View Full Version : DSLR recommendations?
rancid badger
22-09-2009, 18:21
I'm looking for a half decent, entry level DSLR for my son Thomas.
He's doing photography at 'AS' level as part of his sixth form studies and the teacher has 'hinted' that he could do with a DSLR.
Now then; I would like to go with the Canon eos 450 but we cant afford that:rolleyes:
My brother bought the eos 400 for my niece a while ago and its a cracking tool.
The teacher has suggested the Sony Alpha 230 with 18-55mm lens. This is an unknown quantity to me as I've had Olympus UZ compacts and no one I know has experience of sony cameras either.
So! I'm looking for something up to about £350, reasonable spec etc, any ideas?
cheers
Steve
It all depends on what lens system you prefer, for optics, you can't beat Nikon that being said, you can't beat canon for clean (noiseless) images...
Once you/he decides on what system you'd like to go for then start looking at the older bodies, they go cheap on ebay because am's want the latest and greatest.
I love the D100 I got off here, I use it as a second at weddings and it's great, mind you I prefer Nikon optics and I still love grain!
I'd stay away from sony, both the optics and sensors suck.
Stick with Nikon, Canon, Olympus or Fuji
British Red
22-09-2009, 18:26
I use an Eos 400D and it is as you say a great camera (also known as Rebel Xti in the US). You can just about get a new one for your price limit
http://www.pricerunner.co.uk/pl/29-689455/Digital-Cameras/Canon-EOS-400D-Black-Compare-Prices
Red
Ahh, Rancid Badger, I took a picture the other day and it reminded me of you. The picture was of a badger, and from the smell of it it had been dead some time!
I own -by accident- both the Canon 350d and a Nikon D70s. IME - Canons shoot a bit more colorful/saturated out of the box, Nikons a bit darker. This all can be adjusted. Read a few reviews on bodies and lenses and decide then. I personally prefer the Nikon, mainly because of the huge array of available used lenses and the handling ease. Both brands are good and have their share of fans.
It is better to buy an entry level DSLR new (Nikon 3000/Canon 1000d f.e.) than a used higher class one from the previous generation - the quality difference between the CMOS sensors is vast. Don't go for the most megapixels hype - it is not important.
I learnt a lot from www.kenrockwell.com but there are other good sites around - and loads of books.
-Emile
I'd stay away from sony, both the optics and sensors suck.
Stick with Nikon, Canon, Olympus or Fuji
Sony make the sensors for Nikon!
Don't be swayed by the CMOS vs CCD or number of mega pixels hype. There are good CMOS and good CCD sensors. Once you get past about 8-10 megapixels, you are into diminishing returns - to cram more pixels into the same area, they are made smaller, which makes them noisier.
In your shoes, I'd go for a second hand Canon. Two reasons - 1. they make their own sensors, 2. I like the motors in the lens body - it means that the motor can be sized perfectly for the lens. The alternative is a motor in the camera body and it will always be too big for some lenses and maybe not up to snuff for the bigger lenses.
(BTW I have designed image sensors... FWIW)
Although Sony manufacture Nikon's sensors they aren't the same. Nikon design their own and use Sony's manufacturing plant to fabricate them. This makes sense as Sony is one of the world's leading sensor manufacturers. You will see in tests that the results of comparable Nikon sensors is superior (at the moment).
Check out http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/%28appareil1%29/287|0/%28appareil2%29/325|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28brand2%29/Sony
If you've got a Canon shooters in the family why not go with Canon then you can swap bits and pieces and share advice.
Personally I prefer Nikon, especially the ergonomics of their camera bodies but really between the two major players (Canon and Nikon) it's mostly down to personal preference as they are both constantly trying to better each other.
Pentax cameras could be an option too. Often there are bargain prices to be had on their gear and it seems pretty good to me.
Most secondhand dslr's have only had amateur use and will be in very good condition and will have everything that's required to learn photography. No point in wasting money on dubious 'latest' features if he's just starting. Most likely he'll be using manual anyway. I'd suggest getting into one of the two main systems straight away and have done with it - either Canon or Nikon.
D70 gets my vote. Well specified, light and very easy to use. But what ever you choose, just get a kit lens with it and you're sorted. 8]
I own the canon 450d but to be honest the only real difference between that and the 350d is liveview...no biggie the 350d is a great camera
robin wood
23-09-2009, 07:17
I am still iusing 300d they go for £100-£150 on ebay and are fantastic. Entry packages come with cheap lenses which are not the best.
A 300d with a £200 lens would give far better image quality than a 450d with kit lens. I would suggest a 300d or 350d and a voucher for him to research and buy a lens or two when he has played around a little. May not be quite as nice as a pressie as a new one though.
Now you are going to end up with far too many options.:)
Its a personal choice really. I choose Nikon due to the fact that you can use some older 'Nikon' manual focus lenses and also the shutter mechanism is rated for more uses. Usualy about 50% more than the rest!
Also I had a bad experience with Canons CCD failure a few years back and didn't like their attitude, only to find out later they had massive problems with that CCD.
It isn't all about the high spec camera either, its more about a high spec lenses. A cheap camera with a good lens will give good photo's. But a expensive/ful spec camera with a cheap lens will give rubbish images.
Am I the only one who thinks the cheaper 'kit' lenses really shouldn't be overlooked? They are extremely versatile and are capable of very good results - otherwise they just wouldn't sell. The money saved would be better spent on a basic tripod, which is a far more useful for getting sharper pictures than an expensive lens. Just my thoughts.
Am I the only one who thinks the cheaper 'kit' lenses really shouldn't be overlooked? They are extremely versatile and are capable of very good results - otherwise they just wouldn't sell. The money saved would be better spent on a basic tripod, which is a far more useful for getting sharper pictures than an expensive lens. Just my thoughts.
Depends what you mean by cheaper! I have a couple of sigma lenses which work out at about half the cost of new Nikon equivalent. They are the top range Sigma there again and produce stunning images. Its all about how the lens is ground, type of glass etc, same with any optics I guess.
Many cheaper cameras these days use plastic lenses. They may be 10+ megapixel but the quality of the images is crap, IMO.
I know many people who bought the Nikon D50, then purchased high quality lenses and produce some really high quality images with the setup
The good thing: there are no really "bad" cameras on the market.
Even better: they become technically outdated every six month.
So lots of people sell perfectly good cameras for almost nil and also the (mailorder)-shops have lots of special offers all the time. You can also look out for a Forum on digital photography, since these almost always have an intern 2marketplace" where you may find what you are looking for, too.
That said, my personal choice are Olympus (E-420 and E-520) only for the simple reasons that 1. they are the smallest and most lightweight cameras around and 2. the lenses included in the Kits are way above everything supplied by other brands.
This specific brand doesnt make me a better photographer, though
"Many cheaper cameras these days use plastic lenses. They may be 10+ megapixel but the quality of the images is crap, IMO." - tjwuk
Something I didn't know, though I'm guessing that you're referring to some compacts, whereas I'm mainly looking at Canon/Nikon kit lenses which have a lot going for them. They are capable of professional results if the technique is sound.
"Many cheaper cameras these days use plastic lenses. They may be 10+ megapixel but the quality of the images is crap, IMO." - tjwuk
Something I didn't know, though I'm guessing that you're referring to some compacts, whereas I'm mainly looking at Canon/Nikon kit lenses which have a lot going for them. They are capable of professional results if the technique is sound.
Not absolutely sure about all Canon lenses! I know if you get any Nikon, marked as a Nikkor lens it will be a good.
One good way I find to see what images cameras and lenses take these days is to do a search on Flickr for that camera/lens then look at the group photo's.
Hope this helps
Thanks, but I'm not actually looking - just laying out the possibilities for the original poster.
rancid badger
23-09-2009, 18:03
Thanks for the replies everyone;)
I'm trying to track down a 400d, Big Reds link works but I cant get to the seller.
It'll be something really simple no doubt:D
I have an Olympus 590 UZ compact. It replaced my 550UZ, after an accident and insurance claim. I wish now, I had taken the option of upgrading to the Canon :rolleyes:
The new 590UZ is actually not as good as the 550!:twak:
never mind, one thing at a time
thanks again
atb
Steve
rancid badger
23-09-2009, 18:17
I got through with Red's link and made it to the seller but they're sold out!:rolleyes:
I'll give them a ring tomorrow and see whats what;)
thanks again
Steve
British Red
23-09-2009, 18:37
Sorry RB :(
I expect many have been sold out as they are now the "previous" model. Might be worth trying E-bay etc There were some good deals out there a few months ago for sure.
Red
Grooveski
23-09-2009, 20:42
Why don't they have video functions? :confused:
I'm just curious. There's probably a very good reason, I just don't know it and it's a little annoying(as someone who punches the video button on a bridging camera quite often but would like to upgrade for lenses)
Thanks, but I'm not actually looking - just laying out the possibilities for the original poster.
Yes sorry, I was getting carried away! Just answering for anyone listening I guess
Why don't they have video functions? :confused:
I'm just curious. There's probably a very good reason, I just don't know it and it's a little annoying(as someone who punches the video button on a bridging camera quite often but would like to upgrade for lenses)
I think its all to do with downsizing the image to MP4 and the CPU power it takes to do this every second. They are now starting to release DSLR's that do video.
BikerJames
24-09-2009, 02:20
I'd go for a new Canon 1000d, great camera, I've just bought one myself, nice and compact battery lasts ages and picture quality is great, has live view, a self cleaning sensor and even a video function, although no mic. I've been a Canon user for years and just like the feel of them and If you have canon users in the family then you'll definitely be better off going for another one, you'll save a fortune in the long run being able to share and hand down accessories and lenses.
Best advice I can give though is to wander into Jessops (even if you're not buying from them) and have a feel of a few of the options, take a few snaps and see what you think.
kiltedpict
24-09-2009, 07:47
Could not agree more, IMHO, the 1000d is a lot of camera for your money. I bought one earlier this year and been chuffed to bits with the ease of use and quality. Just remember to invest in plain glass /uv filter for your lens(es)- if you scratch it it's cheap to replace, the lens however......
robin wood
24-09-2009, 08:16
This site is good for finding good prices on new dslrs but no good prices on 400d 1000d seems to be the one with deals at the mo. http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod191.html
rancid badger
24-09-2009, 16:46
Thanks once again everyone;)
I do quite like the look of the 1000d:cool:
I'll keep you informed of progress:D
Oh...and a warm welcome to BikerJames, don't forget to post in the introductions forum;)
cheers
Steve
rancid badger
24-09-2009, 18:33
I've ordered a Canon eos 1000d with 18-55 lens, 8 GB card and a bag
£397 all in:rolleyes:
It's all too easy:o
now then.....erm....cleaning kit, spare battery, spare card, a lens or two, a tripod, a bean bag etc etc etc:sulkoff:
sincere thanks to all for the advice
best wishes
Steve
Why don't they have video functions? :confused:
I'm just curious. There's probably a very good reason, I just don't know it and it's a little annoying(as someone who punches the video button on a bridging camera quite often but would like to upgrade for lenses)
Some of them do but this a new breakthrough in DSLR technology. There were certain things to overcome before this was possible due to the way DSLRS work. In compact cameras it was an easy feature to install.
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/microsite/d300s/en/
http://www.europe-nikon.com/product/en_GB/products/broad/1617/overview.html
http://www.europe-nikon.com/product/en_GB/products/broad/1788/overview.html
Note that these cameras record in HD video and not all allow AF function while filming.
Grooveski
25-09-2009, 18:12
Nice one Rebel.
Had got to the point of starting to price D5000s and lenses then realised it doesn't have a stitch assist function. Ba - humbug - use that almost as much as video mode. :rolleyes:
Figures I guess. A proper viewfinder wouldn't be able to display the assist the same way as an lcd or wee electronic viewfinder.
I know you dont need assist to take panoramas, sure does make life easy though.
Thanks for the explanation tjwuk, I get the idea.
rancid badger
07-10-2009, 09:27
Well the camera arrived the other day and its a cracking tool.
I really started wishing I had opted for a full on upgrade, when I replaced my original Olympus 550UZ!:rolleyes:
There again; I'm reconciled with the fact that my 590UZ is a good size to cart about and there are no worries about storage for extra lenses, filters etc.
So thanks again to everyone who took time to offer advice and recommendations;)
atb
R.B.
If you can shoot RAW? I was advised by a fellow NT volunteer warden who had just completed a digital photography course that RAW shots and follow-on processing with the software are the way to go for wildlife photography! Not tried it yet, anyone have experience of this?
Sorry to hijack the thread somewhat!
This is a good introduction to why people shoot RAW: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
PS: Everything eraaij said is asolutely spot-on.
Good link! I will stick with JPEG for the forseeable future then!
I wouldn't pay too much attention to Ken Rockwell.
People shoot RAW because it's much higher quality than JPEG. This is an indisputable fact. They resolve more detail, give more colour depth and are more forgiving of user error among other things
However there are problems and Rockwell mentions some of them in his opinionated and obnoxious way. The files are bigger and take more time to process for example.
With a program such as Lightroom and a reasonably fast processor this isn't a problem at all. In fact the workflow with Lightroom makes dealing with RAW no slower than dealing with JPEGS.
For some more reasoned reading material of the pros and cons of RAW read:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rawtruth1.shtml
http://reviews.photographyreview.com/blog/why-shoot-raw/
For me it depends on what I am shooting whether I chose JPEG or RAW. I generally use JPEGS for snaps, events and casual shooting. I use RAW when I think that I might want to keep the pictures for art or if I'm shooting a live stage event using the theatre lights (it makes a huge difference in quality over JPEG as I discovered from trying both).
With modern large memory cards and hard disk drives I could shoot RAW all the time and barely notice the overhead.
Thanks for the info, most of my shots are "snaps", casual or event shots so I will stick with JPEG for now at least till I've experimented with RAW and am happy with it.
Thanks for the info, most of my shots are "snaps", casual or event shots so I will stick with JPEG for now at least till I've experimented with RAW and am happy with it.
"Snaps" or not it's a good decision. Most problems are overcome with improved technique. Cheaper and faster too. 8]
edit: Just checked out Ken Rockwell. I like his style! Certainly knows his stuff.
VirusKiller
10-10-2009, 13:53
I've taken Ken Rockwell's advice and bought an essentially new Nikon D40 on eBay as a present for my better half. It looks like a really nice piece of light(!) kit and I'm already loathe to hand it over!
The great thing is that Rockwell has loads of advice for this particular model on his site.
I've heard the D40 is very good and often overlooked, though I've not used one as I already have a D70. Did buy a D200 for some work but have now decided enough is enough. I just don't see the advantage of upgrading anymore. Want to sell one actually (maybe both) and perhaps get a D40. 8] Have you used it yet?
VirusKiller
13-10-2009, 08:23
I've heard the D40 is very good and often overlooked. <snip> Have you used it yet? Nope, was given as a present this morning so will get some use this evening, no doubt. Nice and compact though.
bushmansoton
19-10-2009, 21:59
I have canon 1000D simpliest DSLR here are some pics that I shot with it :) http://www.flickr.com/photos/42460588@N07/ It is cheep and perfect for the beginner
I have canon 1000D simpliest DSLR here are some pics that I shot with it :) http://www.flickr.com/photos/42460588@N07/ It is cheep and perfect for the beginner
Awesome pictures!
All taken with the 1000D??? Shows you don't need the most expensive camera to get nice shots! Expensive lenses maybe? Or a lot of work on the computer afterwards?
I'm also flirting with the idea of buying a good dslr and was leaning towards a Canon 7D or 40D, having big hands and finding the 400D not such a nice fit. But seeing what you get out of these, I'm not sure I could justify the price for essentially a bigger body... (don't really care about most other features)
just to throw a spanner in the works :P i have a Olympus e-420se with twin lens kit and its been amazing took all these pics with it http://bigant84.deviantart.com/gallery/
full kit with tripod memory cards and bag and stuff came in to just under 500 quid cracking cam nice small and lightweight could be worth a look :)
http://fc08.deviantart.com/fs50/i/2009/293/8/2/Other_World__by_Bigant84.jpg is a fave of mine :)
Overlander30
21-10-2009, 21:52
I'm a professional photographer, and my advice is not to get hung up on the camera, just get something from ebay like a D70 or a 300 as teflon suggested.
As for RAW, don't bother. Amateurs are really hung up on raw shooting when they just do not need to be. Modern cameras can print jpegs upto A3 easily, Raw just means more disk space taken up with pixel information you'll rarely ever use.
Yes, if you blow highlights then you can often pull it back with a raw file, but then you shouldnt be blowing highlights in the first place. Ditto loss of shadow detail unless deliberate.
Bear in mind that memory card manufacturers and camera firms work hand in hand. larger images (megabytes wise) means more cards means more sales.
the bottom line for the majority of hobbyists is dont use raw, its a waste of disk space and time, and you just dont need it.