10MP
variant with better resolution, the D40X.  Canon offer something similar -
400D.  Try handling both in a shop and seeing which you prefer, as
handling is an important aspect.  Both major brands (Nikon and Canon) can
produce excellent results.

 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/

 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/

 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/

If price is very important, maybe a refurbished or second-hand camera
would be a possibility?

DSLRs typically cost more, and weigh more than compact cameras, and if
taking photos (rather than simply owning a DSLR) is your aim, you should
also consider the better compact cameras such as the Panasonic FZ18 and
TZ3.  They are very good value for money, but don't have quite the same
speed of response, or the ability to work in low light levels as a DSLR
(because the sensor in the compact camera is smaller, and the auto-focus
mechanism is different).

 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Panasonic/panasonic_dmcfz18.asp

 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz3/

Cheers,
David

Based on your statement that you have _no_ prior knowledge of photography I
would suggest to stay away from SLRs at this time and instead start with a
lower medium range Point&Shoot, maybe in the 150-200$ range.
While lacking the versatility and power of SLRs they do make good photos,
are easier to handle, and require less knowledge. They are good tools to
learn composition and develop an eye for possible motives.

Once you master your P&S you will have a much better understanding of what
to look for in a camera and more important what your needs for your personal
style of photography are and you can then purchase a SLR that fits _your_
needs rather than some generic "I am a beginner" need.

jue

Have a look at the Nikon D40, and have a play with it if possible...

Guy

I don't know that a DSLR is the place to begin learning photography.

If I were you, I would opt for one of the better point&shoot dcams.  I
just purchased my wife the Canon G7 after weighing it against the
Ricoh GX-100 and the Panasonic LX-2.  This is one sweet camera, even
if it cannot deliver raw files ... but its succesor, G9, can.

I also suggest you hang out at DPReview.com for a couple of days and
browse the forums.

cheerios from a Oly E-300 owner.

If you intend to take snapshots like most casual camera owners, I'd say
buy a point & shoot digital and spend no more than $250-300USD for your
first one. Are you someone who takes a lot of pictures with your mobile
phone? If so, the upgrade in picture quality will likely keep you
interested for long enough to make decisions when and if you feel the
need to upgrade further, or to take a different path.

If your interest is in actually learning to be a good photographer, and
if you are just assuming a digital SLR is the only way to learn, it
isn't. Start by enrolling in a basic photography course. If you are
fortunate, the instructor will steer you towards black and white film
and a basic, all-manual camera. You'll learn to see in terms of
composition, texture & lighting. At the same time, you'll begin to make
images that tell a story, express an emotion, or capture a moment of
time.

As you acquire some mastery of the medium you'll have a better idea
what equipment works for you.  If you start off with too much
technology, it will only get in the way of expression. If you buy a new
tool only when you actually need it, you'll be in charge, not the
marketing department of Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc.

Look into the Sony Alpha 100... it's priced down around $700 now, is great for
beginners, takes great pics, and you have a choice of lenses when you buy it.
Also fits into a small bag.

Has the same 10m sensor as the Nikon D200.

Has anti shake built it.

The menu system is very good for beginners because you don't have to scroll for
items... in fact, you can do most things with a knob and a few buttons. And only
one data screen to worry about - no top screen.

Also comes with excellent software to learn RAW format editing. With other cams
you may need to buy something else.

Fits the old Minolta system as well...

I like mine, I carry it everywhere, with a 18-200mm lens.

I also have a Nikon D70.

Contrary to what many have said, a DSLR is a good choice to start in
photography, for one thing, the newer ones like the Canon 400XTi don't need
any complicated sequence of button pushes to get it going and to take a
picture, just compose the shot and press the shutter, it turns on instantly
and triggers, just like the old mechanical 35mm did years ago.

The drawback to a DSLR is the price and of course the size without
mentionning the ever spiraling cost of lenses and accessories.

It's a nice hobby so it's normal if it's expensive ;-)

Jean

Despite the P&S recommendations, I'll put my hat in for a low-end DSLR
rather than a compact camera. For the following reasons:
* Greater image quality. In some tests I did a while back, a 6MP Pentax
K100D with a sigma kit 18-50 lens wiped the floor with a Canon A640 (10MP)
for image quality. The DSLR had better dynamic range, so skies were blue
instead of washed out white, while shadows retained detail rather than
becoming a speckled mess. The DSLR was sharper and captured greater fine
detail, despite it being lower "megapixel" rating. When the light got low,
and the ISO went up, the SLR really came into it's own.
* Even a cheap "kit" lens on a DSLR will be sharper than any P&S lens.
* More control. Even though some P&S do allow manual control, the range of
choices is usually very limited. They normally only have 2-3 stops of
aperture to choose from. Because of the smaller sensors, you get very great
depth of field, so you won't really learn much about some of the finer
aspects of photography, such as controlling depth of field.
* Faster. DSLRs will focus quicker than P&S. When you press the button they
fire faster. After you've taken one photo, many P&S will force you to wait,
whereas DSLR can keep firing. If you want to use manual focus, they respond
faster than the pushbutton focussing on the few P&S's that offer MF.
*Versatility. P&S's are stuck with the lens they ship with. DSLR gives you
the option of a whole host of specialised lenses depending on what type of
photography you do. Sure some are hideously expensive, but they are
available. True wide angle is especially rare with P&S.
*Ease of use. Despite the fact that DSLRs offer more controls, the various
image quality controls are normally faster to access. Many P&S will require
you to scroll through menus to change many functions, whereas most DSLRs
have dedicated buttons for a lot of functions. Every low-mid DSLR currently
on the market offers a fully automatic mode that is no more complex than
fully auto on a P&S.
*Accessories. Not many P&S allow external flashguns, remote releases,
battery grips, attachment of filters, eyecups, dioptre eyepieces etc. You
may not need these accessories now, but if you have the need for them in the
future, you can with a DSLR.

Anyway, as to what to recommend...
Any of the Canon, Nikon, Pentax/Samsung, Sony or Olympus DSLRs will offer a
good set of features, with plenty of scope for your photography to take you
places. I'd suggest you try some and see how they feel. Personally I like
the Pentax/Samsung system, because there is a good range of lenses, and they
are compatible with all the older K-Mount lenses too.

What is your budget?
What is your ambition?
What is your defintion of "mid range"?

Let's see.

1. Decide how serious you are with the hobby.  Will you still be
  pursuing it after 2 years, with the same verve?
  - If NO, are you willing to sell the gear you bought at a
    loss? (very good (and expensive!) lenses usually loose
    somewhere around 20% value, Bodies --- well, if you get 20%
    or 30% after 2 years, you're lucky)
    - if NO, stick with a compact camera for the beginning.
      Choose one that has full manual control (i.e. *you*
      get to decide aperture and exposure time).  If you are
      a bit more ambitious, RAW capability (the unprocessed
      sensor data, to tweak as you like on your computer)
      might be interesting.

2. Decide how much money you will spend.
  For a DSLR, you will need:
  - The body.
  - A lens.  (often, but not always bundled with the body ---
    these lenses are usually consumer level lenses, i.e. cheap
    and plasticy, slow[1], with none too great optical results,
    but they'll do.  Mostly.
  - A lens hood for said lens.  Not only does it protect the
    lens somewhat from errant fingers and objects, it also
    vastly improves the image quality when it keeps strong
    light sources from reaching the front element.
  - A storage medium, usually CF, sometimes SD or a proprietary
    format (which costs more).  1 GB is good for ca. 100 8MPix
    pictures in RAW format, or ~500 as large, fine JPEGs.
    You'll soon want more than 1 GB, though, especially as
    shooting 10 pictures in 2 or 3 seconds costs as much as
    shooting one, and you can choose the best one afterwards.[2]
  - A card reader.  You probably can use your camera, if you
    want slow and awkward.
  - Computer programs to deal with thousands and hundreds of
    thousands of pictures.  You'll find proprietary free-as-beer,
    free free-as-speech and proprietary pay-for solutions,
    add in all the time you'll need to learn to use them
    effectively.  (Note that you'll need the same for
    compact cameras, though.)
    + delete those that are unsharp, not the best, etc.
    + sort and classify
    + "develop" the shots (if you shoot RAW)
    + backup or archive the material (it's surprising how
      fast you get gigabytes of pictures)
    + retouch images: crop, frame, colour correct, remove
      blemishes, ...
  - A camera bag with space for your camera, lenses, storage
    media, extra batteries, flashes, etc. etc.
 
  Add up all that stuff.  Is it in your budget?
  If NO, start with a compact camera, until you outgrow it.

3. Keep in mind you will want more stuff, e.g.
  - a 50mm fixed focal length lens.  It's really hard to make bad
    ones, they are usually available for dirt cheap (e.g. <$100
    for Canons 50mm f/1.8) they are much, much faster[1] than
    any zoom and can be lots of fun, playing with extremely
    shallow depth of field --- and such fast lenses are very,
    very useful for available light[3] shooting.  Due to the crop
    factor[4] it's not so good for rooms and groups of people
    (too narrow field of view), but good for portraits (though
    you might want to blur the result a bit, unless you go for
    "see every pore" results.
  - a flash unit with a tiltable and turnable head, for indirect
    flash lighting.  Direct flash looks very harsh and unpleasing.
  - more storage media, maybe an image tank
  - a sensor cleaning set
  - faster/better lenses, focal lengths you don't have yet,
    e.g. longer lenses for shooting animals in the zoo, shorter
    to get whole rooms or masses of people in one shot,
    faster for less DOF and/or available light
  - filters, neutral denity, gradiated ND, polarizer
    (circular!)
  - a computer with mor CPU power and more RAM
  - a stable tripod
  - more batteries
  - a vertical grip (especially if you have largish hands)
  - a website or online service to show off your photos
  - albums and prints for your best photos
  - lots of time you won't have

It depends a lot, but basically, unless you have specific needs,
most any DSLR camera will do.  

Cheap?  Buy a used body one or two generations (usually == years)
old.  You'll replace it within a few years.  But: The basic problem
is that by choosing one brand, or rather, one bayonet connection,
you can tie up lots of money there, especially with lenses.
You'll not replace quality lenses in the next decade.  

If you need something special only one bayonet connection has,
e.g. the MP-E (a 1:1 to 5:1 macro only lens for Canon), your body
manufacturer has just been chosen for you.

The place is OK.
But you'll need to add more information.

-Wolfgang

[1] a "slow" lens is one with a small aperture, which lets in
   comparatively little light, so you need longer exposure times
   or higher "ISO" settings (which cause more noise).
   Additionally, especially consumer lenses need stopping down
   one or two stops, which (usually) drastically improves the
   image quality, but causes the need for even more light.
[2] That "machine gun approach" can in _no_ way replace learning
   how to anticipate when to press the shutter.  But it is useful
   for longer handheld exposures and coping with erratic subject
   movement (you just choose the best one), or getting the group
   shot where noone blinks in record time.
[3] no flash and usually little light, say indoors or after
   sunset.
[4] The sensor is smaller than the customary 24mmx36mm of
   35mm film.  If you trim away a wide border from a
   negative (or a print, for that matter) you get exactly the
   same effect: what's looking 'normal' on the original
   print now looks like a long lens was used.

   A crop factor of 1.5 (common for many DSLRs) means that a
   50mm lens on such a DSLR --- the customary "normal" lens that
   has approximately the same field of view as your eyes ---
   has so much of it's border trimmed that it's field of view
   looks like a 75mm (50mm * 1.5) without the border removed.

   This has some very deep and important conclusions you'll
   not grasp right now, but which will become clear within a
   year or two, once you are deeper into that matter.  For
   example, the "crop factor" does *not* make lenses longer,
   as the 50mm * 1.5 seems to indicate.  It also does not
   change the depth of field --- it's still the DOF of a
   50mm lens.

I wonder if you are even more confused than before you read the
suggestions of the last twenty-four hours.

One thing is obvious: photography is as controversial as religion or
politics. That's why it fosters lively discussion groups, I guess. The
first thing I would do is re-read every message where the poster is not
advocating a particular marque, or a collection of lenses. Those will
be the ones who actually want to help you.

I am surprised only one person favored a photography class. I'll add my
vote in that column. If you are going to take a proper class, you'll
want to wait and see what is recommended, rather than showing up on the
first day lugging materiaal that needs to be exchanged.

How much you are willing to spend on EVERYTHING is a big part
of what you should get.  also how deep into it do you want to go.

the lens. tripod, image editing software, flashes and slave flashes, books.
and other gizmos.

Lens $700
Tripod $536
Tripod Head i forgot :)
DSLR Camera $1299
Photoshop CS2 $600
Books and Tutorials =?
Computer that can handle raw images and the software needed or wanted.

These are some of the things I have.  its far from expensive compared to
what some have here.
You can get cheaper and more expensive with each of the items I listed.
Personally im not really sure if its better to spend the money on getting
the more expensive camera
and getting a cheaper image editing program
or a cheaper camera and getting a really good photoediting program.
The image editing software you get might depend on the computer you have or
if you are willing to upgrade
it or get a newer one.
Think how much you are willing to spend on this fun and rewarding venture or
put the whole thing together a little at a time.
PS grain of salt needed.  I am a total newbie to DSLR.

Tom

Don't do it!    Today I went for a walk in the park.  Everywhere I looked
there were middle aged men fumbling around with their DSLRs, photographing
everything that moved or did'nt move.    They all had bored looking wives
standing behind them.     It seems that just about every  man  that reaches
that age when they might need Viagra  goes out to get a DSLR.  I'm seriously
thinking of trashing my DSLR before it kills my libido and turns me into a
boring fart.
I'm sure it was'nt like this in the old days of film.  I had a Nikon FM2
manual camera and it was rare to see anybody else with an SLR. Seems like a
lot of these newbies are techno freaks, a few years ago they were at home
with the model railways or something.

Seriously though, go on  a weekend course on photography and you will
probably end up with an SLR. Point and shoots seem awful after you've shot a
few scenes with an SLR.

Pretty well everything on the market now is pretty good.

Your chances of of making a "mistake" with a camera/lens combo under
$1,000 are virtually nil.

Just find something that feels good in your hands and takes the photos
you want.

As other people have pointed out: getting a decent flash, tripod and
remote cord will probably be of much more benefit to you than more
expensive camera bodies and lenses.

Also, always keep in mind that photography is 99% technique and 1%
gear.