Wanting to make the leap into SLR ownership. Help please!

[R99]

Hi Folks.

I've spent the last week at work working alongside a pro photographer for an event we have been doing and after chatting with him about various aspects of SLR's - I want to get myself one.

So, what should I go for? I've used one before but it wasn't mine and it was only for an hour or so, from memory it was a Nikon.

The guy I was working with suggested to perhaps buy an older model from E-Bay complete with some lenses. He recommended Canon.

So, what 'older models' are worth considering? I dont want something that is majorly out-dated.

It's my birthday in mid August so I should hopefully have some cash together to think about buying one. Or would it be better to buy new?

Many thanks guys.

[RobDickinson]

They pretty much all take great pictures, but some older ones are probably worth avoiding now.

I'd avoid the canon 10D and 300D, anything else is great, xxxD tends to be smaller and more arkward to use, xxD tends to be better for sport.

A 350D, 400D, 450D, or 20, 30, 40D are great cameras

I'd avoid the older CCD Nikons (D70, D50 etc) and look at the D40/D60 , D90 if its in budget.

Sony make some decent cameras now too.

[Simpo Two]

R99 said:

So, what 'older models' are worth considering? I dont want something that is majorly out-dated. It's my birthday in mid August so I should hopefully have some cash together to think about buying one. Or would it be better to buy new?

Unless you're very demanding, s/h DSLRs can do a perfectly good job. What you'll notice compared to current models is smaller, lower-res monitors, lower battery life and poorer high-ISO performance (ie noise). The name on the front is less important than the user behind it, although choosing from the 'big two' gives you more choice, especially on the s/h market.

I can't tell you about Canon but I use a Nikon D200 for most of my work, and bodies-only go for about £550.

[Andy M]

RobDickinson said:

They pretty much all take great pictures, but some older ones are probably worth avoiding now.

I'd avoid the canon 10D...

I partially agree with Rob, but just to show how good even the 'bad/old' cameras are, all of these were taken with a 10D:

[havoc]

RobDickinson said:

They pretty much all take great pictures, but some older ones are probably worth avoiding now.

I'd avoid the canon 10D and 300D, anything else is great, xxxD tends to be smaller and more arkward to use, xxD tends to be better for sport.

A 350D, 400D, 450D, or 20, 30, 40D are great cameras

I'd avoid the older CCD Nikons (D70, D50 etc) and look at the D40/D60 , D90 if its in budget.

Sony make some decent cameras now too.

Sound advice.

One point - the xxxD Canons will be cheaper, because:-
- they're smaller
- they're not as robust
- they've got a few less features than the xxD series.

...but some people prefer them BECAUSE they're smaller and lighter, yet still do 90% of what the bigger bodies do.

I'd suggest going into Jessops or similar and asking to look at both a 450D (500D?) and a 40D, just to see how they 'feel' - IMHO that's the most important thing, as you're going to have to use it!
(I use a 40D and a 20D backup body, by the way...)

[R99]

Thanks for the advice so far guys.

Its going to take me some time to get to grips with the use of an SLR, so I don't want to be a case of "all the gear no idea". I just want something I can enjoy and improve my photography with. I'll have a look on E-Bay for the recommendations so far.

What kind of lenses do I need?

[havoc]

R99 said:

What kind of lenses do I need?

The best you can afford. But as decent ones start at ~£300 (typically) and go up to the stratosphere for professional stuff, 'afford' is the key word. 2nd hand market sometimes a good idea, but prices are usually 50-75% of new-prices for something that may/may not have been looked after...


As for what types - depends what you want to do. Typically you'll want:-
- a wide-angle for landscapes (anything <25 at the bottom end. <12 and it's becoming a fish-eye)
- a 'fast' lens (low f-number) for portraits. 50mm f/1.8 is a very nifty piece of kit for portraits and very cheap.
- a 'zoom'/telephoto lens for motorsport/wildlife/etc. 200mm is the minimum top-end you want, -300mm ideally.
- possibly a 'walkabout' lens for when in cities or just out and about and you don't know what you might want to take a photo of - somewhere between the two so you don't have to keep changing lenses.

[dgb00]

A few kits come with an 18-55mm lens. That's probably a good start.

[clonmult]

havoc said:

RobDickinson said:

They pretty much all take great pictures, but some older ones are probably worth avoiding now.

I'd avoid the canon 10D and 300D, anything else is great, xxxD tends to be smaller and more arkward to use, xxD tends to be better for sport.

A 350D, 400D, 450D, or 20, 30, 40D are great cameras

I'd avoid the older CCD Nikons (D70, D50 etc) and look at the D40/D60 , D90 if its in budget.

Sony make some decent cameras now too.

Sound advice.

One point - the xxxD Canons will be cheaper, because:-
- they're smaller
- they're not as robust
- they've got a few less features than the xxD series.

...but some people prefer them BECAUSE they're smaller and lighter, yet still do 90% of what the bigger bodies do.

I'd suggest going into Jessops or similar and asking to look at both a 450D (500D?) and a 40D, just to see how they 'feel' - IMHO that's the most important thing, as you're going to have to use it!
(I use a 40D and a 20D backup body, by the way...)

Ignore everyone saying about the Nikon 40D - its a good camera, but you just cannot get them new any more.

I was in the market a month or two back, and after digging around decided it was either the 40D, EOS1000 or the Sony A200.

Sony won me over in the end, same sensor as on a Nikon 60D, huge range of minolta & sony lenses available.

But then as others have said, none of these are particularly bad.

[grumpy bear]

Personnally I would go to a trusted dealer (Grays, LCE, Mifsuds etc) and go for a secondhand D80. Unlike the D40 and D60 it can use all of the nikkor lenses as it has an internal focusing motor. It also has an number of features that may not jump out of the specification but really help. I didnt like the idea of the video so avoided the D90. I have switched from the D80 to a pair of D300's as they are more suited to motorsport if you get serious but the D80 held its value very well.

Lenses, avoid the 18-55 they are loads of them on ebay for £50 probably for a reason. The 18-70 is a probably the best of the 'kit' lenses that were supplied with the D70 and D80. I would go for the 16-85 but you'll struggle to find one secondhand and if you want to dabble a toe in the motorsport arena the 70-300 VRII is a good solid lens with good optics. I have just put a deposit on a 300 f2.8 prime at £3.5k to replace it. Avoid the 150 -500 Sigma, on paper it looks good but in practice the autofocus isnt quick enough and it cannot cope at all in low light.

[R99]

Sony's seem to be nice and affordable.

Is it worth considering one of those brand new with a lens rather than a 2nd hand Nikon or Canon?

[havoc]

R99 said:

Sony's seem to be nice and affordable.

Is it worth considering one of those brand new with a lens rather than a 2nd hand Nikon or Canon?

Certainly a cheaper entry-point, and Sony now have a decent range of lenses for the amateur user. I've not used them though, so I'd check the reviews of them (bodies and lenses) first on one of the good websites (e.g. Fred Miranda).

Only two downsides I can see:-
- Needing to get used to a whole new interface if you want to get really serious (which would probably mean Canon or Nikon, even still).
- Needing to shell-out for a new body at that time (but chances are even with a Canon or Nikon you'll 'trade-up' in terms of body as well...so that's not necessarily an issue).

[R99]

Bit of an update...

After many hours of reading reviews and looking on the net for advice I have gone for the Canon 450D with standard 18-55mm lens.

I will be getting it tomorrow, however I have the option of adding a LowPro bag, 4GB SD card and a Sigma 70-300 lens for an additional £145.

So, what's the opinion? Is it worth the extra cash? I'm leaning towards it being a yes at the moment, but wanted some advice first.

I will be using the camera for the first time on my hols (Eastern Med cruise) so I want to have the right gear with me for the hol to make the most of what, I think, will be a perfect opportunity to get to grips with the camera and start climbing the inevitably steep learning curve.

[R99]

Also, what is the Tamron 70-300mm like? Better than the Sigma?

[Rob13]

that sounds much like the kit i'm looking at. I have been tempted towards a 40d but its stretching the budget even further.

[RobDickinson]

40D I think is somewhat of a stunning camera for the money, far better than the 450D in usability and perfomance, worth pushing the boat out for it and picking up extra lens's later.

the sigma 70-300 is cheap, I think the APO version is worth a punt the non APO isnt quite as good.

[Quick silver]

For starters I would plum for a Canon D30 or D60, both have CMOS.....also a gen1 Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 & gen1 Canon 28-105mm f3.5/f5.6

[RobDickinson]

D30 and D60's are relics , probably didnt sell that well and dont have an EF-S mount.

[Rob13]

The 40d looks better for motorsport as it has a higher fps rate? I know when the M word is mentioned, it immediately results in ££££s worth of glass but I'm just trying to weigh up the 450d against the 40d and whether the difference in cost is worth going for at this stage. I dont expect to keep trading up cameras every couple of years at these kind of prices so this would have to last me a while. Obviously the glass can be carried through provided I stick to Canon.

[Woza]

i've just picked up a Sony DSLR A200 for £250, lots of good reviews for a starter camera...