DSLR?

Right off the bat - I know nothing about them.
If you were considering to purchase one, what would it have to have, what doesn't it have to have? Which brand do you prefer?

First off, you need money, lots of it.
Camera and housing 2k +

kinda feared that...Maybe I should look around for a Sugar Daddy... ..I wouldn't want the housing right away....start with the camera, figure out how to use it, get any extra lenses that I think I just HAVE to have...and then take it from there. Could I use the D180 with it? I think I remember that I can't.

The more I read about DSLR's the more frightened I get! Not the camera itself, I think the results I see are amazing. It's the stuff you need to get it and all those great lenses underwater that does it. Dome ports, focusing gears, etc. Not to mention the price of lenses.

I guess if I lived where you and Gilligon do and could dive pretty much any time I wanted AND had the money, I'd seriously consider it. But for me and my limited salt water exposure, I'll stick with what I've got.

But I'll be happy to help you with your research and spending your money! That's what frenz is for, right?!?

It doesn't seem that far ago that an SLR was to die for along with every prime lens you could sink your hands on! The problem with the digital "evolution /revolution" is that nobody has the slightest clue as to what every component in the photo chain contributes; they expect the camera to solve their mistakes on its own. I still stand by my saying that there isn't a digital made yet that can come close to the resolution of film ( unless you can afford a Canon 1Ds or a Kodak D/Slr). That said, as a VERY happy owner of a Fuji S2, I am coming away with a huge % of keepers vs my pro-quality film rig. At this point, I am "Almost" ready to sacrifice a few hits in absolute resolution, to just be able to get the shot after a few reviews/reshoots with a digital at the scene. This works great for my static landscapes (or W/A reef scenes), but in the end, if a truly "once in a life time” shot w/no retakes comes by, than film still has a huge edge. (But I haven't picked up my N90s in months)

justleesa, it sounds like you have no "investment" in a brand; for most that settles the question: "I already have these Canon lenses, so it's cheaper to stick with Canon".

Generally, Nikon vs Canon from scratch is a wash. The high-end lenses are both great. The bodies have similar feature sets. Prices are similar. Not an easy choice, is it?

At this point, the conventional wisdom is to pick an aspect of your shooting that stands out, find the best performer, and grow from there. As an example, the Nikon D70 has great write speed to the card; if you're shooting sports, this might be important to you. Voila, you're a Nikon gal.

The other aspect (usually not discussed) is the future. Nikon has frozen their digital format and chip dimensions, so all future equipment will expand on this. The selection of compatable lenses and bodies will grow in a standardized way. Although the chip pixel counts are smaller (now), it's inevetable that it will grow.

Canon has a split in chip sizes; some similar to the Nikon, others 35mm in size. This is great for the 35mm film shooter that wants to lateral into digital, but lenses and equipment are schizophrenic from having to fulfill two formats. If buying for the long-term investment in equipment, this might worry me.

Having said that, they are both excellent lines. Perhaps a coin flip would be best....

My counsel has alway been to start at the optics. Pick the lens and port that you'd shoot the most, and the quality level you want, and the rest will fall in place.

All the best, James

I came across this article recently when trying to find out what DSLRs are all about. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/digicams-vs-dslrs.shtml

Also a very good site for understanding some of the ins and outs of taking pictures in general

"Nikon vs Canon from scratch is a wash".... boy, that must be the start of the biggest arguments.... <grin>
IMHO, one other issue (other than lenses, and whether you like that gaudy yellow Nikon logo or not) is the camera ergonomics.
To my mind, I find the Canons easier to use, their buttons are laid out nice (and you get a lot more buttons on a dSLR than on a mortal one).
That may cut less ice than the "I already have lenses" argument, but for me it was a no brainer, and I stuck with Canon.

Let me start by saying I have a Nikon D100 in an Aquatica housing and I love it. As the others have said price is an issue, when you add: housing + 1-2 strobes + strobe arms + 2-4 sets of rechargeable batteries + sync cords + 1 dome port + 1 flat port + minimum of 1 WA lens and a Macro Lens, it gets spendy. In addition if you take long trips you want to have back-up bulkheads, orings, sync cords, etc.... Nothing worse than being in some exotic location, flooding your bulkhead and having no strobes, take my word for it.

One issue not mentioned is the flash code for Canon has been broken and you can get housings that will now give you ttl flash with the Canon Rebel, as I understand they are still working on the Nikon code.