What camera? 2nd SLR....

[Louisa911]

Hi,

I already have a Canon 300D with kit lens and the 1.8f 50mm Canon lens. Looking to sell up and spend in total around £300 to £400 upgrading to a better camera as I've had the 300d for almost two years now and its depressingly slow and I crave something that can produce images of a slightly better quality.

What would you look for in this price range? I do prefer Canon to Nikon... just because I'd prefer to stick with what I'm used to. But will happily take a look at anything. Video would also be nice but I'm guessing there's slim chance of finding an SLR with video capability in this price range?

Thanks

[d1d215]

a 550D maybe ? I know it's the same entry level. but it's new !!! the best option would be the 7D, but its pricey.

[Dogsey]

You might just be able to find a s/h 40D at that price, it'll be a huge step up in terms of speed, useability and quality but doesn't have video.

[BlueMR2]

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/ Have a couple of 40D's if you can stretch another 10%. Should have 6 months cover that you wouldn't get 2nd hand from a private seller as well, so at least there might be a bit of come back if something goes wrong compared to ebay etc.

[GetCarter]

Louisa911 said:

I crave something that can produce images of a slightly better quality.

What qualities are you looking for?

[SamHH]

I switched from a 300D to a used 30D which cost £330. It's much better in terms of speed (FPS, reviewing images, autofocus) and has an extra few useful functions. I don't think the image quality is improved though other than a slight reduction in noise at high ISO. I'd say lenses are a better way of improving image quality.

I don't think any <£400 SLRs have video.

[tinman0]

Louisa911 said:

I already have a Canon 300D with kit lens and the 1.8f 50mm Canon lens. Looking to sell up and spend in total around £300 to £400 upgrading to a better camera as I've had the 300d for almost two years now and its depressingly slow and I crave something that can produce images of a slightly better quality.

Go to a new 450D or 500D if the budget can stretch.

Personally, and I know i'll go in the sinbin for saying this, but I don't think it's worth going s/h 40D. 40D is all about bragging rights and one-upmanship.

At the end of the day, the body doesn't make a good picture, the fleshy button presser behind the viewfinder does. (However, there were restrictions on my 300D that made me upgrade to a 400D a year later - namely buffer size).

[Dogsey]

tinman0 said:

40D is all about bragging rights and one-upmanship.

Utter twaddle, it fires faster, has a bigger buffer, a better AF system, more AF points, is quicker to adjust (has controls on the body rather than menus), is better built, has a degree of weatherproofing ...

Enough?

[Simpo Two]

GetCarter said:

What qualities are you looking for?

Killer question sneaked under the bar

[RobDickinson]

tinman0 said:

40D is all about bragging rights and one-upmanship.

bks. The size and controls make the 40D a hella lot eaiser to shoot with than any xxxD.

Its got great IQ ( as good as any crop snesor camera IMO, if not the absolute resolution) and doesnt lack anything.

Good AF, 6.5fps, great controls, great viewfinder etc. A huge step up from the 300D.

30D has in essence the 350D's sensor and thats not a patch on the 40D's

Remember the 300D is OLD, slow operation, restrictive modes, small buffer, tiny LCD etc, anything modernish will seem a big jump.

[tinman0]

Dogsey said:

tinman0 said:

40D is all about bragging rights and one-upmanship.

Utter twaddle, it fires faster, has a bigger buffer, a better AF system, more AF points, is quicker to adjust (has controls on the body rather than menus), is better built, has a degree of weatherproofing ...

Enough?

And all those things make a better picture?

I agree that the 300D can be very limited. But a good picture is down to the person taking the picture not the camera.

[tinman0]

RobDickinson said:

tinman0 said:

40D is all about bragging rights and one-upmanship.

bks. The size and controls make the 40D a hella lot eaiser to shoot with than any xxxD.

Its got great IQ ( as good as any crop snesor camera IMO, if not the absolute resolution) and doesnt lack anything.

Good AF, 6.5fps, great controls, great viewfinder etc. A huge step up from the 300D.

Most people don't use the extra features that make the 40D a better camera than say a 500D or even 450D.

40D/50D is body snobbery for the most users

[RobDickinson]

tinman0 said:

Dogsey said:

tinman0 said:

40D is all about bragging rights and one-upmanship.

Utter twaddle, it fires faster, has a bigger buffer, a better AF system, more AF points, is quicker to adjust (has controls on the body rather than menus), is better built, has a degree of weatherproofing ...

Enough?

And all those things make a better picture?

I agree that the 300D can be very limited. But a good picture is down to the person taking the picture not the camera.

Buffer full, no picture.

Unable to shift AF point quick enough, poorer or badly focused picture.

Unable to af in low light? OOF picture.

No AF point over your subject? have to focus & recompose & end up with a badly focused shot.

Raining? Oh dear cant go out & take pics.

Yep you can still take poor pics with either but the xxD bodies allow you to get more pics more often in challenging situations.

[14-7]

tinman0 said:

Most people don't use the extra features that make the 40D a better camera than say a 500D or even 450D.

40D/50D is body snobbery for the most users

What does that make users of higher-end cameras then?

I have a 7D but am by no means professional, just love my photography and want the best equipment at a price I can afford.

I'm sure a 550D would yield the same results but I find the 7D a much comfier body to hold.

I should say that to the misses "I'd love a thin 18 year old but your body is so much comfier to hold". Or maybe not

Good job she doesn't read these pages!

[Louisa911]

GetCarter said:

Louisa911 said:

I crave something that can produce images of a slightly better quality.

What qualities are you looking for?

I do a lot of gig photography, and the sensor on the 300D is pretty poor for noise at higher ISO levels compared to the more modern SLRs I used to borrow on my foundation course. Even when the 300D is set up great for a shot, all exposure, aperture, ISO levels fine, tripod, flat and perfectly still ground- the image still seems to come out slightly poorer quality in many respects than my stepdads 500D.

Also the camera I own has taken near 12,000 images and needs a damn good sensor clean, so spending money to get it cleaned up, whether it be professionally or buying a kit, seems pointless when I'm already thinking I could just buy another camera that suits me better.

[Simpo Two]

Low light capability - get your paws on a Nikon D700 (just to make sure you don't like it of course!)

This may be time for a quantum leap, ie sell the lot and start again.

[Louisa911]

Simpo Two said:

Low light capability - get your paws on a Nikon D700 (just to make sure you don't like it of course!)

This may be time for a quantum leap, ie sell the lot and start again.

Ooh scary prospect.... might try a few nikons out and see what I think.

[Simpo Two]

Well I specifically suggested the D700 as it's the low light weapon of choice (along with the D3 series but they're much bigger and pricier). It's full frame (part of the reason it's so good) so you'll need to recalibrate your mind on focal length but I think you'd appreciate the capabilities.

[GetCarter]

What he said /\ Low light abilities are astonishing.

[havoc]

Dogsey said:

tinman0 said:

40D is all about bragging rights and one-upmanship.

Utter twaddle, it fires faster, has a bigger buffer, a better AF system, more AF points, is quicker to adjust (has controls on the body rather than menus), is better built, has a degree of weatherproofing ...

Enough?

I specifically bought my first 20D over the (then-new) 350D for the buffer, build-quality and 'handling'. Father bought a 350D, and I don't regret my decision at all.