Advice needed for non-photographer
Discussion
Thinking of buying a DSLR and current short list is Canon (my preferred choice for no real reason except I have owned a number of compact digital Cannon cameras) 1100D 06 600D.
I have only been a 'snapper' before and all the detail of 'f' stops, ISO rating etc etc go straight over my head.
1100 is cheaper (good point) but have been advised by the shop that the 600 is worth the extra (sales technique?).
I know what I'm doing with cars but need help for this.
Help and advice please.
Thanks
Norman
I have only been a 'snapper' before and all the detail of 'f' stops, ISO rating etc etc go straight over my head.
1100 is cheaper (good point) but have been advised by the shop that the 600 is worth the extra (sales technique?).
I know what I'm doing with cars but need help for this.
Help and advice please.
Thanks
Norman
There seem to be a "crop" of these types of thread at the moment.
What's going on?
Then I saw where this one is different!!! You have a SHOP!!!!
I didn't think there were any left!
Go for what sits in your hands well, and if you are more familiar with the way Canon do things stick with that for starters. Don't spend an awful lot on a body to start with, go secondhand or end of line. You'll probably have grown into the next new model in 18-24 months when you're up the learning curve! Keep some budget for lens choices, tripod, bag, flash, cards etc!
But. What are you mainly hoping to take photos of?
What's going on?
Then I saw where this one is different!!! You have a SHOP!!!!
I didn't think there were any left!
Go for what sits in your hands well, and if you are more familiar with the way Canon do things stick with that for starters. Don't spend an awful lot on a body to start with, go secondhand or end of line. You'll probably have grown into the next new model in 18-24 months when you're up the learning curve! Keep some budget for lens choices, tripod, bag, flash, cards etc!
But. What are you mainly hoping to take photos of?
This is a tricky one and Beano has posed a useful question.
Canon is a safe bet especially if you have some familiarity with what these days seems to be referred to as a manufacturer's "dna".
Most DSLR cameras can produce more than satisfying results these days but half of the joy of using a camera is about how it 'feels' and therefore how much in encourages you to make use of it.
I can't speak for the 1100D as I have not used one but as I recall it is a development of the 1000D which itself was base on the 400D and I have had one of those since about 2007. Great device and can still hold its own to produce more than acceptable images. The 1100D will be an improvement on that in some areas ans unless you want to get into some of the slightly more specialist photographic activities in a big way - long exposure night shots, high speed action to offer a couple of opposing possibilities - it will probably be fine. It's not that it won't take long exposrue night shots or high speed action of course, of course it will but there are other, usually more expensive, cameras that offer greater scope to the regular night and action shooter.
I also have a 600D, bought for a project idea in the middle of last year. Compared to the old 400D at first sight there's not much in it in terms of look and feel for handling purposes. Obviously the spec is very different but considering just taking 'regular' photos and ignoring the video capability and articulated screen, the handling is quite similar but better. Things that you will want to control, after you get into the concepts, are more readily accessed from the 600D controls than they are from the 400D. How that compares between 1100D and 600D I don't know but I could guess it is similar.
So I tend to think that the chap in the shop is correct. For the price difference the 600D offers quite a bit more all round (not just in handling) and is therefore likely to be the more encouraging camera to use by giving a slightly better experience once you move beyond the most basic needs. This would be even more true if any additional features could be of especial use to you.
But if you are not too sure that you would find the additional features and handling of any personal value go with the lower cost and consider spending the difference (maybe plus a little) on another lens or, perhaps, a flash unit subject to what it is you think you mostly want from using the camera. You can always consider changing the body again later. Lenses (especially those with a solid reputation) tend to have a long(ish) life.
I'm pretty sure of you bounce ideas around on here you will get some solid and realistic answers.
Canon is a safe bet especially if you have some familiarity with what these days seems to be referred to as a manufacturer's "dna".
Most DSLR cameras can produce more than satisfying results these days but half of the joy of using a camera is about how it 'feels' and therefore how much in encourages you to make use of it.
I can't speak for the 1100D as I have not used one but as I recall it is a development of the 1000D which itself was base on the 400D and I have had one of those since about 2007. Great device and can still hold its own to produce more than acceptable images. The 1100D will be an improvement on that in some areas ans unless you want to get into some of the slightly more specialist photographic activities in a big way - long exposure night shots, high speed action to offer a couple of opposing possibilities - it will probably be fine. It's not that it won't take long exposrue night shots or high speed action of course, of course it will but there are other, usually more expensive, cameras that offer greater scope to the regular night and action shooter.
I also have a 600D, bought for a project idea in the middle of last year. Compared to the old 400D at first sight there's not much in it in terms of look and feel for handling purposes. Obviously the spec is very different but considering just taking 'regular' photos and ignoring the video capability and articulated screen, the handling is quite similar but better. Things that you will want to control, after you get into the concepts, are more readily accessed from the 600D controls than they are from the 400D. How that compares between 1100D and 600D I don't know but I could guess it is similar.
So I tend to think that the chap in the shop is correct. For the price difference the 600D offers quite a bit more all round (not just in handling) and is therefore likely to be the more encouraging camera to use by giving a slightly better experience once you move beyond the most basic needs. This would be even more true if any additional features could be of especial use to you.
But if you are not too sure that you would find the additional features and handling of any personal value go with the lower cost and consider spending the difference (maybe plus a little) on another lens or, perhaps, a flash unit subject to what it is you think you mostly want from using the camera. You can always consider changing the body again later. Lenses (especially those with a solid reputation) tend to have a long(ish) life.
I'm pretty sure of you bounce ideas around on here you will get some solid and realistic answers.
LongQ said:
I'm pretty sure if you bounce ideas around on here you will get, on average, four different answers for every five responses.
EFAAnd, slightly more importantly, I forgot to say that everyone learns slightly differently, and at different paces, so courses, books, websites, ideas and tips are always to be found on this forum. So give yourself little tasks like "a picture a day" or "a picture a week" and share it around for hints, tips, critique.... and some general silliness....
A little OT.
I keep seeing reports that Car sales are down in Europe.
A man (and some ladies too of course) must have toys to buy. If a car is out of the picture (so to speak) then perhaps a camera is one of the next items in line? Like Hi-Fi's used to be.
I think it was not so different in the 'old' days but people took less photos as processing was not cheap. For few shots people would stick to very cheap cameras (remember 110 format?) and not expect great results. They were rarely disappointed in that expectation - if they ever got the film back from the processor.
Now you can buy pretty much anything and get a better result than you could (as a general hobbyist) back then. It costs less (in real terms) to get involved in the first place and there need not be any after shot processing costs that related solely to the photographic process. Plus the whole experience is almost 'instant' and that makes the learning curve, where desired, so much shorter and more involving.
On top of that the telly is crap these days and many pubs have shut so what else can you do of an evening?
K12beano said:
There seem to be a "crop" of these types of thread at the moment.
What's going on?
Crop! Hoho. What's going on?
I keep seeing reports that Car sales are down in Europe.
A man (and some ladies too of course) must have toys to buy. If a car is out of the picture (so to speak) then perhaps a camera is one of the next items in line? Like Hi-Fi's used to be.
I think it was not so different in the 'old' days but people took less photos as processing was not cheap. For few shots people would stick to very cheap cameras (remember 110 format?) and not expect great results. They were rarely disappointed in that expectation - if they ever got the film back from the processor.
Now you can buy pretty much anything and get a better result than you could (as a general hobbyist) back then. It costs less (in real terms) to get involved in the first place and there need not be any after shot processing costs that related solely to the photographic process. Plus the whole experience is almost 'instant' and that makes the learning curve, where desired, so much shorter and more involving.
On top of that the telly is crap these days and many pubs have shut so what else can you do of an evening?
Piqued my interest so I did a quick comparison between the 1100D and 600D.
With the current offers the price differential (At WEX as a base comparison site) for the camera with standard kit lens seems to be about £114. At that differential I would say the 600D is worth going for especially if you might, for example, want to take some family group portraits where the articulated screen and an inexpensive remote control would allow you to be part of the scene, see what it all looks like and hit the button at just the moment you want - always a bonus with kids (of all ages!)
There are some other benefits as well, as one might expect with a camera body from a higher range in the product line.
With the current offers the price differential (At WEX as a base comparison site) for the camera with standard kit lens seems to be about £114. At that differential I would say the 600D is worth going for especially if you might, for example, want to take some family group portraits where the articulated screen and an inexpensive remote control would allow you to be part of the scene, see what it all looks like and hit the button at just the moment you want - always a bonus with kids (of all ages!)
There are some other benefits as well, as one might expect with a camera body from a higher range in the product line.
LongQ said:
K12beano said:
LongQ said:
I'm pretty sure if you bounce ideas around on here you will get, on average, five different answers for every four responses.
EFA
I had to have a lie down!1100D. Not sure I'd value the articulated screen, always seems a bit like a gimmick to me. You don't see an articulated screen on the 1DX or the D800, so why it's useful on a low end body I'm not sure. The only reason I can see for it is to keep up with Sony and whatever gadget they've put on a body recently.
So I'd save the £114 and go for the 1100D - maybe buy another lens (100-300 for instance (as per RobD's advice the other day)).
So I'd save the £114 and go for the 1100D - maybe buy another lens (100-300 for instance (as per RobD's advice the other day)).
JDRoest said:
1100D. Not sure I'd value the articulated screen, always seems a bit like a gimmick to me. You don't see an articulated screen on the 1DX or the D800, so why it's useful on a low end body I'm not sure. The only reason I can see for it is to keep up with Sony and whatever gadget they've put on a body recently.
So I'd save the £114 and go for the 1100D - maybe buy another lens (100-300 for instance (as per RobD's advice the other day)).
The screen is by no means the only difference. However I have to say that I find an articulated screen very useful at times. Perhaps more so on something that does not have a proper prism viewfinder since then there is little difference between using the EVF or the screen, but having the screen on the 600D has been useful for still shots although I am fairly sure the drive behind its inclusion would be for video. I have used articulated screens on my Pro1, S3is, G11 and now the 600D - all good although the relatively ancient Pro1 lost out in the size stakes.So I'd save the £114 and go for the 1100D - maybe buy another lens (100-300 for instance (as per RobD's advice the other day)).
You can check prices here
1100D vs 600D comparison
Whichever you choose I'm sure you'll have fun.
Nifty fifty would be a good lens choice for family shots, and it won't break the bank.
Scott
1100D vs 600D comparison
Whichever you choose I'm sure you'll have fun.
Nifty fifty would be a good lens choice for family shots, and it won't break the bank.
Scott
kybo said:
You can check prices here
1100D vs 600D comparison
Whichever you choose I'm sure you'll have fun.
Nifty fifty would be a good lens choice for family shots, and it won't break the bank.
Scott
Great help much appreciated1100D vs 600D comparison
Whichever you choose I'm sure you'll have fun.
Nifty fifty would be a good lens choice for family shots, and it won't break the bank.
Scott
kybo said:
Nifty fifty would be a good lens choice for family shots, and it won't break the bank.
I thought that when I bought mine, but I find I hardly ever use it. On an old 35mm SLR or a Full Frame DSLR I'd agree with you completely, but on a crop sensor such as either the 1100D or the 600D, I find it becomes just a bit too long to really be of use with the kids.I know it's quite a bit more expensive, but I get far, far more use out of my 28mm, as it's much closer to field of vision on a crop body.
Kermit power said:
kybo said:
Nifty fifty would be a good lens choice for family shots, and it won't break the bank.
I thought that when I bought mine, but I find I hardly ever use it. On an old 35mm SLR or a Full Frame DSLR I'd agree with you completely, but on a crop sensor such as either the 1100D or the 600D, I find it becomes just a bit too long to really be of use with the kids.I know it's quite a bit more expensive, but I get far, far more use out of my 28mm, as it's much closer to field of vision on a crop body.
Dont forget I'm a 'raw prawn' photographer
On an SLR (film) the image you took was 35mm. So all lenses are marked for use with a 35mm image at the back. It's a straight forward system used by everyone who made a 35mm film SLR. A Nikon 50mm is exactly the same as a Canon 50mm.
On a DSLR, the sensor (essentially the film) can be different sizes. A 35mm size sensor is quite expensive and is in the bigger more professional cameras. A 35mm sensor is called Full Frame.
The cheaper DSLRs (which most of us have) use a slightly smaller sensor (and one that is considerably cheaper). This is called a crop body. It effectively crops the image of a 35mm image. IIRC Canon crop bodies use a 23mm sensor.
A 35mm lens will still lay a 35mm image onto the back of the camera, but the sensor being smaller, you get a smaller field of view.
35mm vs 23mm is approx 1.6. So a 50mm lens on a crop body becomes 50 * 1.6, so about 80mm.
So an 80mm lens on a Full Frame (or 35mm film body) is the same as a 50mm on a crop body.
On a DSLR, the sensor (essentially the film) can be different sizes. A 35mm size sensor is quite expensive and is in the bigger more professional cameras. A 35mm sensor is called Full Frame.
The cheaper DSLRs (which most of us have) use a slightly smaller sensor (and one that is considerably cheaper). This is called a crop body. It effectively crops the image of a 35mm image. IIRC Canon crop bodies use a 23mm sensor.
A 35mm lens will still lay a 35mm image onto the back of the camera, but the sensor being smaller, you get a smaller field of view.
35mm vs 23mm is approx 1.6. So a 50mm lens on a crop body becomes 50 * 1.6, so about 80mm.
So an 80mm lens on a Full Frame (or 35mm film body) is the same as a 50mm on a crop body.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff