View Full Version : sorry another which camera thread
tommy the cat
22-12-2008, 21:22
Well as post says......sorry...... but I have finally decided to get a dslr and was wondering what peeps would recommend on a budget.
I would like to come in under £500 and do like the canons as I have had a couple of different compact canons.
Been a long time since I used a slr so go carefully with me.......
Main uses will be wildlife ,deer birds etc and I am a bit of a sucker for landscapes.
So lens recommendations for someone on a budget would be great.
Many thanks Dave
Ps I realise the 'budget' isn't gonna cover lenses.:rolleyes:
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/Cameras%20and%20Lenses/Digital%20SLRs/products/Canon/EOS%201000D%20Twin%20Lens%20Bu ndle-75534/Show.html
Or 450d my head is spinning
discoveringtheforest
22-12-2008, 23:35
Olympus e520 or e 420 * thumbs up*
I'd recommend a Nikon D40x (10MP), comes with a 18-55mm but you could easily get a 70 - 200mm for longer shots. I've got a D40 and am super pleased with it - very intuitive to use and a world apart from a compact. I wish I'd bought mine years ago!
tommy the cat
23-12-2008, 21:40
Ta will get a look see in Jessops after Christmas looking at the d70 or the eos 450d (? I think it is) Gonna have a feel in the hand as the eos is meant to be small but light.
Ta D
xavierdoc
24-12-2008, 09:27
I was a dyed-in-the-wool Canon user for 35mm and DSLR, until my Pa (photography is his full-time job) switched to Nikon this year. This was a big step for him as he had 4 Canon bodies and a plethora of lenses, as well as using Canon's professional service. If there is one thing I have learned about my Dad, it's that he researches these things to death before making decisions (he was Chief engineer of various departments at Rolls Royce, before early retirement to switch to "less stressful" pro photographer!)
He went for D700's, which is designed (and priced!) for the professional market, I am not sufficiently familiar with the rest of the range to recommend a specific model in your price range. Have a look at the www.dpreview.com website for some good info and owner/user ratings and comments.
I have stuck with Canon, but only because I can't afford to change! Nothing wrong with Canons, but if I was building an outfit from scratch I would go with Nikon.
Merry Crimble!
Xav
Make doesn't matter, model barely matters either these days.
Get the one you like the look of and really learn to use it. http://www.wayland.me.uk/assets/images/camera.gif
Photographers make good pictures, cameras are just the tools they use.
Olympus e520 or e 420 * thumbs up*
I got an E 410 for £283 with two zoom lenses. The lenses cost more than that bought seperately so budget left for a flas tripod memory card and bag.
Look HERE (http://www.currys.co.uk/martprd/store/cur_page.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@ 1784231031.1230347919@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccekadegdfjdhedcfl gceggdhhmdfnm.0&page=Product&fm=10&sm=1&tm=0&sku=942260&category_oid=) I like it but then I always like olympus
id say go for the cheapest possible dslr, with the best possible kit-lenses. For starters, that is.
I can recommend looking towards nikons d70, or canons equivalent.
I personally am more a nikon-guy.
The kit-lenses that goes with nikons are generally fairly good lenses, and on a budget you could look towards sigmas lenses for the d70 (sigma hasn't got many lenses suitable for a d40)
I would allways spend more cash on the lenses then on the camera itself.
tommy the cat
28-12-2008, 18:18
Ok thanks some more good stuff. As said apart from an o' level in photography many years ago.... bit new to this. My eye is on the canon 1000d in the ad above as I cant see (to the untrained eye) many differences from that and the 450d but is cheaper which will allow the other lens.
Will the above Jessops link lens the 300mm be sufficient to get me better shots of deer?
Looking at the tele converter as well??
Dave
Squidders
28-12-2008, 19:04
please do check out prices at warehouse express or microglobe before buying from jessops...they are a bit expensive.
tommy the cat
28-12-2008, 20:21
Sorry Squidders I am going in to have a feel of the camera in the hand before ordering on line!
It was just a link I found. Thanks for the micro globe suggestion only been to the warehouse express site.
Dave
Canon and Nikon use Lens stabilizers, that means around 30% higher price on comparable lenses.
Pentax and Sony (to name two) got in-house stabilizers, and therefore can use less expensive lenses with the same results.
And as Wayland said, it's not the camera but the photographer who takes the shot. Bad photographers very often try to compensate by getting increasingly expensive kit, and they photos still remain uninterresting.
Ansel Adams didn't have 50mpix Hasselblad stuff, and somehow he still managed to get shots that most people can only dream of ;)
Squidders
29-12-2008, 02:49
that's true but also the best photographer in the world will still produce dire photos with a bad camera... there does need to be a level of quality in the equipment for decent results.
I do not agree, the famous photo of Che was taken with a 4$ camera, and the photographer who took it (and many other brilliant photos) have spent much time trying to communicate that it does not take advanced equipment to take good shots.
A great photographer with 10 year old equipment will still easily beat a average photographer using the latest stuff.
Of course, having good equipment doesn't hurt, but it's far from being essential to good photography.
tommy the cat
30-12-2008, 19:12
I do not agree, the famous photo of Che was taken with a 4$ camera, and the photographer who took it (and many other brilliant photos) have spent much time trying to communicate that it does not take advanced equipment to take good shots.
A great photographer with 10 year old equipment will still easily beat a average photographer using the latest stuff.
Of course, having good equipment doesn't hurt, but it's far from being essential to good photography.
I agree but I also aint gonna get a great pic of a deer unless my stalking skills improve not with the ixus with a 3x zoom!
D
Squidders
01-01-2009, 13:30
what film did the $4 camera take?
Because as far s I recall, all (for example) 35mm film cameras have the same resolution and the ISO depends on the film used... of which you could put the absolute best in to the cheapest camera available.
In digital photography, the cheapest cameras have tiny very poor quality sensors... you will not see a good sensor in a bad camera and it's the sensor that really defines a cameras picture quality.
The camera can only affect the physical quality of the image, focus, resolution exposure and the like but it is the photographer that points it in the right direction, at the right time and takes the picture.
Most modern cameras produce a reasonable physical result these days. To improve that result by tiny amounts generally requires an expenditure of money far out of proportion to the improvement.
So in terms of value for money, brand or model matter very little.
What does matter is that you have the controls you want and like the way they are laid out.
Some people want lots of auto modes, others want simple manual control. What I would recommend, would almost certainly differ from what Squidders would recommend. That does not mean one opinion is better than the other, it just means we like different ways of doing things.
Write a check list of the controls you think you need and then the things you think you want, and check those against the camera models in your price range.
Once you have narrowed things down a bit try and get to somewhere you can handle the cameras you have shortlisted and see how easy it is to use the controls you will use most.
By this stage you won't need our advice because you'll be making up your own mind from a good knowledge of the specifications and your own impression of handling the cameras.
Squidders
01-01-2009, 14:12
The main thing I have learned about photography is that I would rather be lucky than good... even the worlds most acclaimed photographers still need to wait for the moment. If the universe doesn't want to give you a good photo, you will never get one.
A cheap camera will give you good photos in many situations but the most amazing things always happen when conditions are far less than ideal... it's an unfortunate fact that more expensive cameras are able to take photos of a higher quality in bad conditions.
I have seen amazing photos from £40 point and shoot film cameras but I have never seen a great photo from a mobile phone even if you're pointing it at something great.
The main thing I have learned about photography is that I would rather be lucky than good... <Snip
Very very true......
But have you noticed that luck also seems to favour the well prepared?
Squidders
01-01-2009, 14:19
prepared with a good camera you mean?? :lmao:
Good photography is about much more than technical quality of the image.
I have used a wide range of camera equipment over the years, from the most basic full-auto 35mm compact film cameras to high end dSLRs with a wide array of diferent lenses. I even got an antique Leica III that i do some BW photography with once in a while.
The quality of my photos are in no way determined by which equipment I have used.
Yes, sometimes when using a compact digital, I could have wished for the longer zoom or ability to work in a wider light-range than the compact allows, but the motive itself have always been my main focus. And even with low end equipment, I'm able to get good shots, with no less ease than what the bigger models allow.
Of course, manual controls are important if I want to take more channelging photos. This is something rarely provided by compacts, and for this reason you can end up blaming the limitation of the techonolgy on the camera itself.
These days, I mainly use a compact, because I will then carry it with me more often, than what I would with a mid-range (Canon G-series) or an dSLR, and in the end, the best camera is the one you have with you :)
Of courseif you are willing to carry bigger equipment with you, you can increase you capabilities with better equipment. Of two equal skilled photographers, the one using the best equipment is of course more prone to take the better shots. But it still comes down to the skills of the photographer, and not the techincal equipment used.
I have seen so many unskilled photographer carry equipment around for in excess of 10k£ and still not being able to get a real good shot.
What low-quality equipment and world-class skills can produce:
http://www.anseladams.com/ProductImages/ar/zoom_1901009.jpg
(by Ansel Adams)
prepared with a good camera you mean??
I was thinking more along the lines of people that get out there, get into the right places and are waiting for some light worth shooting. ;)
What low-quality equipment and world-class skills can produce:
http://www.anseladams.com/ProductImages/ar/zoom_1901009.jpg
(by Ansel Adams)
I am not sure I would about low quality equipment old fashioned maybe.
I am a real fan of Ansel Adams and he probably shot that on some the best kit available (at the time) he was a true proffessional and his books are still worth reading.
harryhaller
25-03-2009, 02:53
Great thread - Oi'll give it foive!:approve:
The tools don't replace the craftsman, and a bad craftsman blames his tools - but sometimes one needs to have the right tools for the job.
I'm interested in what I suppose would be called macro-photography. I would like to use a camera as a notebook to record plants so that I can get up to speed on plant recognition and I am looking for a camera tha can take close-ups of plants even in poor light - or can all cameras do that?
The argument for manual controls seems to me natural - I'm surprised that it isn't standard on all cameras.
I used to have an SLR Olympus (OM-10?) and I certainly agree that they are not the cameras that you can carry around with you all the time. A compact camera seems the most realistic tool on an everyday basis.
With regard to great photography - I have developed
an allergy for a certain type of photography - that type which has the intention to be "great". There was a great criticism of Welles' film "Citizen Kane" which had hitherto been acclaimed by some as the greatest film ever made etc. The critic pointed out the use of the camera in the film was totally pretentious giving significance and drama to something which was trivial and banal - in the same manner as dramatic music is used in films to wallpaper over the cracks in the plot and dialogue.
It would be the difference between photographing a flower to show the flower as it is and photographing the flower from unusual point of view to give it qualities which it really didn't have. Or to use special film and paper and developing processes which is what Ansel Adams did, I think.
We all have different tastes of course, but I like the photos where the photographer "isn't there" if you know what I mean:)
Ansel Adams didn't have 50mpix Hasselblad stuff, and somehow he still managed to get shots that most people can only dream of ;)
But he did have the very best that money could buy at the time, including the latest model Hasselblad and the earliest digital camera kit, which he was very excited about.
Having said that, I agree with the principle fo what you say.
Graham