If you already have DSLR with a lens or two, it is nice to just buy the body & maybe some other items to go along with it.

It was the investment in lenses that was my deciding factor on my first DSLR 3 years ago and would probably be again unless the next one was totally outstanding in performance.

I want to protect the investment in lenses; new technology should not render obsolete. If so, why trust the new camera makers to respect the investment I am making in the new products? Food for thought.

I would by a Canon tomorrow if it had 10MP and a preshot histogram to view. I currently have a Canon 20D and a Minolta A2.

Besides lens adapability being top consideration in camera choice, so is the build quality of a camera, including such things as shutter "life" an area where my D1x has totally disappointed.

I will stay the same brand I always have so I can continue to use my lenses. The investment is too much to switch over, even if there are new features on a different brand. How many new features do we really need anyway?

Shooting pics at a large convention my Automatic Point and shoot Pentax was the preferred camera over my Canon SLR with all the bells and whistles.

I've remained a Pentax user for 50 years for systems compatibility and value.

My current lenses are Olympus OM mount, which can be mounted on the new four-thirds Olympus cameras via adaptor, but since they do not meter couple to the camera I would need new lenses anyway, so I'm open to an entirely new system.

We know Nikon and Canon are the big boys in DSLR arena. I can purchase a Tokina, Sigma, Tamron etc lense for my Canon 5D or 20D but can't use a Nikon lens. Why NOT? I'd like to. Third party lens mount adapters in the future?

I will not buy photographic equipment until standardization is shared by all firm's remember slide projector's and tray's, camera lens mounts, one word research.

I did just that. I have many Canon lenses for my film SLR's, but just made the jump to Pentax. I couldn't pass up the K10D, and the additional investments into lenses is worth it.

I was really thinking of upgrading to the D80 as I already own a D70s. I just don't understand why Nikon changed from compact flash when I already have an investment in them as well as batteries.

Eleven Nikon lenses, at great cost--what do you think? And, I will not buy DSLR until the poor quality/size of viewfider AND the price of full-frame sensors comes WAY down.... It is still film and pocket digital for me and my students until then!

I have had Nikon since the 1960's, the Sony with the Zeiss lens system is attractive, but not attractive enough for me to switch. I am heavily into wide angle shots, so I am also staying with flim a/c I have the 12-24 lens, 20mm 1.8, 24, 28PC etc and I do not want to "loose" this, and Nikon already has a 10mm in digital also with Bessa I have the 12, 15, and 21 lenses. The D-40 looks good enough,if only they had the VR in the body, and a "cleaning-the-sensor" system.

I believe that most shooters switching over or adding an DSLR to their workflow look first at what they already have because of cost. Think about it, is the Nikon shooter going to forfeit 3 or more ED-IF, VR,AF-S lenses costing well over a $1000 just to go Canon or visa-versa a Canon man give up 2 L-series and fast EF-S lenses to go Sony? On rare occasions it does happen obviously. But in the end I believe just that, rarely.

The main reason I purchased Sony's Alpha A100 was because it accepted my Minolta lenses.