new lens vs new camera

[ty_mickan]

<p>i own both digital and film cameras, and yes, i do beleive that digital is a tool for professionals. i can see where digital can be useful for amatuers, uploading pics to facebook and the like. the only reason that we are in the digital age with cameras, is because companies like nikon and canon have the opportunity to generate the income that is required for them to survive. it has nothing to do with 'advantages and disadvantages'.</p>

<p>i stand by my recommendation.....fslr with 50 rolls of film and some fast glass.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Stay digital, it is great for learning you see what you are doing wrong immediately, money spent on good quality lens, preferably L lens is money better spent. The lens will keep it's value the camera will not. Later you can get the 50D or 40D for hundreds less than you would pay today.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Lenses almost always win out over camera bodies in my book because there are more occasions where it's the lens that makes a difference in what kind of picture you can take. More megapixels might make for a sharper picture that can be blown up bigger, but not necessarily a better or different picture. Higher ISO might let you shoot in lower light, but you can already do that with a tripod or could do it with faster lenses on your existing camera. While I would prefer faster lenses than what you have, my first two choices would be for a wide angle and a macro lens, especially for shooting outdoors and nature. Something like the Tokina 11-16 2.8 or their 12-24 4.0 both about $500 (and similar lenses by other makers) would let you do sweeping vistas and also get foreground objects to "loom" while still showing expanses of scenery behind them. A macro/micro lens that lets you focus down to an inch or two (I have the old Nikkor 55mm 3.5 manual focus) will let you explore a whole world of nature closeups with flowers, insects, moss patterns on rocks, tree bark, etc. that you may never have even looked at before.</p>