DSLR first purchase. New starter kit or used mid range?
Discussion
I've decided to join the modern world, sell up all my 35mm gear (a considerable amount of Pentax mainly with a nice Olympus OM thrown in for good measure) and buy a DSLR, a large part of my desire is from the fact my old faithful Olympus compact camera which has taken literally thousands of photos for Ebay and sales not to mention hols and days out, while still working fine must be due to upgrade soon as it's around 5-6 years old (MJU700 I think).
Working on the fact I never really use the 35mm gear I just like having it around, the lenses and a couple of bodies should fetch quite good money (I suspect circa £200 ish maybe a bit more) and I'd spend around £100 on a decent compact this with man maths gives me a budget of circa £300.
I say circa, it's not too firm but it's a base point.
I've been looking at reviews and I think based on what people have said the Pentax K500 is the camera for me, I'd prefer a Canon or Nikon but allegedly at this price point the Pentax is substantially better than the low end Nikon and Canon offerings, no idea if it's true just what I've read, open to advice. But my question is, is a circa £300 new with warranty starter DLSR and 18-55ish lens a better deal than buying a used but better spec camera?
90% of my photographs are for ebay so nothing special, 1% is at race days or other sporting events needing to get closer to the action than an 18-55 lens will allow so I will want to buy a second lens later, 3-4% is days out at museums, nights out, countryside, so something reasonably hardy, size isn't much of an issue to me, the other 5% is taking pics of cars, wanting to play with depth of field, being able to blow the pictures up very large and wanting control over the image both pre taking and afterwards in basic digital darkroom work.
I MUST EMPHASISE I'm under no illusions, I love photography, can take a decent pic, but I'm no pro snapper and do not need a flagship model, I couldn't afford one and to be blunt it wouldn't take substantially better photos than a cheaper camera, I'm the limitation to a degree not the camera.
Working on the fact I never really use the 35mm gear I just like having it around, the lenses and a couple of bodies should fetch quite good money (I suspect circa £200 ish maybe a bit more) and I'd spend around £100 on a decent compact this with man maths gives me a budget of circa £300.
I say circa, it's not too firm but it's a base point.
I've been looking at reviews and I think based on what people have said the Pentax K500 is the camera for me, I'd prefer a Canon or Nikon but allegedly at this price point the Pentax is substantially better than the low end Nikon and Canon offerings, no idea if it's true just what I've read, open to advice. But my question is, is a circa £300 new with warranty starter DLSR and 18-55ish lens a better deal than buying a used but better spec camera?
90% of my photographs are for ebay so nothing special, 1% is at race days or other sporting events needing to get closer to the action than an 18-55 lens will allow so I will want to buy a second lens later, 3-4% is days out at museums, nights out, countryside, so something reasonably hardy, size isn't much of an issue to me, the other 5% is taking pics of cars, wanting to play with depth of field, being able to blow the pictures up very large and wanting control over the image both pre taking and afterwards in basic digital darkroom work.
I MUST EMPHASISE I'm under no illusions, I love photography, can take a decent pic, but I'm no pro snapper and do not need a flagship model, I couldn't afford one and to be blunt it wouldn't take substantially better photos than a cheaper camera, I'm the limitation to a degree not the camera.
If you want Canon / Nikon how about buying used?
Eg...
Canon 600D:
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/us...
Canon 18-55 IS:
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/us...
Total: £368
(MPB have a 6 month warranty on used equipment)
Eg...
Canon 600D:
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/us...
Canon 18-55 IS:
http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/us...
Total: £368
(MPB have a 6 month warranty on used equipment)
I bought a Pentax K30 in July last year and have not regretted it. Really well made and intuitive to use. Definitely the best camera for me in it's price bracket. I think though that most of the advice you will get on this forum will try and encourage you to buy Nikon or Canon. All of the major manufactures make excellent cameras so keep an open mind when you are choosing - there's more to the photography world than Nikon and Canon.
Good luck.
Good luck.
johnymac said:
I bought a Pentax K30 in July last year and have not regretted it. Really well made and intuitive to use. Definitely the best camera for me in it's price bracket. I think though that most of the advice you will get on this forum will try and encourage you to buy Nikon or Canon. All of the major manufactures make excellent cameras so keep an open mind when you are choosing - there's more to the photography world than Nikon and Canon.
Good luck.
If you find a camera that works for you, great Good luck.
You're more likely to take it with you and use it. What's more, if that company has all the lenses and accessories that you need at a price-point that's right for you - brilliant.
In keeping an open mind I'd say that for the 'big 2' you have access to the widest possible range of options moving forward. If you know exactly what you need and the camera performs as required then certainly go for the option that makes most sense for you
As has been said many times - a good photographer is a good photographer. Talented folks get amazing results from any set of tools
http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/new-equipment/reburbi...
http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/new-equipment/reburbi...
http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/new-equipment/reburbi...
D90 is old, but still very well regarded. D3100 would give you enough for a second len
DSLR are big and heavy...and not good for holidays. I was thinking about going the FDSLR route again but instead am looking at something like a Panasonic TZ40 with a massive zoom, video and good picture quality. I have just actually ordered a TZ30 which is very similar from the above for £115
http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/new-equipment/reburbi...
http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/new-equipment/reburbi...
D90 is old, but still very well regarded. D3100 would give you enough for a second len
DSLR are big and heavy...and not good for holidays. I was thinking about going the FDSLR route again but instead am looking at something like a Panasonic TZ40 with a massive zoom, video and good picture quality. I have just actually ordered a TZ30 which is very similar from the above for £115
flat-planedCrank said:
As has been said many times - a good photographer is a good photographer. Talented folks get amazing results from any set of tools
/\ This.The other day I went to the 'Landscape Photographer of the year 2013' exhibition at The National Theatre.
Much information accompanied each exhibition size print.
Many of the excellent photographs were shot using inexpensive'old school' DSLRs (D40x for example), kit zoom lenses and even a couple of compacts.
Thankyou for the advice.
I've got to be honest it hasn't really answered my initial question but I think it's probably my fault for not asking it right.
Back when we used film to capture an image the body was little more than a light tight box with the ability to hold a roll of film and attach a lens and other accessories, the quality of image was down to the film and lens quality and the guy taking the picture.
Now of course the lens is still important but the film has gone to be replaced by a memory card, electronics and a CCD sensor, I gather there are different sized CCDs and that this has more relevance to the quality of image than another megapixel or 2 which is generally marketing bumph over a certain level, again bear in mind that I'm going from what I've read not experienced, so is there a camera you would recommend with a larger sensor that's going to give me a much better base to start with? As it is to be honest I'm thinking the K500 is the camera for me unless a smaller sensor is a bad idea, I suspect the answer will be it's a perfectly capable camera though.
I've got to be honest it hasn't really answered my initial question but I think it's probably my fault for not asking it right.
Back when we used film to capture an image the body was little more than a light tight box with the ability to hold a roll of film and attach a lens and other accessories, the quality of image was down to the film and lens quality and the guy taking the picture.
Now of course the lens is still important but the film has gone to be replaced by a memory card, electronics and a CCD sensor, I gather there are different sized CCDs and that this has more relevance to the quality of image than another megapixel or 2 which is generally marketing bumph over a certain level, again bear in mind that I'm going from what I've read not experienced, so is there a camera you would recommend with a larger sensor that's going to give me a much better base to start with? As it is to be honest I'm thinking the K500 is the camera for me unless a smaller sensor is a bad idea, I suspect the answer will be it's a perfectly capable camera though.
Ok I've done a bit more research, a bit of looking and a few decisions.
I'd like to buy new, it's going to be a starter type camera with a basic kit lens.
The Pentax is really tempting, not least I can reuse some of my old K fit lenses, but this isn't a deal breaker, it does get great reviews though, infact I'm yet to read a bad one.
I like Nikons, also like Canons.
So my choices are:
Canon 650d or Canon 100d.
Nikon D3200 or Nikon D3100.
Pentax K500.
Prices range from a frankly ridiculous £259 for the D3100 (and not much more for the D3200) through around £350 for the Pentax and Canon 100d up to £369 for the 650d.
Price isn't a consideration, there may be £100 between the cheapest and most expensive but I was planning to spend around £300-350 so the jump to most expensive is fine, most are bang in the sweetspot and if the cheapest were great then fantastic I've got some money for accessories.
Key features I want:
Decent battery life from a dedicated battery pack.
Decent FPS, ideally around 4 upwards. I don't do much action photography but I'd like to be able to catch fast moving objects occasionally.
I think the term is noise free CCD with the ability to go to a high iso for low light shooting, I know noise increases the higher you go, but poor light conditions are likely to be fairly common in my photography.
Decent sharp kit lens and decent quality body, I expect the kit lens to be cheap and nasty, but want half decent glass in it, the Pentax does well here, I don't want cheapness to pass through to the camera body though.
Thoughts?
I'd like to buy new, it's going to be a starter type camera with a basic kit lens.
The Pentax is really tempting, not least I can reuse some of my old K fit lenses, but this isn't a deal breaker, it does get great reviews though, infact I'm yet to read a bad one.
I like Nikons, also like Canons.
So my choices are:
Canon 650d or Canon 100d.
Nikon D3200 or Nikon D3100.
Pentax K500.
Prices range from a frankly ridiculous £259 for the D3100 (and not much more for the D3200) through around £350 for the Pentax and Canon 100d up to £369 for the 650d.
Price isn't a consideration, there may be £100 between the cheapest and most expensive but I was planning to spend around £300-350 so the jump to most expensive is fine, most are bang in the sweetspot and if the cheapest were great then fantastic I've got some money for accessories.
Key features I want:
Decent battery life from a dedicated battery pack.
Decent FPS, ideally around 4 upwards. I don't do much action photography but I'd like to be able to catch fast moving objects occasionally.
I think the term is noise free CCD with the ability to go to a high iso for low light shooting, I know noise increases the higher you go, but poor light conditions are likely to be fairly common in my photography.
Decent sharp kit lens and decent quality body, I expect the kit lens to be cheap and nasty, but want half decent glass in it, the Pentax does well here, I don't want cheapness to pass through to the camera body though.
Thoughts?
wildoliver said:
Ok I've done a bit more research, a bit of looking and a few decisions.
I'd like to buy new, it's going to be a starter type camera with a basic kit lens.
The Pentax is really tempting, not least I can reuse some of my old K fit lenses, but this isn't a deal breaker, it does get great reviews though, infact I'm yet to read a bad one.
I like Nikons, also like Canons.
So my choices are:
Canon 650d or Canon 100d.
Nikon D3200 or Nikon D3100.
Pentax K500.
Prices range from a frankly ridiculous £259 for the D3100 (and not much more for the D3200) through around £350 for the Pentax and Canon 100d up to £369 for the 650d.
Price isn't a consideration, there may be £100 between the cheapest and most expensive but I was planning to spend around £300-350 so the jump to most expensive is fine, most are bang in the sweetspot and if the cheapest were great then fantastic I've got some money for accessories.
Key features I want:
Decent battery life from a dedicated battery pack.
Decent FPS, ideally around 4 upwards. I don't do much action photography but I'd like to be able to catch fast moving objects occasionally.
I think the term is noise free CCD with the ability to go to a high iso for low light shooting, I know noise increases the higher you go, but poor light conditions are likely to be fairly common in my photography.
Decent sharp kit lens and decent quality body, I expect the kit lens to be cheap and nasty, but want half decent glass in it, the Pentax does well here, I don't want cheapness to pass through to the camera body though.
Thoughts?
Secondhand Nikon D7000 - based on your requirement for decent low light performance.I'd like to buy new, it's going to be a starter type camera with a basic kit lens.
The Pentax is really tempting, not least I can reuse some of my old K fit lenses, but this isn't a deal breaker, it does get great reviews though, infact I'm yet to read a bad one.
I like Nikons, also like Canons.
So my choices are:
Canon 650d or Canon 100d.
Nikon D3200 or Nikon D3100.
Pentax K500.
Prices range from a frankly ridiculous £259 for the D3100 (and not much more for the D3200) through around £350 for the Pentax and Canon 100d up to £369 for the 650d.
Price isn't a consideration, there may be £100 between the cheapest and most expensive but I was planning to spend around £300-350 so the jump to most expensive is fine, most are bang in the sweetspot and if the cheapest were great then fantastic I've got some money for accessories.
Key features I want:
Decent battery life from a dedicated battery pack.
Decent FPS, ideally around 4 upwards. I don't do much action photography but I'd like to be able to catch fast moving objects occasionally.
I think the term is noise free CCD with the ability to go to a high iso for low light shooting, I know noise increases the higher you go, but poor light conditions are likely to be fairly common in my photography.
Decent sharp kit lens and decent quality body, I expect the kit lens to be cheap and nasty, but want half decent glass in it, the Pentax does well here, I don't want cheapness to pass through to the camera body though.
Thoughts?
And it's relatively light -
Kit lens can be very good - Nikon's old'ish 18-70mm is very good - as is the newer (but overpriced) 16-85mm.
wildoliver said:
I think the term is noise free CCD with the ability to go to a high iso for low light shooting, I know noise increases the higher you go, but poor light conditions are likely to be fairly common in my photography.
The best way to deal with low light is a fast lens (ie big aperture). This is usually expensive but consider putting a 50mm f1.8 in the toybox; if you can live with the angle of view they are affordable and good quality. There will be thousands of K-mount lenses second hand too (though check electrical connections if you want metering and AF).Simpo Two said:
wildoliver said:
I think the term is noise free CCD with the ability to go to a high iso for low light shooting, I know noise increases the higher you go, but poor light conditions are likely to be fairly common in my photography.
The best way to deal with low light is a fast lens (ie big aperture). This is usually expensive but consider putting a 50mm f1.8 in the toybox; if you can live with the angle of view they are affordable and good quality. There will be thousands of K-mount lenses second hand too (though check electrical connections if you want metering and AF).Edited by flat-planedCrank on Tuesday 14th January 23:10
OP, have you physically held all of the bodies you are considering?
I had a budget in mind when I got my first SLR in 2010, narrowed it down to 1 body + kit lens offering from both Canon or Nikon based on that then went and held them.
That led to me buying a D90 which is still use (sporadically) now, just fit my hand better.
Erogonics are not to be underestimated, none of your choices are 'bad' on paper.
I had a budget in mind when I got my first SLR in 2010, narrowed it down to 1 body + kit lens offering from both Canon or Nikon based on that then went and held them.
That led to me buying a D90 which is still use (sporadically) now, just fit my hand better.
Erogonics are not to be underestimated, none of your choices are 'bad' on paper.
K12beano said:
dxbtiger said:
Simpo Two said:
dxbtiger said:
Erogonics
This new science is intriguing!
OP, as said above, go to a shop and spend time holding, playing with the features, even changing lenses. They all go towards the feel of a camera. If it doesn't feel right in your hands, it could become an expensive dust gatherer.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff