Entry-level DSLR Camera questions

[Lazure]

Alright, to start off, I am NOT a professional photographer. However, I have gotten advanced enough that my point-and-shoot Kodak Easyshare Z730 is not matching the quality that I believe I am capable of generating with my current skill and what I wish to do with my photos.

I have gotten to the point where I prefer to take pictures on manual settings without flash, using a slower shutter speed to take good, still pictures of stuff as I find flash to be very ugly. However, no matter how top notch my settings get, my pictures when seen at their best 5MP resolution... are blurry and there's really no details like on skin, or leaves, or what have you...

My current camera only has an ISO of 80 through 400, and aperture settings of 2.8 to 5.6 (f-stop i think this is called?). This means low-light photography sucks very, very bad for me. I have to use shutter speeds so low, even in well lit indoor rooms, that I pretty much require a tripod and my subjects to be stiller than the dead to even hope to get a decent picture. If I use an ISO higher than the lowest "80" setting, i get a LOT of color noise and very little gain of exposure.

That said, I am looking for a DSLR camera that is in the ~$400-500 range that is optimal for my needs.. be it Canon or Nikon:

- One whose stock lens is able to take normal pictures in very crisp, sharp details at LEAST croppable to 1080p. I don't care about all the crazy zooming stuff. I just want to take good, sharp pictures that are better than my current, capable of picking up details in skin or leaves if close enough, etc.

- The HUD needs to tell me what the general exposure of the shot will be at the current shutter/aperture/ISO settings i have set (my current camera does this, I know when it says 0.0 it's gonna be perfect lighting in the result)

- Ability to save to a lossless image format, "RAW" preferred.

- Has a reasonable automatic mode for taking pictures in a pinch if I do need "point-and-shoot" functionality.

- Has a tripod mount.

- Uses SD cards that do not require being placed inside of converters to be stuck in my laptop SD card reader. (like those stupid sony ones)

- Have a bigger range of ISO than 80~400 (I want access to lower than 80, and higher than 400).. and actually get noticeable use out of increasing my ISO in low-light situations.

- Preferably have a bigger range of aperture too: my current camera again is limited to 2.8 to 5.6. Higher range would give me yet more light control, especially if I can widen the aperture bigger than 2.8.

Is it possible to get a $400-500 DSLR camera by nikon/canon and be able to reasonably meet these needs? Certainly a lot better than my current kodak right? >.> I see people always saying they need $1000 cameras with $1000 lenses and stuff. Will I really need all that to take much better pictures than my kodak? Or would $400-500 budget be a waste of time in the DSLR world?

Also, example photos taken with suggested cameras (at their best megapixel resolution), would be VERY helpful. Thank you.

[Argote]

Alright, to start off, I am NOT a professional photographer. However, I have gotten advanced enough that my point-and-shoot Kodak Easyshare Z730 is not matching the quality that I believe I am capable of generating with my current skill and what I wish to do with my photos.

I have gotten to the point where I prefer to take pictures on manual settings without flash, using a slower shutter speed to take good, still pictures of stuff as I find flash to be very ugly. However, no matter how top notch my settings get, my pictures when seen at their best 5MP resolution... are blurry and there's really no details like on skin, or leaves, or what have you...

That could be solved with a DSLR

My current camera only has an ISO of 80 through 400, and aperture settings of 2.8 to 5.6 (f-stop i think this is called?). This means low-light photography sucks very, very bad for me.

f/2.8 is considered a pretty good aperture

I have to use shutter speeds so low, even in well lit indoor rooms, that I pretty much require a tripod and my subjects to be stiller than the dead to even hope to get a decent picture. If I use an ISO higher than the lowest "80" setting, i get a LOT of color noise and very little gain of exposure.

Understood, any modern DSLR would be a great improvement on that

That said, I am looking for a DSLR camera that is in the ~$400-500 range that is optimal for my needs.. be it Canon or Nikon:

- One whose stock lens is able to take normal pictures in very crisp, sharp details at LEAST croppable to 1080p. I don't care about all the crazy zooming stuff. I just want to take good, sharp pictures that are better than my current, capable of picking up details in skin or leaves if close enough, etc.

- The HUD needs to tell me what the general exposure of the shot will be at the current shutter/aperture/ISO settings i have set (my current camera does this, I know when it says 0.0 it's gonna be perfect lighting in the result)

Any DSLR will do that, and 0.0 does not mean perfect lighting, it works well as a guideline though.

- Ability to save to a lossless image format, "RAW" preferred.

Again, any DSLR has this

- Has a reasonable automatic mode for taking pictures in a pinch if I do need "point-and-shoot" functionality.

Any DSLR could do this

- Has a tripod mount.

I think any CAMERA has this nowadays

- Uses SD cards that do not require being placed inside of converters to be stuck in my laptop SD card reader. (like those stupid sony ones)

- Have a bigger range of ISO than 80~400 (I want access to lower than 80, and higher than 400).. and actually get noticeable use out of increasing my ISO in low-light situations.

In this case, you'll be hard pressed to find cameras with ISOs below 80, 100 usually being the lowest on DSLRs, that is not much of a problem though, and any DLSR will go up to at least 1600

- Preferably have a bigger range of aperture too: my current camera again is limited to 2.8 to 5.6. Higher range would give me yet more light control, especially if I can widen the aperture bigger than 2.8.

Standard kit lenses are usually 3.5-5.6

Is it possible to get a $400-500 DSLR camera by nikon/canon and be able to reasonably meet these needs? Certainly a lot better than my current kodak right? >.> I see people always saying they need $1000 cameras with $1000 lenses and stuff. Will I really need all that to take much better pictures than my kodak? Or would $400-500 budget be a waste of time in the DSLR world?

Also, example photos taken with suggested cameras (at their best megapixel resolution), would be VERY helpful. Thank you.

Yes any DSLR will be a lot better, I'd look into the Canon XSi or the Nikon D3000 for that price, maybe one of the Olympus, Sony or Pentax alternatives will work fine for you too.

[Lazure]

alright, thanks. :)