DSLR for a first timer? Canon EOS 1000D?
Discussion
Guys,
I'm looking at purchasing a DSLR to complement by aging Pentax Point and shoot (this will still be used for nights out etc).
I have been looking at the Canon EOS 1000D which at £499 seems good value with a couple of lenses.
We have six month old boy at home so we take lots of images of him. We also have three weddings to attend this year (including my brother's beach wedding) and my Pentax really struggles in low light, distance shots (eg sitting at the back of the church) and I really want to get a good record of each day.
I've used a Canon (300 or 350d) in the past which I got good results from and a friend has a Nikon (D40 I think) which again I've taken a few shots with.
Is it a case of trying a few out and see what I get on with? Ideally to start with I'd like a camera where the settings are fairly automatic. As I progress I could then play about with the settings and features more.
Or would I better getting one of the hybrid point and shoot cameras that have similar bodies to the SLRs but without the ability to change lenses?
Cheers,
Phill
I'm looking at purchasing a DSLR to complement by aging Pentax Point and shoot (this will still be used for nights out etc).
I have been looking at the Canon EOS 1000D which at £499 seems good value with a couple of lenses.
We have six month old boy at home so we take lots of images of him. We also have three weddings to attend this year (including my brother's beach wedding) and my Pentax really struggles in low light, distance shots (eg sitting at the back of the church) and I really want to get a good record of each day.
I've used a Canon (300 or 350d) in the past which I got good results from and a friend has a Nikon (D40 I think) which again I've taken a few shots with.
Is it a case of trying a few out and see what I get on with? Ideally to start with I'd like a camera where the settings are fairly automatic. As I progress I could then play about with the settings and features more.
Or would I better getting one of the hybrid point and shoot cameras that have similar bodies to the SLRs but without the ability to change lenses?
Cheers,
Phill
pmanson said:
Is it a case of trying a few out and see what I get on with? Ideally to start with I'd like a camera where the settings are fairly automatic. As I progress I could then play about with the settings and features more.
Yep. All DSLRs have automatic options you can engage or disengage as you wish. But there's more to it than a big list of buttons - they need to be in the right place for you and control the functions you want.pmanson said:
Or would I better getting one of the hybrid point and shoot cameras that have similar bodies to the SLRs but without the ability to change lenses?
Worst of both worlds IMHO.Simpo Two said:
pmanson said:
Is it a case of trying a few out and see what I get on with? Ideally to start with I'd like a camera where the settings are fairly automatic. As I progress I could then play about with the settings and features more.
Yep. All DSLRs have automatic options you can engage or disengage as you wish. But there's more to it than a big list of buttons - they need to be in the right place for you and control the functions you want.Simpo Two said:
pmanson said:
Or would I better getting one of the hybrid point and shoot cameras that have similar bodies to the SLRs but without the ability to change lenses?
Worst of both worlds IMHO.Ok, assuming I was only looking at Canon, am I better off getting the lower spec body (1000D) with the additional lense(s) which give me greater flexibility or getting a better body (400/450D) with just the single lense?
GetCarter said:
Someone round here should REALLY put a sticky up with advice for DSLR first timers. At the moment we seem to be getting one a day with virtually the same question (3 of the top 9 threads as I type).
I reckon it should be you Simpo. You know what you're talking about and can spell.
My apologises! Did have a quick look but the budgets seemed much higher than mine! I reckon it should be you Simpo. You know what you're talking about and can spell.
O/T Hope all is well... House all finished now?
Surely 2nd hand with a lens or 2 would be good.
Doesn't the 1000d only have 3 af points?
Canon seems to have moved to sd cards on its base models, possibly to try and encourage people from mobiles and cheap point and shoots without needing to upgrade memory cards.
The older models and the high spec models all use Compact Flash cards. So consider what you want to use before you buy.
There are also alot of buttons on the right side of the camera with the lcd taking up most of the left. Make sure you don't accidently knock the delete button on it etc.
Doesn't the 1000d only have 3 af points?
Canon seems to have moved to sd cards on its base models, possibly to try and encourage people from mobiles and cheap point and shoots without needing to upgrade memory cards.
The older models and the high spec models all use Compact Flash cards. So consider what you want to use before you buy.
There are also alot of buttons on the right side of the camera with the lcd taking up most of the left. Make sure you don't accidently knock the delete button on it etc.
Edited by BlueMR2 on Wednesday 24th March 14:16
GetCarter said:
I reckon it should be you Simpo. You know what you're talking about and can spell.
Damn, there goes my plane. Thanks for the vote Steve but all such 'advice' quickly hits the buffers. They ask 'What do I need?' and after a very short while we can only reply 'What do you want?' and they of course don't know, and there's no 'right' answer anyway, and it's pointless getting involved in brand battles even though we may have personal opinions.A camera isn't like a TV or a fridge where you buy the one with the most bullet-points on the POS, it's a tool you have to use and a personal choice. Newbies can only make an educated guess and then jump in - not helped by the fact that many bullet-points are written to make a big list of bullet points and have little or nothing to do with the real-life operation of the camera!
Read the manual. But whilst it will tell you what the buttons do, it will not tell you when to use them or why. That's the kit dealt with. Then you have to experiment, practice, learn, understand - and keep repeating. After a while instead of getting more complicated it starts becoming more simple
BlueMR2 said:
Surely 2nd hand with a lens or 2 would be good.
Doesn't the 1000d only have 3 af points?
Canon seems to have moved to sd cards on its base models, possibly to try and encourage people from mobiles and cheap point and shoots without needing to upgrade memory cards.
The older models and the high spec models all use Compact Flash cards. So consider what you want to use before you buy.
There are also alot of buttons on the right side of the camera with the lcd taking up most of the left. Make sure you don't accidently knock the delete button on it etc.
Happy to consider 2nd hand as you tend to get more bang for your buckDoesn't the 1000d only have 3 af points?
Canon seems to have moved to sd cards on its base models, possibly to try and encourage people from mobiles and cheap point and shoots without needing to upgrade memory cards.
The older models and the high spec models all use Compact Flash cards. So consider what you want to use before you buy.
There are also alot of buttons on the right side of the camera with the lcd taking up most of the left. Make sure you don't accidently knock the delete button on it etc.
Edited by BlueMR2 on Wednesday 24th March 14:16
SD cards would be useful as my laptop has an inbuild reader but it wouldn't be a deal breaker.
Second hand is the way to go IME.
As a DSLR newbie, I bought a friend's D70, plus a couple of lenses (Sigma 18-50 - hilarious, Nikon 70-300 - pretty good), a bag, some filters and various other odds and sods, for £275. I've added a 50mm f/1.8 prime to that, and that's all I've needed for the past couple of years. I find it a very versatile set of kit, and it cost me way less than an entry-level body-plus-kit-lens would have. Eventually I might buy a new body, but I genuinely feel that this one does everything I need it to right now. I'd rather invest in some better glass. Generally, I feel this camera has done me OK so far: http://www.flickr.com/photos/RobK76/.
OK, so the D70 is 5 or 6 years old now, and it hasn't got the latest, greatest processing engine, or the highest-resolution sensor. It doesn't do video or live view at all. However, I haven't missed these features and I doubt any novice would. The quality of pictures depends FAR more on the ability and vision of the person taking the pictures than on the shininess of the kit they use: someone on here has a rather wonderful graph showing the interaction of ability, photo quality and perception of one's ability. It contains the excellent word "gearfaggotry", and I submit that this is the single biggest threat to anyone starting out in the SLR world... A really good photographer will get better results from a £70 point-and-shoot than one with all the gear and no idea.
Put it another way: I've recently been noodling around with my Grandfather's old film SLR, which is completely manual and only has a VERY primitive light meter. It forces you to be very careful about considering exposure and composition - and I'm interested (and a bit ashamed) that I've gone through 2 rolls of film so far without a single image that really strikes me as "good". There is a huge amount to learn, and kit is really just a distraction until you know what you're doing.
Ultimately I think it's pointless to throw hundreds of pounds at features which are either meaningless (have you ever considered the ergonomics of shooting withan SLR using the screen for composition? Bonkers!) or such incremental improvements on what was there before that the difference is invisible to normal humans. Just my opinion, of course!
As a DSLR newbie, I bought a friend's D70, plus a couple of lenses (Sigma 18-50 - hilarious, Nikon 70-300 - pretty good), a bag, some filters and various other odds and sods, for £275. I've added a 50mm f/1.8 prime to that, and that's all I've needed for the past couple of years. I find it a very versatile set of kit, and it cost me way less than an entry-level body-plus-kit-lens would have. Eventually I might buy a new body, but I genuinely feel that this one does everything I need it to right now. I'd rather invest in some better glass. Generally, I feel this camera has done me OK so far: http://www.flickr.com/photos/RobK76/.
OK, so the D70 is 5 or 6 years old now, and it hasn't got the latest, greatest processing engine, or the highest-resolution sensor. It doesn't do video or live view at all. However, I haven't missed these features and I doubt any novice would. The quality of pictures depends FAR more on the ability and vision of the person taking the pictures than on the shininess of the kit they use: someone on here has a rather wonderful graph showing the interaction of ability, photo quality and perception of one's ability. It contains the excellent word "gearfaggotry", and I submit that this is the single biggest threat to anyone starting out in the SLR world... A really good photographer will get better results from a £70 point-and-shoot than one with all the gear and no idea.
Put it another way: I've recently been noodling around with my Grandfather's old film SLR, which is completely manual and only has a VERY primitive light meter. It forces you to be very careful about considering exposure and composition - and I'm interested (and a bit ashamed) that I've gone through 2 rolls of film so far without a single image that really strikes me as "good". There is a huge amount to learn, and kit is really just a distraction until you know what you're doing.
Ultimately I think it's pointless to throw hundreds of pounds at features which are either meaningless (have you ever considered the ergonomics of shooting withan SLR using the screen for composition? Bonkers!) or such incremental improvements on what was there before that the difference is invisible to normal humans. Just my opinion, of course!
pmanson said:
SD cards would be useful as my laptop has an inbuild reader but it wouldn't be a deal breaker.
You can certainly get a CF reader that fits a PCMCIA slot (I have a Lexar 64-bit one and the card sits flush), and probably PC Express* as well. I wouldn't let the type of memory influence your camera.pmanson said:
Some very good points there Quaint.
The ability to shoot video although not essential would be a nice to have for the odd occasion that it would be used.
The ability to shoot video although not essential would be a nice to have for the odd occasion that it would be used.
Have a search around on here - I'm far from being an expert (or even on nodding terms with the video market, tbh) but the impression I get is that DSLRs with built-in video tend not to be very good at the video stuff. Certainly the friend who sold me the D70 finds the alleged "HD" video capability on his new D90 very nearly useless. As with all things, your mileage may vary.
pmanson said:
Ok, assuming I was only looking at Canon, am I better off getting the lower spec body (1000D) with the additional lense(s) which give me greater flexibility or getting a better body (400/450D) with just the single lense?
I actually did this comparison a few months ago. First of all, the differences between the 400D and 1000D are negligible. Digic II vs Digic III (respectively), and number of RAW shot buffer as well (400D is better). That's about it. Other than that they are pretty much the same.If I were buying a new body, then I'd go 1000D as the newer Digic processor will be better at noise at higher ISO. Plus Digic III is compatible with the Canon SDK blah blah shoot the nerd blah blah mindless drivel.
However, I had bits and bobs already on my dead 400D so bought another 400D s/h. I then put the money saved into glass. If I didn't have a bit of investment in the 400D already, I would have gone 1000D.
pmanson said:
I had a chat with a friend who used to work for Jessops and is is in to his photography.
His thoughts were that I would quickly get frustrated with the limitations of the 1000D and should look at the 450D...
I'm currently watching one on Canon's ebay store so will see how that goes.
I don't buy that - the limitations of most cameras are more down to the person behind the lens, rather than whats in the box. Although things like frame rate can come into play, but that depends on what you're taking. Motorsports photography could demand a higher frame rate, landscapes could require more flexibility in exposure bracketing.His thoughts were that I would quickly get frustrated with the limitations of the 1000D and should look at the 450D...
I'm currently watching one on Canon's ebay store so will see how that goes.
The 1000D would probably be fine, as would an equivalently priced Nikon or Sony.
Head over to http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/index.html to get ideas of the costs of the cameras/lenses/various kit across the web. Excellent site.
Call me a cheapskates but I bought a used 1000d. It was from the canon chap on fleabay. I then put the savings into glass. My thinking is that bodies are almost disposable items. There will always be a better body with more megapixels or higher fps out next year.
As I'm mainly into landscapes and architecture I don't need high fps and I can always bracket exposure. For learning the craft of taking pictures I think that not having the best equipment will make me learn more than if th camera just 'sorted everything out'
it may be more dificult and time consuming to get the perfect shot but that's what I get for being a cheapskate!
As I'm mainly into landscapes and architecture I don't need high fps and I can always bracket exposure. For learning the craft of taking pictures I think that not having the best equipment will make me learn more than if th camera just 'sorted everything out'
it may be more dificult and time consuming to get the perfect shot but that's what I get for being a cheapskate!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff