You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
My son is almost 16, and is constantly stealing his mum's Canon 60D SLR to use and experiment with. Even with his iPhone, he is showing an immense amount of talent for photography.
The question I have is (from a technical perspective - I know you don't know my son!): Would he be happy with something like a Canon 10D to keep learning on and developing? Or is that just too old, and he would get frustrated?
Are there very affordable old SLR models that are perhaps a little more up-to-date in terms of spec, but that similar quality to the Canon?
Any help appreciated!
Definitely he would learn.
I've just picked up two Nikon D40s for each of my nieces, £100 each with a kit lens from London camera exchange. I had that camera which is an entry level camera from several years back for a good many years and learned loads.
They may lack the sensitivity and speed of something newer but you still have all that creative control. He'll be chuffed I imagine. Go for it.
Plenty of cheap used canons available. It really depends if mum wants him borrowing her lenses. If she doesn't get anything but a canon. If he's brand concious a Nikon, otherwise whatever comes up.
My main issue with the older Canons is how tiny the rear screen is.
The 10d is very slow and I'm sure would be frustrating as hell for a 16yr old...
More recent second hand DSLRs would be much better
I borrowed a 10d off a friend before buying my first DLSR (a Nikon..) I remember it being very heavy, and as cp says slow compared to the D80 I originally bought. I guess one advantage of a heavy camera is that they'd more likely be careful with it - but its weight is not going to be conducive to taking it everywhere with you and always having it ready in my opinion.
I probably wouldn't go all the way back to a 10d, but something like the 40d is often recommended (30d owner myself). Can probably be had for about £200 these days.
The xxxd series you might find a bit cheaper. 400d or 450d maybe? I much prefer the controls on the xxd series though.
If you go back older, say 350d (I have one of these too), or 20d, then the LCD screens get pretty small, noticeably dated, and more difficult to view - though they too are still very capable cameras.
The main advantages of newer models are the technology. Video, and low light performance being two big ones. Live view, flip out screens, stuff like that. Image quality you'll find much the same. This comes from the (rather expensive) lenses.
Not sure if your west-midlands based? but I have a Nikon D70s, 2 lenses 18mm-55mm and 35mm-70mm. It works well takes some great pictures, has a couple of faults but they haven't effected me over the last few years.
First fault is the pop up flash doesn't work, never has tbh.
Second fault is the digital screen while you can see your picture fine, sometimes when you play back a set of pictures it flashes up dark lumps. These don't effect the picture when you transfer across to the laptop.
Only reason for letting it go this ive brought a micro dslr which suits me better for taking on hols.
Not after much for it, would take a reasonable offer. I was going to ebay it with a starting bid at £10 to see what it would make.
I've just replaced my 10D with a 60D. As said, the 10D is really slow, and has a very small screen. Yes, he'll learn with it, but I suggest you get something a bit newer.
Try MPBPhotographic.co.uk
They're Brighton based but do mail order. I've bought most of my gear 2nd hand through them. They offer warranty on all their stock so you get some piece of mind.
Just looking now the 450 is going for around £150. The 10D is around £75. You'll need to add a lens but the 18-55 is around £50.
My wife was chuffed to bits with her 'old' Olympus E-420 for £120. Partly because she knows the household budget and knows how cheap it was. In use it's absolutely fine, great little camera. The only disadvantages are the ISO only goes up to 1600 and it only has three focus points (not that it's an issue for her anyway).
That's coming from someone who liked taking photos with a compact but isn't really a gear freak.
I'll keep saying it but 20D was a step-change moment and massively over-engineered. 30D/40D/50D didn't really add much for the learner photographer. Should see 20D for <100 quid now on ebay.
My best man was given a 20D by his now wife for his birthday a couple of years back. Judging by how many photos he takes, and how they've improved since he got it, I'd say it was a great way to get someone of any age into photogrtaphy
Thought about a film camera?
Somewhere on a camera forum somebody is suggesting a penny farthing would be a good present for a young lad wanting to get into cycling.
I've got a 20d that I keep meaning to put on ebay.
It's in really good condition and has taken about 7000 shots if I remember correctly - I upgraded to a 40d when they came out then sold that to help fund the 7d I still use, kept the 20d as a back up but haven't used it for several years now. I've got the kit lens and a genuine battery grip as well.
email in profile if interested
I think the fundamentals don't change, so yeah, an old camera would be great. I've still got my Nikon D40 and while it's pretty much fit for the skip, I couldn't justify anything more advanced - straight out of the box I think that old 6mbp starter DSLR took as high a quality shot as my abilities as a photographer woyld need. Plus, you can take risks with an older camera you wouldn't dare take with something newer or more pricey. 🙂
Whilst I slagged off the older cameras, here's a shot I took with my lads 350d and kit lens at the weekend.
It's fiddly to use for sure but the results aren't too shabby.
[url= http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7294/11275716716_0fe4d5070d.jp g" target="_blank">
5thElefant - MemberSomewhere on a camera forum somebody is suggesting a penny farthing would be a good present for a young lad wanting to get into cycling.
[img] 
[/img]
I agree with a lot of what has been said above apart from the film camera option.
Things like the Canon 300d to 450d are now available for less than £200 and sometimes you can pick up some nice accessories in the bundle. The same goes for the lower end Nikons As richpips has demonstrated the final image is as much to do with the photographer as the equipment.
In for Matt24k's opinion. Canon 300d to 450d are affordable now and will not too old for using.
D40 is hardly old tech.
I take photos with my D50 (which is older than the d40) that are often used as stock for brochures for a mate of mine who is a graphic designer.
This a reflection of digital profligacy, the camera and subject matter rather than my ability. I just hammer out 100's of pics and 1/100th of them are decent.
This a reflection of digital profligacy, the camera and subject matter rather than my ability. I just hammer out 100's of pics and 1/100th of them are decent.
Spray and pray huh? I disagree, digital cameras are excellent for learning as you can be free to experiment without worrying about expensive film and processing times, but if you have the approach of taking hundreds of photos in the hope you might get one decent one, you're kind of missing the point.
D40 is a fantastic camera, but I guess you're more hooked in to Canon.
I disagree, digital cameras are excellent for learning as you can be free to experiment without worrying about expensive film and processing times, but if you have the approach of taking hundreds of photos in the hope you might get one decent one, [b]you're kind of missing the point[/b]
Yeah I'm not sure why you I should conform to your ideas of what photography is about.
I was trying to illustrate that the D40, whilst old is still an excellent camera, not necessarily giving you a critical insight into my photography ontology. One of the things that pisses me off about here is how people are happy to drop into insult and criticism that they would be unlikely to to carry out in real life.
Whilst I have been able to learn a lot because I have been able to experiment, there are also times (like with kids) when there is little time for set up or composition, just taking lots and knowing the camera will produce something good is a pretty great thing, and reinforces the fact that the D40 is a good camera for a beginner to learn on.
D40 might not be old tech, per se, but it's an old tech by the standards of beginner kit today - haven't looked for awhile, but compared to, say, D3100, D40 doesn't do video, 6.1mp compared to 14mp, no HDMI connection, etc. You and I know that, all things considered, if you took one of each brand new straight out of the box and gave them to someone who's new to shooting, there wouldn't be much to choose between the shots either of them take, but people do get caught up by the numbers (I remember taking mine to work to take some pictures after, and every single person who expressed an interest asked what megapix it was - without exception, every single one was disappointed when I said 6.1 and thought their 8/10/12 MP phones/compacts would take better pictures 🙂 ).
I don't have a problem with spray and pray (never heard that expression before! 🙂 ) as long as you learn from it - when I got D40 I was doing a bit of reporting on motocross and largely just used it as a big point and shoot, but over time, if I was disappointed with how some shots came out, I learned how to set it manually, rather than relying on the auto stuff, but I still subscribed to the "take hundreds and a percentage will come out great" philosophy. Now, unless I'm spending time somewhere where it goes from light to dark and back a lot, I'll pick the speed and aperture myself.
As richpips has demonstrated the final image is as much to do with the photographer as the equipment.
It's way more to do with the photographer than the equippment! Think of Oli Beckinsale on a £150 mtb. He's still going to comfortably beat most of us, isn't he?
if you have the approach of taking hundreds of photos in the hope you might get one decent one, you're kind of missing the point
No, I think you're missing the point. Photography is an art form, and as such we can do whatever we damn well please with it.
Anyway.. as for old tech.. my wife's camere was old an obselete when I bought it last year. It was made in 2009! Old, in digital camera terms, isn't really old at all.
It's way more to do with the photographer than the equippment! Think of Oli Beckinsale on a £150 mtb. He's still going to comfortably beat most of us, isn't he?
Do you know, I once met the editor of a magazine who swore blind it was more down to the kit than the photographer, wouldn't have it the other way round. I guess that's why he's an editor rather than a photographer. 🙂
Got my D40 in 2007 - if I could have another, box-fresh, I'd take it in an instant. Sure, newer/shinier/videoyer/monster megapixelier would be nice, but I really don't need it, for what I'd use it for. 🙂
If you've already got a 60D and some lenses, it would make sense to keep on the same system for this camera.
My father, brother and I all had Konika SLRs when I was at college and it was handy having a system of lenses between us.
I can heartily recommend a 40D. I sold mine for about £170 in absolute mint condition. It feels even nicer to use than the 60D (better build, materials and ergonomics). Main difference is it lacks video.
If that's too expensive, then perhaps look at the 550D - it has amazing video, as well as being roughly on a par with the 40D for image. Downside is the handling - a bit fiddly (although I'm sure this wont prove to be a limitation to your son's images).
A quick look on Ebay suggests they [i]can[/i] go for as little as £130 body-only.
Add a canon 50mm f1.8 and he'll be able to experiment with pretty much any type of image.
it would make sense to keep on the same system for this camera.
Sure, that sounds like a great idea, until you start hoarding each other's kit...
"Honey, can I have the macro for a bit?"
"Ok, do you want this tele?"
"No I'll take the wide angle if you brought it"
.. and so on.. this is how our family walks go.
I can see that, but I can also see that nobody will want to fork out for 2 Ultra-Wide-Angle lenses in the same family. Good lenses are just too expensive. (I haven't even been able to afford one UWA yet)
Anyway - I'm sure the OP will be able to work out whether it's going to work out for him or not.
Interesting comment about the magazine editor saying the kit was more important than the photographer.............WTF!
Mrs Matt24k had an image used as a double page spread in BBC Wildlife magazine. What super high end camera was it shot on?
It wasn't.
She used her skill to get a cracking image from an EOS300d that she recently sold on a well known auction site for £140.
I thought the punchline was going to be 'iphone'.
Interesting comment about the magazine editor saying the kit was more important than the photographer.............WTF!
He was an idiot, and subsequently turned out to be really not a very nice man at all.
Edit - and well in, MrsMatt24k. That's rather cool! 🙂
For some examples of what can be done with an iPhone look here:
http://inologist.com
The restrictions can provide drive and focus.
I've just bought a secondhand Nikon P500. It's a fixed lens 'bridge' camera but has everything you'd want. I used to be a film camera user with 2 Nikon bodies, mostly prime lenses and all the gubbins.
The bridge cameras have everything a removable-lens SLR has except they have a massive range lens that cannot be removed but then with 22mm to 810mm equivalent AND VR system, why would you want to? Just get one with a proper viewfinder rather than an arms length viewscreen.
VR system, why would you want to?
Isn't that the stabilisation thing? If so, it's massively useful, and would be even more so on a smaller sensor camera.
You'd also lose out on phase detect autofocus, and you won't be able to get as wide an aperture in a compact.
Don't get me wrong, you can do great stuff with a compact, but SLRs definitely offer a big step up in versatility and ability. Can't really argue with that.
The lens of the P500:
maximum apertures of f/3.4 at 22.5mm and f/5.7 at 810mm
example of 'SLR' lens:
Nikon Zoom-Nikkor Zoom lens - 18 mm - 105 mm - F/3.5-5.6 - Nikon F
Apertures compare quite well, don't you think? Except you're getting an equivalent (in 35mm) of 22.5mm to 810mm!
maximum apertures of f/3.4 at 22.5mm and f/5.7 at 810mm
[i]In optics, the f-number (sometimes called focal ratio, f-ratio, f-stop, or relative aperture[1]) of an optical system is the [b]ratio of the lens' focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil[/b][/i]
So you can't start multiplying the focal length by a number and claim that the other one is still the same.
It's a 4.0-144.0mm f3.4 - f5.7.
Not in any shape or form anything vaguely like a 22.5 - 810mm f3.4 - f5.7.
Isn't that the stabilisation thing? If so, it's massively useful, and would be even more so on a smaller sensor camera.You'd also lose out on phase detect autofocus, and you won't be able to get as wide an aperture in a compact.
i wonder how I manage with a mamiya rb67 with automatic nothing and no batteries. 11 pics per roll costing around £5, unless i use sfx infrared which is closer to £10. Means i tend to think about each picture rather than firing off a hundred shots because one of them will turn out ok. It does a have a removable back so i can switch films mid roll, a switch on the dark slide holder to prevent the back being removed when the dark slide is out (wooo technology) and a rotating back to switch between portrait and landscape (woooo more technology). negs are 6cm by 7cm, so quality is awesome and weight is even more impressive so my stamina/upper body strength is coming along nicely as well.
And I love playing in the dark rooom, coz I'm just weird that way.
Yes but for £50 ish you can fit a f1.4 lens on to an SLR. The P500 will never be able to do that.
Bah.. Really gets on my nerves when you say 'x is useful' and someone else comes over all sarcastic with 'how ever do I manage with a dogturd on a stick, you fancy pants young kids know nothing blah blah'. You can do whatever you like, why not try drawing in charcoal on a cave wall if you want to be really retro.
Fact is, OP asked about DSLR and IS is really useful in low light.
toys19 - MemberYeah I'm not sure why you I should conform to your ideas of what photography is about.
I was trying to illustrate that the D40, whilst old is still an excellent camera, not necessarily giving you a critical insight into my photography ontology. One of the things that pisses me off about here is how people are happy to drop into insult and criticism that they would be unlikely to to carry out in real life.
Whilst I have been able to learn a lot because I have been able to experiment, there are also times (like with kids) when there is little time for set up or composition, just taking lots and knowing the camera will produce something good is a pretty great thing, and reinforces the fact that the D40 is a good camera for a beginner to learn on.
Blimey... 🙄 One of the things that pisses [b]me[/b] off about this place is folks are desperate for your words to be full of insult, criticism and vitriol. They weren't. I said how great the D40 was earlier, and I'm not having a pop at your ideas of what photography is about at all.
Whatever your approach is, more power to you...
I just hear people say that about digital a lot, and personally, I don't agree that indiscriminate 'spraying and praying' teaches you much as a beginner(Which I kind of am). As you say, that's just my personal approach, and I wouldn't want to tell others to do it my way.
Sorry if I offended you...It's only the internet.
molgrips - Memberif you have the approach of taking hundreds of photos in the hope you might get one decent one, you're kind of missing the point
No, I think you're missing the point. Photography is an art form, and as such we can do whatever we damn well please with it.
Again, blimey...
To some of the comments above: [b]camera threads are always contentious,[/b] as this one has proved
here's my fuel for the fire... 😛
most people will only consider 2 brands however irrational it may seem... I've never fathomed any reason for it... they would not limit themselves to two brands for bikes or bike bits in their thought process for buying
Using terms like 'spray and pray' is a bit derogatory, don't you think? By insinuating people who take lots of shots are in fact rubbish at photography, don't you think that's going to annoy people a bit?
One of the things that pisses me off about this place is folks are desperate for your words to be full of insult, criticism and vitriol
That's not quite it. We don't WANT to be annoyed - it's a consequence of text-based communication. Without any kind of friendly body language or voice tone, people seem automatically predisposed to a less favourable interpretation of words. I do try really hard not to do that but you do really have to concentrate.
This is the reason why there are so many bitter arguments online (and it's everywhere on the internet not just here). It's not because people keyboard warriors trying to look hard.
most people will only consider 2 brands however irrational it may seem... I've never fathomed any reason for it...
Secondhand market and number/range of accessories/lenses.
molgrips - Member
Using terms like 'spray and pray' is a bit derogatory, don't you think? By insinuating people who take lots of shots are in fact rubbish at photography, don't you think that's going to annoy people a bit?
Point taken, but I didn't mean it in a derogatory way, wouldn't dream of it. It's a term that a photography blogger I follow uses for that technique. Fro knows photo .com.
He's quite amusing sometimes but I guess it can be seen as a criticism. Apologies.
Secondhand market and number/range of accessories/lenses.
That's certainly a common misconception.
Not that this has anything to do with the OP's question. Which is as you'd expect on a camera thread...
most people will only consider 2 brands however irrational it may seem... I've never fathomed any reason for it... they would not limit themselves to two brands for bikes or bike bits in their thought process for buying
We do with complicated bits though - Shimano/Sram, Fox/Rockshox, People just like to have the 'default' so they don't have to worry about anything. Sometimes I'm happy trading convenience for some other reason (I have Maverick forks), but other times I just want the default (Hope hubs and brakes).
It's natural and doesn't usually give us too many problems - maybe just a little more expense.
molgrips - Member
Using terms like 'spray and pray' is a bit derogatory, don't you think? By insinuating people who take lots of shots are in fact rubbish at photography, don't you think that's going to annoy people a bit?
'Spray and pray' as I understand it (or take it to mean) isn't so much someone who takes lots of photo's. It's more to do with sticking the camera on continuous, pointing it at something you'd like to get a pic of and just holding the shutter down on the off chance that one of them will have the subject in focus and just where you want it.
You see this all the time at motorsport events - some people are very precise about it and will pre-focus the camera, follow a particular vehicle and then take the shot at the pre-focussed position.
Others just seem to hold the camera still on the apex of a corner and hold their finger on the shutter.
I suppose if the result is the same, then does it really matter? Probably not. People can do it how they want.
I get more satisfaction from trying to get a particular picture without just 'letting the camera do it', to an extent anyway.
I started off with a Nikon D70s and got some fantastic results, really chesp now too.
I take a lot of photos, but each one is a considered attempt to get something. I'm not going to spend all mornign waiting for a perfect instant of sunrise - that's not what I'm aiming for generally.
The world around us is saturated with great pictures all the time, the challenge for me is picking them out. Getting the perfect landscape is a good technical challenge but for me it's a bit too dull. Makes a pretty image but that's all - for me.
I would probably have one or two landscapes on my wall, I do have a couple, but not the Colin Prior type stuff.
Sometimes I'm happy trading convenience for some other reason, but other times I just want the default
It's a great shame though that people do this in photography. Other brands (Sony, Pentax, Olympus) have great innovative features but they get overlooked a lot just because people don't have open minds.
most people will only consider 2 brands however irrational it may seem... I've never fathomed any reason for it... they would not limit themselves to two brands for bikes or bike bits in their thought process for buying
For me, I always thought it was about the glass, as much as anything.
You see this all the time at motorsport events - some people are very precise about it and will pre-focus the camera, follow a particular vehicle and then take the shot at the pre-focussed position.
Others just seem to hold the camera still on the apex of a corner and hold their finger on the shutter.
In my experience, the guys who REALLY know what they're doing will know what shot they want to take, and of whom, and they're like snipers - put themselve sin place, wait for the trget and boom, that's a cover shot right there. For lesser mortals (like me! 🙂 ), it was a matter of choosing somewhere (like a corner or a jump) where people are doing something interesting and start shooting away. Not being a professional, I'd have an idea of what I wanted, but I needed to take some shots to see how they came out to work out what I wantd to change. Or, if it was close up of something moving at speed, it might take a while before I could get the exposure how I wanted, someone properly framed and the AF to get them pin-sharp. It's just a measure of ability, I guess. 🙂
For me, I always thought it was about the glass, as much as anything.
Well it is, but all the manufacturers make good lenses. Funnily enough, Olympus make great lenses, but their SLRs didn't do very well at all.
Fact is, OP asked about DSLR a
Actually, the fact is the OP asked about SLRs, not DSLRs and although DSLRs were mentioned, there was nothing exclusive in the post. Here's the thread title
Giving an older SLR as a gift
IMO, anyone looking at cameras should think aboutfilm camera, especially where there is already access to a half decent digital. It's about having an open mind and knowing what's going to generate interest, and no technology for it's own sake. And after all, a decent 35mm film SLR and a dozen rolls of PAN F is hardly going to break anyone's bank, is it?
I thought the punchline was going to be 'iphone'.
I believe Carlton Reid has had iPhone photos published in National Geographic 🙂
And after all, a decent 35mm film SLR and a dozen rolls of PAN F is hardly going to break anyone's bank, is it?
Given photography is a skill mainly based on trial and error, the more photos you can take the quicker and cheaper, the faster you can improve. Hence, I'd go DSLR over Film...
IMO, anyone looking at cameras should think aboutfilm camera, especially where there is already access to a half decent digital. It's about having an open mind and knowing what's going to generate interest, and no technology for it's own sake. And after all, a decent 35mm film SLR and a dozen rolls of PAN F is hardly going to break anyone's bank, is it?
Film! Film is a hobby for aging luddites. Which is fine, much like steam engines and watching paint dry. Just not for normal people and especially not kids.
I bet the OP is laughing his head off at where this thread has gone!
IMO, anyone looking at cameras should think aboutfilm camera
Not for long. When I was younger the cost of film was a hugely limiting factor in what I did with my camera. Now, with digital, I can spend hours crafting the perfect shot if I want, or I can muck about with long exposures, out of focus shapes, anything. Whatever I can think of, I can do, without having to worry about the cost of film.
The beneifts of film are for a pretty narrow niche imo.
I bet the OP is laughing his head off at where this thread has gone!
Yep, I recommended a nice cheap (£110) starter digital camera with enough features to keep a beginner interested (Nikon P500). And I've learned quite a lot from this thread.
Main lesson: The world of amateur (and wannabe pro) photography is still packed with self-opinionated d*cks with more knowledge about equipment than how to actually take a decent photo.
I thought I wouldn't have to hear all this garbage again! I worked in a specialist camera shop for many years, was a member of a local photographic society, became a pillock of the photographic community but eventually gave it all up and sold the contents of my camera bag and just bought a point and shoot compact camera.
But, as I stood there behind the counter listening to the waffle (pretending to agree), I thought to myself: At least he's about to spend 2k, it'll all be worth it. So windbags, you do have a use within the photographic industry after all.
Main lesson: The world of amateur (and wannabe pro) photography is still packed with self-opinionated d*cks with more knowledge about equipment than how to actually take a decent photo.
Have you seen all our photos then?
I'm not saying anyone spends lots of money. My point is that a cheap SLR is going to be better for someone who wants to challenge themselves than a compact. If you'd read many of the other camera threads on here you'd see me recommending compacts or bridge cameras regularly. Just not in this case.
I use an almost obselete Olympus that was £300 on clearance 4 years ago, incidentally, with a load of budget lenses.
Have you seen all our photos then?
Are you actually admitting to belonging to the group I described? Priceless!
The OP had a question. He has been provided with a range of answers. That's how these things work isn't it?
Dev, I don't think your suggestion is the best.
Mol, while I see where you're coming from with suggesting film, and I might have agreed with you a few years ago, I think digital might be more appropriate in this instance.
I agree with the people suggesting canon xxd series cameras (or equivalent from other brands). I don't see a huge problem with canon xxxd series either, but the xxd are certainly a bit more ergonomic.
Here's the kicker though - these are opinions and nothing more.
Mol, while I see where you're coming from with suggesting film, and I might have agreed with you a few years ago, I think digital might be more appropriate in this instance.
See - even you're confused
It's going to look bad if I edit that to make sense isn't it?
Turns out I agree with Mol then (though maybe not for exactly the reasons he gives).
Are you actually admitting to belonging to the group I described?
No, I'm not.
See my second post on the thread where I talk about gear not being important.. See the contents of my camera bag..!
Having recently used very similar cameras with and without IS, and with the same lenses, I can confirm it is useful. Just today for instance my wife took her camera and the 150mm to the kids' concert, but it was next to impossible to get a sharp shot at f5.6 and 1/15. My camera would've managed it, with in body IS.
Just today for instance my wife took her camera and the 150mm to the kids' concert, but it was next to impossible to get a sharp shot at f5.6 and 1/15. My camera would've managed it, with in body IS.
Only if you nailed the kids to something. Easter? Sure. Christmas? You'll need a faster shutter speed.
She was sat still on a bench for most of it 🙂
IS might be useful, but if you turn up with this you get respect:
[img] 
[/img]
Depends if you are a pro or one of Deveron53's wannabes 🙂
If the latter, surely this:
[img] 
[/img]
Back to the original question - the EOS 10D was a very good midrange camera in it's day, but you're looking at 10 year old cameras. I had the EOS D60 which was the model before and got some fantastic pictures out of it, but things have moved on a lot. With a newer camera you'll get better AF, faster continuous shooting and a bigger screen.
Set a budget and get the most recent model you can find with a half decent lens.
As I mentioned earlier, I managed to pick up a Nikon D40 and also a Nikon D60 from London Camera Exchange.
They were both £100, though the D60 didn't include the lens which I had to get separately.
[img] 
[/img]
Very similar cameras and brilliant for what they are but.... Which one do I give to which Niece?...
Currently I'm planning to give the older one the camera with the bigger numbers... That's how growing up with older siblings works isn't it? 😉
There are going to be wars in that house! 😀