First, thanks to all

Buying a new one is a good idea!! I just bought a Nikon D70 with a 28/300 lens. Now I can take better images from a greater distance but also focus myself on taking better images. And a new toy to play with is really cool! :)

And also I want to say that your site is great! I love to read the stories and look at the photo's!

I'm a firm believer that the world has way too much waste and that people should do their parts to try and cut down on the junk we have everywhere. I've had my 1.3 megapixel digital camera for five years now and even though the front cover is broke, it still works fine. Sure, I walk into the store and see all those new great cameras and think to myself "man, I'd like a new one" but then I always am able to hold back when I think of what I would do with my old camera. Nobody nowadays would want a 1.3 megapixel, 5 year old camera, and it would just end up sitting on my shelf and then eventually junked even though it still works perfectly fine. I always decide against buying one and waiting until mine has absolutely bitten the dust. So I say use your old camera until it dies, especially since it still seems like a good one.

Some would say the 1.3 megapixel camera was never worth buying in the first place. A digital SLR is worlds removed from a digital point and shoot type. You'll definately grow as a photographer and love using such a camera. If you take a look through the galleries at Japanwindow.com you'll find some pictures taken with my old Canon G-1, and then lots of pictures from my new Canon 300D "Digital Rebel". The G-1 was (and is) a really good camera for its kind. Whatever composition skills I have should be just as present in the old shots, but I'm sure you'll instantly see the difference the DSLR makes. I also Photoshop my pictures, by the way. But even Photoshop is a funner experience when you start with better shots, and you won't have to add fake lens blur anymore... About the apparent and hidden costs of upgrading, that's a decision you'll need to make. It sounds, though, like you are already en route to a conclusion.

I'm inclined to agree with both of you on this one. There is too much junk. I keep very close tabs on everything I buy, and what it's made out of, and what the environmental costs are. Buying the camera could wipe out all of the efforts I have made in the last year. Or, I could look at it as if I have "saved up" enough eco-points that I can afford to get the camera and still have an unusually low ecological footprint.

As AG syas however, I think that the SLR and point and shoot might be worlds apart. I had a 1.3 megapixel camera too until a year ago. I used it for snapshots of friends and what not, but never felt any special passion for taking pictures, and I rarely left the house with it. When I upgraded to the Lumix, I found a whole new world, and have only left the house without it once in the year since I bought it.

I'm not just looking at getting it because I want the latest version, I could care less about that. I just want a camera with manual controls that I can learn from. I would go with a non-digital if I thought I would use it, but I think the cost is too prohibative. Also, as far as environemnt goes, I don't think that the body itself would be much of a lighter load on the earth, and the lenses are the same, but the digital has the benefit of not needing all the chemicals to proccess the film.

When I bought the 1.3 megapixel camera over five years ago it was almost top of the line, so it was worth it at the time. And I still love it. It's been my old faithful for a long time. I know it doesn't take as good of photos as all of the great cameras today, but sometimes I feel people focus too much on the equipment and not enough on the subject that they are photographing. Award winning photos can be taken with a simple, cheap disposable camera and without any Photoshop touch up. While all the other feauters are great, and if I had a few grand to blow I'd love to have a nice new camera, never underestimate what a good subject and cheap, old camera can do.

I agree about the swiveling viewfinder on the Canon G series cameras. Too bad SLR's can't use that type of viewfinder. I really thought I'd miss having that viewfinder, but the sheer speed that I can take pictures now with my SLR more than makes up for the loss.

As for my purchase, I was able to buy a slightly used Canon 300D with lenses from someone here in Japan, so the cost (while high) wasn't "a few grand." If you can buy from the USA and make do with just one lens for awhile, then you can get started (with extra flash card, lens, etc.) for about $1100 I'm guessing. But I would recommend buying just the body (for around $899 I think) then spending $300 or $400 for a lens that matches the quality of the camera. A Tamron 28-75mm or 24-135mm are the best values I found. For more creative flexibility, a 28-300mm like the other poster suggested would be very fun, but the image quality will suffer a little and you'll need more light to use it well.

The Nikon D70 has been reviewed very well, and even recommended above the Canon 300D (at DPreview.com). But the Canon 300D still has the overall edge in "low noise" due to it's ability to shoot at 100 ISO(if that's a high consideration), and they both simply work great. The Nikon also seems to come with a better kit lens, although you should still think carefully about getting a better lens, I think. When it comes to lenses, Canon may be a bit cheaper in the long run. This won't affect you much if you intend to just buy one lens and that's it forever. But you said you wanted to grow with the camera, so that may include some future purchases (lenses, flash, etc.).

Hope this helps. I'm not trying to sway you, just providing the information I found when I was trying to decide about this myself.