I've been encouraging my daughter to get more involved in photography. What would you recommend as a good starter camera for around $1000. Here's a pic with my crummy digital in our back yard.
I can only speak for Canon equipment, as I've not used Nikon much. I'm sure we have some Nikon users who could make some recommendations...
With that caveat, I'd recommend one of Canon's entry level Rebel dSLR's. I started with a 10 mp XTi and it was a great first "real" camera. Their new entry level version is the XSi, but I don't know if I'd spend the extra money on that one. Even an older XT will produce stunning results if coupled with good lenses and someone who knows what they're doing.
I think a gently used XTi can be had for $300-$400. Then I'd buy Canon's ridiculously cheap 50mm f1.8 for $80. I'd also consider the Sigma 28-70 f2.8, Tamron 28-75 f2.8, or the Canon 28-135 as a main lense. The Sigma or Tamron can be had for between $270 and $350, and while there seem to be some intermittent quality problems with those manufacturers, the lenses are pretty highly regarded for entry level lenses. I owned a Canon 28-135 ($400)for about a month and it was a great lense until I saw the results from the $1250 24-105 f4L and I returned the 28-135 the next day. Such is life
Don't be fooled by the amount of megapixels a camera has. Anything over six or eight will produce great photos you can print at 8X10...and 16X20 isn't too great a stretch if you've been used to seeing photos from a point & shoot camera. The megapixel wars are mostly just marketing gimmicks, and increased megapixels can come with a heavy price when it comes to low light performance.
An older, cheaper digital body equipped with good lenses will almost always outperform a newer model with the kit lense.
The dragonfly photo was taken with a $500 Canon Xti (or 400d) and a $1700 70-200 f2.8L IS lense. The water buffalo was taken with the same camera and the 24-105 f4L IS I wrote about earlier.
Pay as much attention to the "f number" on a lense when you're considering buying it. The focal length (the first number given in millimeters) is important, but so is how much light the lense needs to function (the f number)...and lower is always better.
PM me if you have any questions I can help you with.
And as RVTech wrote, it is more about the person taking the photo than the equipment. That said, once one's ability reaches a certain point, cheap equipment starts holding one back.
. I have looked for years. I also like to catch turtles & snakes, and wolf spiders. It would appear that you are in a sweet spot. Most of my pics are on the computer with the "Blue Screen" . I will re-take some point pics & post here for you. Thanks for the pics. Fellow bog-walker. 
