SLR Recommendation £350 - £400 range

[Links181]

Hi, I have no real idea about cameras and am looking for some informed advice and recommendations. Want the camera for general use, no specifics at the moment. Price range as above, is it realistic for something good or should I be looking at spending more? Any help would be much appreciated, thanks guys and girls.

[jimmy156]

To be honest i'd get whatever canon or nikon falls into that price range. Which if you buy new would be the canon 1000d (or 450d for an extra £50) or the Nikon D3000. Try them both and get the one you prefer.

If you want to go second hand you can get some higher end kit, maybe a second hand 40d (just) for example, but they may or may not come with lenses, and would be bigger and heavier.

[DiscoColin]

For that price (including some glass) your best option will almost certainly be second hand.

[rlw]

Sell you a nice 300D with 18/55 mm zoom, manuals, cf cards, cables, disks and a few bits and pieces more for about £125.00. Works perfectly and am happy to subject it to any test (short of trying it underwater).

I checked the receipt yesterday while having a clearout - £999.99 in 2006 - yikes.

[K12beano]

Links181 said:

...I have no real idea about cameras ...

So what is it that makes you think an SLR is the route for you?

[Pete Franklin]

Does anyone here rate the sony alphas? surely they offer good bang for buck at this price point?

[d1d215]

Pete Franklin said:

Does anyone here rate the sony alphas? surely they offer good bang for buck at this price point?

yes, they do. an alpha will be my next camera. if you won't use cheap kit lens and go above iso400 they are the best.

[Pete Franklin]

I recently picked up a second hand A200 with kit lens, bag etc, and then got 3 minolta lenses (f4 70-210 beercan, f3.5 - 4.5 70-210 and f3.5 - 4.5 28-85) and a load of filters, all in good nick. total outlay was £270. very pleased with what i have for the money.

for the sum that the OP has in mind you could probably get a similar setup but with a higher spec alpha model? worth a look anyway.

[onomatopoeia]

Pete Franklin said:

Does anyone here rate the sony alphas? surely they offer good bang for buck at this price point?

Yep, I had an a300 and now have an a700. For what I paid (£500 new) the a700 is a lot of camera and there are some fabulous lenses available.

[sgrimshaw]

+1 for the Sony's.

Coming from Minolta background I've been very pleased with what Sony have been bringing out.

I'm hoping for Live Video soon as has been hinted upon for one of the next releases.

Also be interested in their Mirror-less body due sometime this year.

BTW - Beercan, cracking lens enjoy it :-)

[tinman0]

Pete Franklin said:

Does anyone here rate the sony alphas? surely they offer good bang for buck at this price point?

It's been said in other threads, but here is the key to choosing Sony or Pentax etc, vs Canon/Nikon.

Buy what you're friends have. Simple as that.

It's much easier if everyone has common kit. I can let my (trusted) friends use my lenses and vice versa. Very easy to swap kit and compare notes.

£350-400 puts you in Canon 1000D money.

[sgrimshaw]

Also said in many other threads ....

Go and try the cameras out, they'll all produce excellent results anyway.

Buy the one that you like the feel of best.

[james_tigerwoods]

Is there no Nikon D40 replacement? When I got mine, it was priced nicely at £250 (with rebate) which was espensive enough - if I wanted a DSLR this year, I wouldn't be able to afford it...

[andy-xr]

james_tigerwoods said:

Is there no Nikon D40 replacement? When I got mine, it was priced nicely at £250 (with rebate) which was espensive enough - if I wanted a DSLR this year, I wouldn't be able to afford it...

Closest you'll get......: http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-nikon-d3000-di...

[clonmult]

james_tigerwoods said:

Is there no Nikon D40 replacement? When I got mine, it was priced nicely at £250 (with rebate) which was espensive enough - if I wanted a DSLR this year, I wouldn't be able to afford it...

It felt like I started looking for an SLR the day after the last D40 was sold, and the Sony A200 was starting to disappear rapidly from the shelves.

Thankfully I managed to find one, albeit with the kit lens. Colleague managed to find the twin lens kit a few weeks later.

It seems from comments at times that the Sony kit is generally viewed as lower quality than Canon or Nikon, but its more down to personal preference. SWMBOs uncle bought a Nikon D60 shortly after I got the A200, and whilst it was a good camera, it didn't fit my hands quite so well, and at the end of the day it wasn't likely to produce a better image - the sensor in the D60 and the A200 was actually the same bit of kit.

The main factor is how it feels in your hands. For me the A200 is beautifully balanced, but thats not necessarily the case for everyone.

[tr7v8]

sgrimshaw said:

+1 for the Sony's.

Coming from Minolta background I've been very pleased with what Sony have been bringing out.

I'm hoping for Live Video soon as has been hinted upon for one of the next releases.

Also be interested in their Mirror-less body due sometime this year.

BTW - Beercan, cracking lens enjoy it :-)

+1 for this There is a massive pool of of Minolta film SLR lenses that fit. My KM D5 has been fantastic & I'll upgrade to a Sony as soon as I can warrant spending the cash.

[d1d215]

nobody needs million lenses ! . a 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and maybe a teleconverter 1.4x and a 10-20. that's it - you're covered for life. oh ! maybe some primes for low light and portrait, but that's only if you're super picky.

[Pete Franklin]

d1d215 said:

nobody needs million lenses ! . a 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and maybe a teleconverter 1.4x and a 10-20. that's it - you're covered for life. oh ! maybe some primes for low light and portrait, but that's only if you're super picky.

I think the point about the minolta stuff is that they are good quality(for what they are) and due to the vast number of available minolta lenses that fit the alpha mount, they can be picked up cheaply. Which is a bonus for someone just starting out.

[d1d215]

Pete Franklin said:

d1d215 said:

nobody needs million lenses ! . a 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and maybe a teleconverter 1.4x and a 10-20. that's it - you're covered for life. oh ! maybe some primes for low light and portrait, but that's only if you're super picky.

I think the point about the minolta stuff is that they are good quality(for what they are) and due to the vast number of available minolta lenses that fit the alpha mount, they can be picked up cheaply. Which is a bonus for someone just starting out.

yeah ! got mixed up a bit I guess, with other sites. there are a lot of people complaining that sony doesn't have enough lens.

[clonmult]

Pete Franklin said:

d1d215 said:

nobody needs million lenses ! . a 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and maybe a teleconverter 1.4x and a 10-20. that's it - you're covered for life. oh ! maybe some primes for low light and portrait, but that's only if you're super picky.

I think the point about the minolta stuff is that they are good quality(for what they are) and due to the vast number of available minolta lenses that fit the alpha mount, they can be picked up cheaply. Which is a bonus for someone just starting out.

The beercans can't be picked up cheap any more - word got out about them, and they started to command higher prices.