Hello guy, 
I am trying to buy my first DSLR camera. I've been looking many entry level cameras such as Canon T3i, Nikon D5100 etc.

I've heard Nikon D7000 is a good camera right now. I am not gonna care for +$200/$300 to get a better camera. I want to buy a camera so that it doesn't get obsolete in few months.

Is D7000 a good choice ? or D5100 or Canon T3i will do it ?

Serious suggestion needed. 

"kini sake pachi , yo kineko bhaye hunthyo, tyo kineko bhaye hunthyo bhanne nepali sathi haru dherai bhetinchan, tesaile ali sujhab chahiyo :)

Thanks

If you weren't a newbie I would have suggested Nikon D800.. Nikon D7000 is unarguably a better camera than the ones you've mentioned, however if I were you, I'd go with D5100 just to get my feet wet, shoot with it for few years (believe me, for many newbies (including me), there is no difference in photo quality between D5100 and D7000) and then upgrade to full frame camera.

Invest on lenses if you can. So buy D5100 body only, and get a prime lens 50mm/1.4G. You'd thank me.

Behoove Dai, been suggesting that for two years now, not a single bastard has thanked me yet!!

:(

 I agree with behoove_me. i have been using a D7000, along 50mm 1.4 lens. Its a great camera. But as U said, U are a beginner, so consider his suggestion (and mine too :-) ) to go for a somewhat cheaper camera like D5100, and set your hands on it. Once you think you need to upgrade, then go for the the higher end expensive camera. By then save some bucks instead. Good lick

 Thanks guys..

 

i buy cell with camera , no camera plz , itz on the verge of disappearenace.

I can challenge any 5000 grand camera to compete with 200 bucks camera, not even a dSLR.. 
lol that 200 bucks one has adobe photoshop and other third party HDR plugins to back up.. 
Can I post pictures?? lol.. I'll wait ... 

and i challenge your image, bittertruth daju, with a image that i created using photoshop only ( not even 0.8 mp nokia camera involved). i know you will come up with something to counter my point but pls stop making fool of yourself in every single thread!

Hus, am here on capitola beach enjoying nature, will post pictures when am home :), ani how r u doing 28 bhai.. Hope everything is fine ttyl

 I'd love to see pictures from both of you, 28amendment bro and bittertruth bro.. i bet u guys are really good at it.. and i'd also want to see those images.. :) if possible plz post it here...so that i can decide what i should get... a camera or photoshop....:)

 @guy_tensed, what are you looking to spend and r u just looking to spend it on camera body or lenses too....i'd shomewhat agree with behoove_me bro about the camera body but if you really want a good lens then get a lens with a range for example 24-70/2.8 so that it can serve you multiple purpose and help you learn better.

That was awesome bittertruth.
For me picture is about a moment not a camera ;)
Sometime cheap camera can take great pictures.

I'm not against dSLRs but skilled photographers can take most out of any cameras, be it expensive or just mere cellphone cameras.
Just holding a dSLR don't make you photographer, but even some of my friends who have dSLRs don't know the simple concepts of
exposure,aperture and shutter speed. blehhh :D Enjoy photography.

isajha,

I am glad you mentioned 24-70/2.8. I purchased that lens not too long ago and paid top dollar for it. I agree to some extent that skill is required to get incredible pictures, but I wonder how can you take a picture at night with a camera phone if you want all details. The skill therefore is limited to 'composition' in non-DSLR cameras. That said, I am not particularly picky about DSLR cameras but lenses do make a lot of difference, my regular 50-200/5.6 that took several seconds to focus now seems like an absolutely bad investment as compared to 24-70. It focuses so fast and the images are so sharp I cannot stop raving about it.

So as we speak of sharpness, that is not something any ordinary camera or lenses can do, also what about the ghost and flares? If photography was all about skill and not best kits, why would world's best photographers spend substantial money on them? I tried shooting a picture of a waterfall when I was in Oregon several years ago - with a point and shoot. The result was bad, I agree that I might have lacked some 'skills' but if I were skillful, would that photo been so perfect to be put on National Geographic magazine? I do not think so.

okay guys, I'm going to pick cheap but badass camera, it's Panasonic DMC-FZ28 , it's not even a dSLR.
All the images below weren't extensively enhanced either using Photoshop. Just mere few touch ups. It takes pictures at RAW and that's the best way to work with digital images, in my opinion.

Some random day shots (FZ28)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/heleny/7813932442/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/algo/4410567359/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stehouwerrecio/7824961692/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasw/7742198320/

Some random night shots (FZ28)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dalemengelphotography/3828909657/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gio83dj/3481100588/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tedsla/3422530873/

Note: Remember, buying expensive electric guitar don't make you Jimi Hendrix, it's the skill that you need to get most out of even the creakiest instrument.

I'll post more :D 

 @bittertruth bro. you are absolutely right.. not everyone with DSL knows its settings or its importance. ive seen people use D800, 7D, even 5Dmark ii and ive seen people shooting it on auto mode which is pointless. its a nice video you posted here. yes skills are the most and lighting is the most... but like behoov-me bro said.. there are limitation on point and shoot or phone cameras and with the absence of those features it will be very hard to improvise.. yes during some settings or during day or with enough light you can take amazing images with simple camera phones of point and shoot cameras. but if the person with all those ideas is give a good camera, trust me the images they'll capture will be out of this world which will never be possible with simple cameras.. i believe BEEHOVE_ME bro will agree with me...
@ beehove_me bro i totally agree with what you have to say and yes 24-70/2.8 is best if someone wants to learn and try out new techniques... but if you are really looking into details and stuff i'll recomment 85mm/1.2...:) plz try it i bet you'll love it..

And this guy named Mark Chandler put all those guys with no skill but possess expensive cameras to shame, utter shame.
He has a site entirely dedicated on N95 photography, yep you read it right, NOKIA N95. Here we're talking about cell phone photography.

http://markchandler.eu/N95Photography/index.html

Check each and every gallery out.

@thanks facebook bro

@isajha, my entire comments were not up against those skilled ones, but just saying the fundamental concept of what photography is about. This pretentious assumption that owning an expensive digital camera would make someone out of nowhere a hardcore photographer is all I was opposing from the beginning of my comment. You are absolutely right, it's always a delight to see these expensive cameras in the hand of skilled photographer and their produce afterwards :D  I sometimes chuckle at those pretend photographers who take shots when they don't know how to handle the camera properly while shooting :D

Anyway, Am not some pro photographer, but I know the drill :D just my say :D No offense :D and hey take it easy