A lot of you are going to flame me for not providing clear specifications as to my needs. But in a way that is part of what my question is. If you are willing to still read on, thanks 
I am looking to buy my first digital camera. As something of a quality purist in all areas of life, I hate things like noise, distortion, etc. I am by no means an expert in photography, but I know some of the basics, and I am interested in learning more. (I've been working for a newspaper, so I've picked some interest up from the photo staff).
Budget is not a major issue... sort of. I am willing/able to pay quite a bit for quality. However, I obviously want to spend as little as possible, and as an amature, I'm not sure I need a super-camera.
Realistically, most of what I will be shooting will be parties, trips, etc. Casual family type use.
I was looking at the Nikon 8700 -- seems like a sweet camera. About $600, 8x optical zoom, 8MP, decent speed, etc. If anything, it was at the upper end of what I was willing to even consider.
Then I looked at dpreview.com 's ISO noise comparisons. The 8700 is a lot better than the cheaper point and shoots, but it looks absolutely HORRIBLE at even ISO 100 compared to say the dSLR Canon Rebel (about $700 w/o a lens).
I will also note that both the 8700 and the Canon Rebel are at the extreme upper end of size in terms of what I would be willing to lug around.
So here is my question: I like to buy things that last, and that will serve me for a very long time. To me, looking at sample galleries, the Canon seems to take almost "perfect" photos. The 8700 takes good/decent photos. Most cheaper cameras (with tiny CCDs) look terrible at anything but ISO 50.
SO..... should I drop around a G for something that seems "perfect" ? Or should I settle for a $200 digicam right now and wait for the technology to further improve?
Ah... Any help will be appreciated.
Cliff Notes: Are dSLR cameras the end all be all, or will $300 Point and Shoots overtake them in a year?
Edit: Im especially interested in the question about image noise at the different price ranges..
I am looking to buy my first digital camera. As something of a quality purist in all areas of life, I hate things like noise, distortion, etc. I am by no means an expert in photography, but I know some of the basics, and I am interested in learning more. (I've been working for a newspaper, so I've picked some interest up from the photo staff).
Budget is not a major issue... sort of. I am willing/able to pay quite a bit for quality. However, I obviously want to spend as little as possible, and as an amature, I'm not sure I need a super-camera.
Realistically, most of what I will be shooting will be parties, trips, etc. Casual family type use.
I was looking at the Nikon 8700 -- seems like a sweet camera. About $600, 8x optical zoom, 8MP, decent speed, etc. If anything, it was at the upper end of what I was willing to even consider.
Then I looked at dpreview.com 's ISO noise comparisons. The 8700 is a lot better than the cheaper point and shoots, but it looks absolutely HORRIBLE at even ISO 100 compared to say the dSLR Canon Rebel (about $700 w/o a lens).
I will also note that both the 8700 and the Canon Rebel are at the extreme upper end of size in terms of what I would be willing to lug around.
So here is my question: I like to buy things that last, and that will serve me for a very long time. To me, looking at sample galleries, the Canon seems to take almost "perfect" photos. The 8700 takes good/decent photos. Most cheaper cameras (with tiny CCDs) look terrible at anything but ISO 50.
SO..... should I drop around a G for something that seems "perfect" ? Or should I settle for a $200 digicam right now and wait for the technology to further improve?
Ah... Any help will be appreciated.
Cliff Notes: Are dSLR cameras the end all be all, or will $300 Point and Shoots overtake them in a year?
Edit: Im especially interested in the question about image noise at the different price ranges..
Facebook
Twitter