Yet another 'which DSLR' question

[coffeejo]

I see that @Spinney has got a similar thread over on the photography forum but I thought I'd ask here to get some different perspectives. (Sorry @Shaun )

I've been umming and arring over taking the next step up into the world of DSLRs since last summer and would probably still be dithering by next summer if my beloved canon powershot wasn't in the process of giving up the ghost. Still, at least the extended foot-shuffling has meant my savings and therefore the budget have increased.

I'll hold my hands up and say I'm very much a child of the digital generation. Point and shoot is all I know and my attempts to learn more about the technical side of things haven't come too much. I'm not very good with numbers and it seems (to my bewildered brain anyway) that the mechanics, language and indeed the very culture of photography is built on the wretched things.

However, thanks to the contributions and comments on here, I have taken a serious interest in the process and I have (I think) developed (boom boom) my skills - I'm certainly a lot happier with the end result of my photos these days.

Enough waffle!

What I know:

• Budget of £600-£900 but able to stretch if it's worth it
• Mainly interested in landscapes (inc sunsets/sunrises), old buildings, pets/animals, natural world
• Want to get a macro lens and learn about that area
• Cameras that have caught my eye inc Canon EOS 100D & 700D, and Nikon D3200 & D5200

What I don't know:

• Lots!
• Do I go for a high-end camera to last and get the lenses as and when, or do I go for a lower-end/older camera but invest in the lenses and upgrade the camera body when I'm ready to take the next step?

Any thoughts (in plain English!) gratefully received.

 

[Spinney]

I settled on a Canon EOS 600D in the end, and am very pleased with it so far. Have mainly played with close-ups of plants so far (best ones here, if you are interested).

I like the flip out screen, and the controllability (after my point and shoot - although the latter will still be the one to use on bike rides!). It was much lighter than I was expecting, my last SLR having been a 1980s model! Got it from John Lewis (they have a 2 year guarantee as standard). Once I'd also bought memory cards, tripod and case*, the overall total was just over £500 (so within your budget) - that included the lens. If you've got more than this to spend you might consider buying the body only and a better lens (I think they don't include the top quality lenses when you buy the 'kit' of body+lens). I think the 600D counts as top of the range of 'beginners' DLSRs.

I've discovered that macro lenses are mega expensive, but you can get extension tubes, and even things to mount a lens backwards, for much, much less money (no idea why reversing a lens works, but it appears that it does!). Then I'll need a flash, remote shutter release, etc.

If you thought cycling was a money pit....

And I'm prepared to bet lots of money that N+1 applies to lenses and other camera kit as well!

EDIT: * and get a skylight/neutral filter to protect the front of the lens.

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

My last SLR was a late 70's one. Olympus. Don't recall the model. My point and shoot digital is amazing in many ways by comparison except I can never "frame my shot" for landscapes and the like due to the screen being washed out by ambient light. So many wonky horizons it makes my blood boil. So a DSLR could be my N+1. Things must have moved on a whole bunch with lens design since the late 70's early 80's. A Zoom lens was very useful then - I'm sure they are still and probably a lot better too. Get a Zoom

 

[Archeress]

Hi Coffeejo

I have been using a DSLR for a couple of years now, but I don't consider myself to be an expert, but here are a few of my thoughts. Firstly be aware that Nikon and Canon are not interchangeable, you have to go with one or the other, although 3rd party companies like Sigma and Tamron do make lenses that will fit Nikon and Canon (but are also Nikon / Canon specific)

My experience is with Nikon camera's and I feel I am unqualified to talk about Canon. I did not want to do video with my camera and was on a tight budget, and at that time they were still selling the Nikon D3000 which does not have video facilities. I recently looked at a D5200 as a possible upgrade but decided that the cost did not justify the few extra's I would gain, for me the next body would be the D7000, so my advice is look carefully at the bodies and decide which is going to suit you better. There may not be a significant advantage to owning the D5200 over the D3200.

One word about pixels... Unless you're planning to blow a picture up to the size of a house, you should not be concerned about pixels. To print a reasonable image with good clarity, you only need to print the image at 300 dots per inch. With my 10 mega pixel DSLR this means I can print an unadulterated image at the size of 10 x 8 inches.

Lenses wise, the kit 18-55mm lens that the camera comes with is quite good, but the front element rotates when the lens focuses. If you are serious about landscape photography you will eventually want to use filters, and some filters such as graduated filters and polarising filters require careful adjustment to ensure a vertical / horizontal alignment, so a lens that rotates the front element requires a quick focus then readjustment of your filter.

My second lens with the camera was the 55-200mm lens, the front element on this lens does not rotate, so it makes filter use easier. This lens came into its own when visiting the Durrell Wildlife Park on Jersey. At the gorilla pen during feeding I was able to get some very impressive photos, but pitied the guy with the same camera but using the 18-55mm lens as he wouldn't be able to get a close shot of the impressive animals.

My next lens will probably be a 50mm f1.8, which is good for portraits with it's ability to blur backgrounds, and this brings me on neatly to f numbers. You will see these quoted with all lenses. The lower the f number the "faster" the lens (and also the more expensive the lens) the f number relates to the size of the largest aperature on the lens (aperature is adjustable on the lens to vary the amount of light reaching the sensor). There are a couple of advantages to having a low f number or fast lens. The first is that in low light conditions the aperaure lets in more light and so you can use shorter shutter times. This will mean that you will get less camera shake, and it will also mean that you can use a lower ISO (sensor sensitivity). At higher ISO more sensor noise is intoduced (also known from film times as grain) and for landscape you want a perfecly clear image. The other advantage of large aperatures (low f number) is creativity, it enables you to use a shallow depth of focus. This means that the background is nicely blurred drawing your atttention to the subject, this is exactly what you want in a portrait, and animal photography is just portrature with an often uncooperative subject and to get the best animal photo's you will want to isolate the animal from the background. Smaller aperatures give you deeper depth of focus which is what you want in a landscape as you want the foreground and background in focus, for landscape you will want to use f11 - f16, but the leses can go to f22 or even f36.

I have no experience with macro lenses, but they are very expensive. You can experiment with macro using macro filters that attach to an ordinary lens. The quality isn't as good, but gives you the opportunity to discover whether you want to run to the expense of a macro lens. Also another alternative to a macro lens is an extender tube, but it is worth getting one with the contact points for your lenses so that everything electronic on your lens still functions othersise you will be operating it manually.

Other things you might want to look at is a flash gun, tripod and remote for the camera. With landscape photography you want the image to be pinpoint clear, so putting the camera on a tripod and using a remote to trigger the shutter will mean a crisp image. I may add more thoughts later, but I hope this all makes sense.

Hugs
Archeress x

 

[PocketFrog]

I would recommend a slightly different tack than the models you are looking at. I would suggest going for something like the Canon 1100D or Nikon D5100 and spending the rest of your budget on lenses. Both bodies aren't feature rich but that is a blessing in disguise when finding your way around your first DSLR.

Then, of course, as you become more confident you can upgrade the body and still use your already great glass.

All my shots are with my Canon 1100D with either my 50mm f/1.8, 18-55mm or 75-300mm zoom

 

[jamin100]

I would suggest something completly different.

Take a look at the Nikon 1 system.
Its a CSC camera so not as big as a DSLR but still a very capable camera.
Its got some decent lenses in the line up and 2nd had the Nikon V1 with 10-30mm lens can be brought for around £150-£200.
There is then a 6.7mm - 13mm lens which is ideal for landscapes and it has a hybrid autofocus which is as quick if not quicker than some of the lower end DSLR's you mentioned.

I used to have a Nikon D90 and 50mm f1.8, 35mm f1.8, 24-70 f2.8 & 70-200mm f2.8 glass all very nice and good glass but I found that after a while i just didnt want to huff it around everywhere. I was never printing any bigger than A3 and I origionally brought the V1 as a toy camera but have since found that the V1 and 18.5mm f1.8, 30-110mm lenses were all I really needed. I don't do landscapes like you, i mainly take photos of my very fast moving children and this little camera goes everywhere.....

Just a thought so have a look online.


If however you are settled on a DSLR then I'd recommend getting decent glass and possibly a lower end body and upgrade the body when you have the funds to do so.

 

[coffeejo]

[QUOTE 2480728, member: 9609"]What 'power shot' do you have ? - they seem to vary from a compact to a bridge.

I moved up from a compact (ixus) to a powershot HS40 last year and it seems to do everything that I want, including a big 36x (optical) zoom, so great for birds and wildlife.

I did consider a DSLR, but as I am incapable of looking after anything (every thing I own seems to be bashed, ripped or dinted), I didn't want the responsibility of a £1000+ camera. So the HS40 at less than £300 fitted my lifestyle best as it wont be the end of the world when I break it, and as such I just take it everywhere with me, something I probably wouldn't do with an expensive camera[/quote]
It's the SX210 IS. I've had some great fun with it and received some very nice compliments on the photos and will continue to take it with me on the bike until it dies completely and then have a ponder about another "portable" camera for cycling. However, I also do a lot of walking and that's when I want the camera to have the capability to do more, IYSWIM.

@Archeress - thanks! Lots to consider, and some new information for the grey matter to process.

@PocketFrog - interesting point and something I was pondering. Hmmm....

edit: more brain-stretching from @jamin100!

 

[Cyclist33]

I see that @Spinney has got a similar thread over on the photography forum but I thought I'd ask here to get some different perspectives. (Sorry @Shaun )

I've been umming and arring over taking the next step up into the world of DSLRs since last summer and would probably still be dithering by next summer if my beloved canon powershot wasn't in the process of giving up the ghost. Still, at least the extended foot-shuffling has meant my savings and therefore the budget have increased.

I'll hold my hands up and say I'm very much a child of the digital generation. Point and shoot is all I know and my attempts to learn more about the technical side of things haven't come too much. I'm not very good with numbers and it seems (to my bewildered brain anyway) that the mechanics, language and indeed the very culture of photography is built on the wretched things.

However, thanks to the contributions and comments on here, I have taken a serious interest in the process and I have (I think) developed (boom boom) my skills - I'm certainly a lot happier with the end result of my photos these days.

Enough waffle!

What I know:

• Budget of £600-£900 but able to stretch if it's worth it
• Mainly interested in landscapes (inc sunsets/sunrises), old buildings, pets/animals, natural world
• Want to get a macro lens and learn about that area
• Cameras that have caught my eye inc Canon EOS 100D & 700D, and Nikon D3200 & D5200

What I don't know:

• Lots!
• Do I go for a high-end camera to last and get the lenses as and when, or do I go for a lower-end/older camera but invest in the lenses and upgrade the camera body when I'm ready to take the next step?

Any thoughts (in plain English!) gratefully received.

Get a mirrorless ILC (interchangeable lens camera) instead. AKA compact system camera. The G and GX rage by Panasonic are by all accounts, great. The Olympus PEN is good too. The Nikon J range is tiny and very good quality.

They're a LOT smaller and lighter to carry than an SLR, which is really noticeable when cycling. Some of them come with a bundle with either a telephoto or pancake lens in addition to the stock lens. My Sony NEX is about the same size as a compact point n shoot with the pancake lens on, so it goes in my back jacket pocket. SLR-sized sensor.

The GX1 for example is about £300 which leaves you lots of dosh for extra lenses.

 

[Doseone]

A slightly different perspective here

A few years back I went through a similar process to the one you are going through now. I went for Sony Alpha kit - played with Canon and Nikon, but the Sony just felt better to me when I held it. Got some lenses, flash gun etc and a few bits and bobs plus a nice Lowepro sling pack to carry it all in. Really pleased with it, lovely camera. Fast forward about 4 or 5 years to now and I find that I really just can't be ar$ed carrying it all around, changing lenses, dust spots etc. Last year I bought myself a Fuji X10 - much smaller and lighter to carry around, but still a "proper" camera. I've got almost as much control as I have on my DSLR, but in fact the lens is better on the Fuji (faster = better in low light) than on my DSLR and it has better burst rates. Both cameras are in their respective bags/ cases on the same shelf at home and I can't remember the last time I grabbed for the Sony. Most importantly there is also no discernable difference in the quality of the pictures.

Buying a camera is almost as much fun as buying a bike, so have fun choosing and happy shopping

 

[byegad]

Does it have to be a DSLR? I have two micro Four Thirds CSC cameras, an Olympus EPM1 and Olympus EPL5, the latter cost me about £550 with a 14-42 lens (With the crop factor that's equivalent to a 28-84 on a DSLR.). I also have a 70-300 Four Thirds lens which, with an adapter to mFT cost me less than £350. This enables me to take photos like this.

at a range of about 250m on a dark day.

I picked up a second hand Macro Four Thirds lens for under £100 with a 1:1 imaging ability that works well too.

I'm very much a learner and my photos improve almost every time I go out. So a 'good photographer' will get better pictures than me.

 

[SatNavSaysStraightOn]

Firstly, work out if you are happier with the feel of Nikon camera bodies in your hands or Canon (or any other make). If the body does not fit your hands and feel comfortable, you are not going to be happy using it. You need to feel that the dials are there at your figure tips and easy to use and because everyone's hands are different, what is comfortable for you is not what is comfortable for me, or anyone else here. The same applies to the easy of removing lenses/filters/batteries/cards etc.

Once you have made that decision consider it long and hard. It is very exceptionally expensive to switch brands. (I currently insure around £10,000 of camera equipement and know I will always stick with what Canon offer because of this financial outlay. Thankfully I am completely happy with my equipment).

I started out with the Canon EOS 300D and 2 stock lenses. They did me fine for many years whilst my photography (exactly the same interests as yourself) improved no end. When the camera stopped challenging me & meeting my needs I purchased a Canon EOS 40D keeping 1 of the lenses and buying an L series lens within a year. The L series lens was a revelation - more than your entire budget but it quickly made me realise that whilst the stock lenses and a couple of others I had purchased had done what I needed at the beginning, they no longer met what I wanted anymore. I soon sold all of my stock lenses and purchased only L series lenses (Canon L series lenses are the professional lenses). Since then I have sold my Canon EOS 40D and moved over to a Canon EOS 5D mk ii.

The advice above about descent lenses & a cheaper body is spot on (@jamin100), but remember once you have picked your brand, you will find it exceptionally expensive to change brands, so do the research and choose what feels best to you and not what everone else says you should have just because it is the latest offering/best deal or what they happen to have.

 

[pplpilot]

hmmm its always a toughie this there are so many things to consider. I'm a long term user of SLR and I have a huge collection of stuff but since I got fed up of lugging a big camera and heavy lenses I took a plunge into 4/3rds to give it a try and I don't think I've picked up my slr this year, since getting the 4/3rds it really has rekindled my love of photography as I am now more likely to pick it up as I walk out the door.

I absolutely love the fact the 4/3rds system is so small and light and delivers astounding results and you can get some pretty exotic glass for a lot less than the equivalent DX/FX . I'm this > < close to getting shut of all my full frame slr stuff and going wholly 4/3rds and putting a considerable amount of cash back in the bank....

Don't go the SLR route because you think this is the ultimate in cameras, it is if you have the £'s to feed it but at your budget I feel you could do as well if not better with a 4/3 outfit.

I pretty sure i would not have these Photographs had it not been for a smaller kit... like I say I'm more inclined to carry it always now...

Both Olympus pen-ep3 45/1.8 -

 

[Crackle]

It's easy to make your choice on the spec but if at all possible, handle them, shoot a few frames and play with the controls. How a camera handles will often decide it for you if you're making a choice. I have never liked how Canons handle, for instance and have always had Olympus or Pentax cameras.

Next, lenses, as already said and it's difficult to emphasise just how important they are. A good supply of second hand lenses on ebay (few of us can afford good new ones) will improve your picture quality in spades.

 

[P.H]

The GX1 for example is about £300 which leaves you lots of dosh for extra lenses.

That is an absolute bargain, I paid over £500 for mine 14 months ago and consider it to have been worth it. With the 14mm pancake lens it's small and light enough to carry all the time, add a viewfinder and a couple of other lenses and it's all the camera I'm ever likely to need.
I have had DSLRs and quality compacts in the past, I found the bigger camera wasn't getting taken everywhere and although the compact was good (LX5) it also had too many limitations. The M4/3 system is for me the happy compromise. It's also the most mature of the ILC systems, both Panasonic and Olympus use it and their lenses are interchangable, so hopefully the system will be around for a good time to come.
Whatever you go for, I consider the body to be a piece of electronis equipment and the lenses to be photograghic, I'd buy with the expectation that a good lens will outlive several bodies, so that's where my money would go.
The GX1 with a kit lens really is a bargain!

 

[coffeejo]

When my brain explodes, I'm blaming the lot of you.

Questions re: compact camera systems (because you (plural) may indeed be talking a great deal of sense now that I've time to ponder the matter)

1) Are the lenses different to the ones for the full on DSLRs?
2) If so, is this a limitation?
3) Or can you get adaptors to make full use of the best of all worlds?

Oh, and on the subject of CRCs (and simply because the Nikon website is the only one I've looked at thus far), can someone please explain to me the difference between the Nikon 1 V2 and the Nikon 1 J3

re: Four Thirds ... erm, you've lost me. I did say I knew nothing . Help?!