This is a feature of all SLR cameras that I know of.

I'd check out http://www.dpreview.com/ and get a feel for the different models available at that price range.

You have basically two options:

1. Get a Canon or Nikon
2. Get something else (Sony, Pentax, Olympus)

Canon and Nikon are the mainstream options. Between them they control almost 90% of the market and have cameras in all price ranges. The good thing about CaNikon is that they have whatever you want in terms of body and lenses. The downside is that they will sell you less camera for more money than the other manufacturers (they have very good marketing and people just fall for that) and if you really want something good, you need to pay a lot more money. Also CaNikon don't have systems for image stabilization built into the camera body, so every lens you buy has to have an IS system (or VR as Nikon calls it) of their own if you want stabilization. This means good CaNikon lenses are generally more expensive than equivalent lenses from other manufacturers (although not always!), but the really bad thing is that many of their specialist lenses don't have IS at all (especially macro, portrait and generally all other prime lenses from Canon and Nikon don't have IS or VR).

On the other hand there are the smaller players in the DSLR world. Of those none is a really good choice, but they all have some advantages over CaNikon and some disadvantages.

Sony (who bought Minolta a few years ago) in going up (now has about 10% market share globally), but is doing this very slowly and with some weird choices in their strategy. They have about 5 or 6 entry level models (all sub 700€), two high level amateur models (1500-2000€) and none in the amateur mid range (1000-1500€) or at the professional level (>3000€). So if you buy an entry level Sony and later decide to upgrade, there's not much choice for you right now. They do have many nice lenses, especially from Carl Zeiss though.

With Pentax the situation is even worse. They do have a couple of quality mid range and affordable entry level models (perhaps best value on the market right now), but again none at the higher level. And you can get the entry level ones in about 15 or 20 different colours, which just doesn't look very serious. It's like they're trying to sell their cameras to kiddies. Also their choice of lenses is a bit limited. And if you look at the whole company, they have <2% market share and don't seem like a very stable company at the moment (they'll either die or will be bought out by someone in the next year or two), so buying a Pentax now is probably not very future proof.

And Olympus is even worse than Pentax. To start, they have a weird format of their own called 4/3 while other top DSLR companies make cameras in the APS-C and 35mm Full Frame format. This means that many 3rd party lenses are not available for Olympus. Also they've been now concentrating on a new format called micro 4/3, so it's a question how long the original 4/3 DSLR format will survive. Also their choice of bodies and lenses is very limited.

On the other hand you could take a look at one of those micro 4/3 cameras which are just as good as a regular DSLR but a lot smaller and lighter. And there are several other manufacturers offering very good micro 4/3 cameras, namely Panasonic and Samsung. This format is relatively new, so there aren't a lot of lenses yet available, but because of the format, pretty much any lens fits with an adapter.

To sum it up, if you want to be on the safe side, buy whatever Canon or Nikon camera you get these days for 700€ (probably Canon 500D or Nikon D5000, but you should probably pay a couple hundred more for a Canon 50D or Nikon D90 if you decide to take that route). If you want more for your money, get a Sony A550 or maybe the cheaper A500, just be aware that the current Sonys don't record video and you will only see the benefits of Sony's in-body stabilization later when you will be able to buy cheaper non-stabilized lenses and any prime lens you put on it will automatically be stabilized. I'd avoid Pentax and Olympus and also the Canon's, Nikon's and Sony's cheapest models though. And those micro 4/3 options are in my mind only good as a second camera. Like something small and light to take with you on a trip when you don't want to lug around your big and heavy gear.

If I were you, I'd buy a Sony A550, but that's just me, because I don't like Canon and Nikon. Most people will tell you the exact opposite.

Yes, that's the nonsense Sony does in the entry level range. Removes MLU (mirror lockup) and DOF preview, has bracketing with useless parameters just for the sake of being able to tick off items on specification sheets and so on. I still have the A100 which is a great camera but I would replace it with a newer model any time if there was one worth looking at. The A550 is not much of an upgrade (well, high ISO performance is better, auto focus is better, speed is better, but generally it just doesn't seem like a worthy upgrade for A100 or A200, it's more like a replacement), the A700 has been discontinued a long time ago and still hasn't been replaced with a new model, and then the next one, the A850 costs 1700-1800€ body-only.

If you have friends into photography, check what they have. For me, that was a major deciding factor - knowing that I could borrow lenses from my friends.

The one thing I'm sure about with Sony is they make better cameras for low light/intensity in general. I had a Cybershot once which took awesome photos at nighttime. I tried doing the same with a Canon S5IS and its totally crap compared to the Sony. The Canon I have does have better overall quality for less price.

Thats true, but what Im betting on is that Sony is cheap enough to make most of their middle line cameras the same. It did have hologram AF and nightvision but those were also features. I can only assume a CCD is a CCD so thats not any different.

edit: I took that photo of the cat in my avatar with the sony F717 cybershot. I'm not sure what feature made the night photos look good. Night vision was just greenish similar to the view you would get in nightvision goggles.

Well I guess I'm screwed cause my Cybershot took on seawater and shorted itself. Quite a common way to lose a camera around where I live.

The thing I don't like about SLRs is that the lenses cost a lot and that the mirror that reflects the light back to the "image sensor" and the sensor itself get dust on it. Usually I'm shooting in sea spray so its a really bad situation.

If dust gets into a properly ingress protected SLR, it'll get into a compact as well. The difference then between an SLR and a compact is that when you get dust in your compact, you have to disassemble the whole camera to fix it.
This Christmas holiday, I was lugging my DSLR (a Nikon D200) around in the frikkin' Sahara. It survived unscathed (the lens cover made horrible grinding noises until I washed it though ).If there's any dustier place than that, let me know...

The others should too. The maximum preset time for mine (and most other cameras) is 30 seconds, but set it to bulb mode and you can keep it open indefinitely.

There's also one thing you should know about dpreview.com. They're extremely biased towards Canon & Nikon and against Pentax, Olympus and especially Sony. That's because Canon and Nikon are sponsoring them. Basically they're paid to write better reviews for Canon and Nikon products. Before committing to something I'd ask for a second opinion.

I always wondered why "time exposure" was represented by a 'B'!