Im no pro at this and have not done it but my thought if I was to do
this is the new Rebel 400 will do well, you will be probably shooting
more than 30 seconds and the 400 has a bulb mode but I dont know how you
trigger it, be sure it is something that will work for you. For large
prints there was an interesting thread about Mosaics using www.ptgui.com
Your sharpest photos are with prime lenses not zooms, for great detail
stitching 4-9-12 or whatever number of shots will realy get you detail,
then you won`t want an ultrawide lens but maybe [and im guessing here]
but the best 50mm prime. Figure in a very good tripod and head.  For
printers my Canon mp950 will print amazing detail it is 2 picoliter 600
dpi.  Canon large size dedicated printers are I believe the sharpest at
1 picoliter.

I am biased, but can be objective, if I try.  Take a look at Nikon
DSLRs and lenses, and compare look, feel, and image quality before you
decide.  I have a D50, but if I had your budget, I might have gotten
the D200, or waited a few months for the D80.  As for lenses, Nikon
makes a wide variety of high quality lenses in every category.  They
also sell some lesser quality lenses for those on a budget.

The Nikkor 70-200 VR f 2.8 is a great lens, and they have several nice
wide-angle lenses.

Go to a GOOD camera store, see how each camera feels in your hands, and
take a few shots.

I don't know if I'm late, but my advice is the following: if you have
experience or if you don't, but you want to manage a good camera, I'd
suggest a Canon EOS 30D with these lenses: EF 17-40mm L f/4 (or
16-35mm, but more expensive) - so you can have fun in landscape and
many other subjects - and EF 50mm f/1.4 for portraits and at night. Up
to now this will cost you about 2400€ then you can buy some useful
tools as tripod, battery supply, cards and others as well.
The EOS 400D (do you mean this?) will be of course a nice camera, but
remember that Mpixels are not the only thing you must take in account,
have a look here:
http://bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_30D_compared.html
Futhermore the 400D wants to replace the 350D, therfore it allocates
itself a step behind cameras as 20D, 30D and 5D.
I hope that my advice will give you a positive hint on this topic.
Best regards.

plastic_razor@yahoo.com ha scritto:

You can assume that Nikon has a decent comparable setup, but I'm not as
familiar with their lineup so someone else can make suggestions.

Olympus, Pentax, and Sony are in it for the long haul; I'd give Sony
marks for coming out with a solid offering based on the KM mount and
lenses. Since you're not heavily into sports or bird shooting, your
telephoto demands are not heavy and all three other camera systems have
good wide/short/medium lenses.

I can make some suggestions for Canon:
- The 400D looks to be a good camera. I have a 350D and have no desire
to replace it anytime soon. However, you might want to consider a 30D
vs the 400D as you get 'more camera' in a better body. I'd buy a 30D
today if I was starting from scratch.
- I suggest you can save money by avoiding the 17-55IS. The IS isn't
nearly as helpful on the wider angles, and you can get a good 2.8
Tamron 17-50 for a fraction of the price. I shoot a 17-40L f/4, and the
colour is _great_ for landscapes. I've heard good things about the
Tamron 28-74(hope i got that right) f/2.8, but its not as wide.
- Get some primes.  Most people consider the 50mm 1.8 a great bargain,
and 'good enough' not to bother upgrading to the 1.4. The 85mm 1.8 is a
good bargain too, great for portraits.
- The 10-22mm is a good choice, i don't have it but its a good
ultrawide for an EFS mount.
- For slightly longer reach, I highly recommend the 70-200L f/4. Its
among the cheapest Ls, and is a good introduction to the high-end lense
series. We've had discussions here about the 70-300IS as well, since
its black (more discreet), a bit cheaper and comes with IS.  Also worth
considering.

Finally, Canon's f/1.2 85L and f/2 135L are expensive, but considered
among the best 35mm lenses available. If you want a 'holy grail' to
consider, look at these.

I'd suggest the Canon 30D.  Somewhat heavier than the Rebel, but more
robust as well.  I researched and looked at a LOT of sample pictures
before settling on the 30D.   It was the best for low light natural
photography, which was a prime consideration for me.

I use the 28-135 IS lens for a walking around lens and am quite happy
with it, but it is probable a bit long for landscapes.  Remember that
the Canon dslrs hava a 1.6 crop factor, so you'll want a pretty short
lens.  Despite the talk, the kit lens isn't too bad at all, but with
your budget, you should be able to go with something a little better.

HTH
Bill

I suggest you consider Canon's 24-70 F 2.8 L lens (rather than the
17-55) together with the 10-22 lens.  IMHO this 24-70 is a "20 year
lens" - you will use it for 20 years or more, on several bodies (that
you will upgrade as newer/better/faster bodies become available).
(I'm in the process of buying one of these lenses myself after
borrowing it from a friend several times.)  I strongly feel that
getting top quality glass is more important than getting the latest
body.  If you need to save some money somewhere to stay within your
budget, consider buying an older body (new or refurbished) in order to
put other money in good glass.

If you are anywhere near a pro store that rents DSLR cameras, try
renting a similar kit (they probably won't have the 400d, but they
will have a 10d or similar) with a few of the lenses you are
considering.  I found that it really helped to use the camera and
lenses for a weekend to see what I could and couldn't live without.

~3 years ago I rented a 1D with the 70-200 lens before I decided to
buy.  My first purchases were a 300D with the kit lens and a used
Canon 75-300 zoom.  Then I shopped for a used Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS.
When I bought the 70-200 the 75-300 got boxed up as a "backup lens"
and hasn't been out of the box since.  Meanwhile, I've upgraded the
body to a 1D MarkII, and I'm purchasing the 24-70 from my friend.
(Both the body and lens were/are being purchased from a friend who has
upgraded to the IIN and now uses a 24-105 instead of the 24-70.)

jc

Others are speaking to bodies and lenses...be sure to make room for a
13x19 printer (which Epson, folks?), 1st supply of paper (13x19, 11x14,
11x17, etc...maybe $200), spare battery ($50ish?), two, maybe three 1gb
cards (~$100 total), a good bag, and buy insurance - see your home
owners agent.

Past threads have been very particular about which tripods are good (a
few) and which are junk (most).  Don't forget your starter strobe too -
almost a $1000 in extras, assuming the printer is $400-500ish - yes?

What I did:  Buy the camera with the kit lens, try it out for a few
months.  Then go through your photos and see what kind of focal length
you use.  I discovered a lot of wide-angle shots so I got the 17-40mm.
I have a telephoto as well but went for a cheaper one of those.

Tripod and some software will be essential and a cable release as
well.  Something like Photoshop Elements and iView Media Pro.
And backup software to store all those photos.

It's been my experience that low-light isn't often a hand-held
proposition, and when it might be f2.8 isn't fast enough, so I
use a 50mm f1.8.

<...snippage...>

OK. The list of what I intend to do with my new camera (which I've had
for a month) is almost a duplicate of what you intend to do. Here's what
I did so far:

1)  Purchased a dslr camera kit with one lens, in the 35 to 55mm range;

2)  Purchased two digital filters; a UV filter, which you will install
on the camera and leave more or less semi-permanently to protect the
lens, and a polarizing filter;

3)  Purchased an extra battery for the camera;

4)  Purchased two memory cards; [I chose two 1 GB cards]

5)  Download and install GIMP and the supporting GTK and other files;

6)  Purchased a good tripod (go to a pro camera shop, not a box store);

7)  Purchased a memory card reader for my computer, since none of the
machines I have happened to have one.

Since I bought a new Minolta 5D, which because KM has exited the camera
business, had quite an attractive price point, the above list, plus two
books [Timacheff and Karlins, _Total Digital Photography_. Wiley 2005,
and Akkana Peck; _Beginning Gimp / From Novice to Professional_, APress,
2006.] has cost me about 1000.00. If I had bought a different kit, it
might have cost me a couple of hundred more.

When I have become proficient with my camera and lens, and come up with
a particular problem I just cannot solve with my present hardware, (and
software) then and only then will I go buy the new hardware that meets
the need I am trying to address.

Now, if I were you, I would put the other 2000.00 in the bank, and start
taking pictures. In my opinion it will be more productive to become very
familiar with the camera and one lens and I'd learn that well.  If for
some reason, then, you decide that you have chosen the wrong camera
system, you won't take as big a financial hit if you sell your camera
body and lens, and replace it, as it would if you invest in a couple
more lenses at the beginning. And every once in a while, I'd take some
of the interest from the 2000 banked, and a particularly fine image you
have captured and processed, and get it framed, and present it to your wife.

ns

A tele lens would let you shoot candid at a distance, without people
noticing you: 70-300/4-5.6 IS.

And add a 50/1.8. It is more than 1 stop brighter than f/2.8 zooms. If
you like it, when you want low light tele lens, add an 85/1.8 and/or
135/2.

If you are not sure that you need 17-55/2.8 IS, you can start with
28-135/3.5-5.6 IS, if you have 50/1.8 for low light and another wide
angle lens. Even if you get 17-55/2.8 IS later, 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS is
still useful since it covers a different range.

Nikon has a sharp 55-200/4-5.6, no VR though. I wish Canon makes a
45-135/3.5-4.5 IS in response.

http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr