Okay let`s try and break this down a bit. Firstly zoom/macro is all about the lens and nothing to do with the body. You can get a specific lens that will do a specific job which fits a Canon/Pentax mount, no problems.
If you wanted something tough and weatherproof, it might have been worth checking out the Pentax line, because some of them (like my K20D) are definitely that. They also have built in shake reduction, as does Sony if I recall. Canon requires it to generally be built into the lenses, but you know shake reduction isn`t the miracle you think it is. Nice to have but rarely important.
Canon fit lenses are generally £20-30 cheaper than others, I guess since they have the largest market share.
Looking at your list, it`s rather unrealistic. Actually it`s very unrealistic. I mean, some of it isn`t, HD video is becoming very common on DSLRs, though built in effects makes me wonder why you want a DSLR at all, and if you saw how huge a DSLR lens that gave a decent image with whatever a 30x zoom means (it`s a meaningless term unfortunately in photography, 30x what exactly? It could mean 30x the widest angle).
I think the first thing you may realise once you get a DSLR is they aren`t magic. :( You will have to learn how photography works, and the more you learn about it the more it will depress you.
Let`s take the 70-300mm lens Jimbo mentioned in the other thread. I said as long as he was happy with it, he said he was, and that`s fine! I know that I wouldn`t be, because from reading the reviews the moment you zoom in past about 150mm I would find the image quality drop off from the centre unacceptable.
The big problem is physics, and light, and sensors, and the fact that it doesn`t matter how much money you spend, physics always gets in the way. Modern sensors are as good as film, at least 35mm film anyway. But they aren`t better, and lenses still rely on glass, and good glass still costs money.
I`m rambling a bit here. Good job you don`t need a camera tomorrow, heh.
Let`s look at your zoom requirement as a good starting point. Let`s put aside the 30x figure, it really is meaningless, 30x what exactly? 30x the focal length of the widest angle? 30x bigger image in the frame? Bigger than what other image? DSLR lenses are measured in mm, and I looked up a Fuji to see what focal length range it had, and it said it went to 720mm and that was listed as 30x.
So okay, a 720mm is HUGE, really really huge. Let`s just pretend you could afford one, and I mean a half decent one, not some god awful unusable cheap pile of rubbish that nobody would find acceptable (one that looks like a fat telescope). So yes, lets say you can afford 8 grand for a 600mm Canon lens look how big it is, it`ll need it`s own tripod.
And even with its own tripod with that long a lens my god, keeping the image still enough to get a shot that has no camera shake will be tough. And that`s if its a stationary target. But no matter, you can open up the aperture and let more light in, only even an expensive lens like this only opens up to f/4, and the more you open it up the less the depth of field you have, and the less leeway you get to get the focussing right. And you`ll probably have to whack the ISO up a bit too, which introduces noise.
I think what I`m trying to say here, is not to put you off, but maybe perhaps warn you of the wonderful world of true photography. It really is a great world, I love it, but it can be hard work.
With a compact camera, you point, you click, if it doesn`t look very good you just say to yourself well it`s a cheap camera, you can`t expect it to.
With a DSLR, you point, you click, if it doesn`t look good you did something wrong. But you can do so much more wrong, and often at first it`ll be failing to understand the limitations of photography.
Editor
DVD REVIEWER
MYREVIEWER.COM
My Flickr Photostream
