Originally Posted by MikeYQM
It was pricey but worth it. I also do a lot of sports photography and indoor/portrait work.
I used a Canon Rebel XTi before this and despite being upwards of 10 years old was a totally acceptable camera.
Healthy adjustable ISO & White Balance ratings are what you're looking for. Don't get caught up on MegaPixels. A 10 MP camera will still print clearly to poster size prints and 10 is low by today's standards. 10-12 MP will still allow you to crop photos afterwards without loosing too much detail. Lower MP also means lower file size which means smaller memory cards required.
Sharpness is highly derived by technique and lens. In my opinion a cheaper body with a better lens will yield better results than a bad lens on a better body. The kit lenses even in Canon are generally pretty bad. If you can buy body only then a lens separately. 18-55 is not a lot of length in a lens and won't let you get very close up.
Use of timer settings, tripods etc help technique wise to capture sharp images.
I respectfully disagree with not getting a close up with an 18-55, I just took this pic of an ASD fuel paly, it is a micro at only 2 millimeters wide... Not claiming a macro won't get you closer lol. I agree with you with MP. When I look for a camera, I never pay attention to pixels, rather, the optical zoom holding the high priority.
For example, the first three photos are not enlarged rather manually zooming in. Relying on the motor for clarity... These corals are roughly 7-8inchs from the acrylic wall. A lens like a macro would sharpen the image, but not practical unless you are in the profession of taking closups. The last is a photo with my iPhone 5.
To the OP, I love troph. But I also love my calvus!