Recommendation for first SLR?

[Knick Pee]

Have no idea what I'm looking for.....only ever used point and shoots but feel it may be time to get a 'proper' camera.

Dont want to spend thousands......

What do you reckon?

ETA: (Digital of course!!)

Edited by Knick Pee on Saturday 3rd November 20:10

[enderbylass]

My first SLR was a Nikon D50.Loved it so much that I have recently bought a D80.

[RobDickinson]

Used 20/30d, 350d, D70s, D80 or D50.
New D40(x), 400d.

IMO ig you can afford it go for a canon 40D , best 'budget' dSLR out especcialy if you want to shoot sports.

Remember though the cost of the camera is probably only about 1/3rd the cost of whats in your bag, lenses eat up a lot of cash, and if your going to buy shite lenses just go buy a bridge prosumer camera instead.

[JD]

RobDickinson said:

Remember though the cost of the camera is probably only about 1/3rd the cost of whats in your bag, lenses eat up a lot of cash, and if your going to buy shite lenses just go buy a bridge prosumer camera instead.

I think this is an important and often overlooked point

I bought my Slr 6 months ago, pretty much the cheapest one you could get at the time, a 350D

A friend of mine spent a large amount on some fancy Nikon one

he has the kit lens and nothing else, which is nothing special

I have the kit lens, a nice and sharp prime, a wideangle and an Image stabilised 300mm zoom

all for a similar total outlay

6 months on, I feel I'm in the better position regards image quality and variety of shots I can take

[agent006]

RobDickinson said:

Remember though the cost of the camera is probably only about 1/3rd the cost of whats in your bag, lenses eat up a lot of cash, and if your going to buy shite lenses just go buy a bridge prosumer camera instead.

I'm consistently amazed by the mumber of people using Canon 20/30/40d with sub £100 lenses on. Like running a porsche on veg oil. The 1/3 ratio is about right i think; 1/2 at a push.

[Ordinary Bloke]

I agree with the others here, Canon or Nikon. Canon lenses are slightly cheaper and their technology seems to be slightly ahead, but low-end Nikon's seem a bit better build quality.

I 'only' have an EOS 300D but very happy with it, I'd recommend the cheapest EOS Digital you can get and the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 as a good starting point. the Canon 50mm f1.8 is fantastic value, a bit plasticky but only paid £55.

Bear in mind that more pixels means less low-light performance, so don't be fooled by the 6-8-10-12Mpix marketing.

If you find a new 350D with warranty, no kit lens, battery grip, and get the Tamron, you'll be taking infinitely better photo's than point-and-shoot.

[tim-b]

Ordinary Bloke said:

Bear in mind that more pixels means less low-light performance, so don't be fooled by the 6-8-10-12Mpix marketing.

really? can anyone confirm this - not saying it isn't true, just never heard of it!

i would have advised to go for at least 10Mp, i've got a 30D (8.2Mp) and sometimes wish for more, especially when cropping. but i guess it depends on what size you need to output the images at.

[Dogsey]

tim-b said:

Ordinary Bloke said:

Bear in mind that more pixels means less low-light performance, so don't be fooled by the 6-8-10-12Mpix marketing.

really? can anyone confirm this - not saying it isn't true, just never heard of it!

i would have advised to go for at least 10Mp, i've got a 30D (8.2Mp) and sometimes wish for more, especially when cropping. but i guess it depends on what size you need to output the images at.

To a certain extent I'd say it's totally true, given that the sensor size remains the same.

[RobDickinson]

tim-b said:

Ordinary Bloke said:

Bear in mind that more pixels means less low-light performance, so don't be fooled by the 6-8-10-12Mpix marketing.

really? can anyone confirm this - not saying it isn't true, just never heard of it!

i would have advised to go for at least 10Mp, i've got a 30D (8.2Mp) and sometimes wish for more, especially when cropping. but i guess it depends on what size you need to output the images at.

Unless the sensor tech improves its true.

If you increase the resolution, the sensor's photosites have to be smaller (sensor stays the same size).

Smaller photosite = less photons hitting it, means you have to turn the gain up, and that makes more noise.

Ofcourse sensors are becoming more sensative so small increases in MP are staying roughly in line for noise as the last gen (see 30d->40d).

Ultimatly it depends on how big your printing or croping and what situations your shooting in.

[Ordinary Bloke]

Using my EOS 300D, 6Mpixel JPEG's with a decent lens can be printed at A3 size with no visible artifacts. How many times do you need larger than A3 (or even, larger than A4)?

[NiceCupOfTea]

Same situation a couple of weeks ago - I went for a Nikon D70s, my brother has a D200 and my dad a D1X so I can borrow lenses

Very impressed with it so far. The kit lens seems pretty good quality, bro has lent me a Nikkor 70-300 which is good for playing around with but not very sharp at extremeties.

I would say think twice about the D40 as it's limited as to what lenses it can use - only AF-S ones, which are expensive. Likewise D40x, same thing with more megapixels - you'd be much better off buying a D80/D70s IMHO...