SLR camera advice please

[Two Acres]

It might be worth a visit to Wex Steve. They have a big showroom in Norwich (I guess you can't be too far away?) This is their website:

 

Wex Photographic - Digital Camera, Digital SLR Cameras, Lens, Canon, Nikon

 

As a photographer I really should now more but as has been said we just tend to but the latest Canon or Nikon and don't get beyond that.

 

Good luck!

[scraggs]

For that sort of money I would be looking at a decent bridge camera.

SLR bodies are the cheap bit, decent lenses will far outweigh the cost of the body, generally the wider focal range an slr lens covers then the image quality suffers, you then end up with a bag full of expensive glass.

There are some very nice Bridge cameras out there now, that are really quite capable.

It also depends on what you want to shoot, one of the best macro photographers I know done a lot of his work with a cheap bridge camera.

[Brushcutter]

Check out camera world online. They have a decent range of used cameras and glass. For 300 quid I'd of thought one of the mirrorless cameras would be a good bet.

 

If you want to learn photography then a used Nikon d90 or similar mid range slr with a tamron 17-55 f2.8 used should come in on budget.

 

Bying used for a present may seem off but it does open so many doors. Lot.of companies hire lenses now so you can hire ones in to suit your holiday. Nobody I know has a tilt shift lenses so we hired one to have some fun. They correct for.perspective and things like that.

 

My best advice is if your friends have cannon or Nikon get.the same that way you can swap kit about on days out.

[Steve Bullman]

Cheers for all the replies, something to think about

[Ukulian]

Steve, remember that with an SLR camera you are buying into a system rather than just this camera. Both Canon and Nikon have been around for an awful long time. Their systems are what you are buying into.

(As for a choice between the two, don't forget that when Canon made their first camera, they put a Nikon lens on it! )

If you are looking for quality images, rather than ones that are just going to be seen on a PC screen or smaller, then a dSLR is the way to go, as the sensor is considerably larger than that in bridge/compact/ fourthird cameras.

Most of the Nikons on the page you referred to are decent enough, and lenses you buy now will be usable on newer cameras in the future. I have a Nikon 300mm f/2.8 still in use that was purchased originally in the '60's. (This is only true of Nikon. Canon changed their mount system sometime in the late '70's I believe.)

 

One other thing, don't be fooled into believing that megapixel count is a mark of quality. The size of the sensor is probably more important.

HIH and if you need more info, shout.

Ian

[NFG]

Hi

 

Ukulian - you make some very valid points - I still have my OM1 & OM2s which take good pics

 

The most important elements in a good picture are composition & lighting - almost any £300 camera will take good pictures - even my old iPhone 3 has taken some great shots.

 

A more expensive DSLR simply allows you to get good results in more challenging situations & use different lenses and flash guns etc.

 

To decide on DSLR or not is ask your self - am I going to need to use different lenses? if the answer is no then a good compact will do, although some compacts allow a lens change the selection can be limited. if you will be using different lenses or its the start of a new interest then go for a mainstream DSLR: Nikon, Canon. Pentax.

 

Once youve made that decision look at some of the on-line photography sites for a while and that should point you to whats best for you.

 

Jessops is an OK dealer if you know your stuff, I used to get most of my kit from a small independent dealer in Bath, dealers like that usually are prepared to spend a bit of time to find out what you really want if unsure.

 

 

N

Edited July 21, 2015 by NFG

[Taupotreeman]

Crickey, where to start? First question; is it ever going to be off auto? If not, a quality point and shoot or mirrorless will do. If you're going to get into the creative side I.e. Manual modes, then an SLR or mirrorless will be more suited. Then you need to decide on how much gear, weight you want to lug around. I took around 20+ kilos to the U.S. With me and bought more gear there. A mirrorless system would have been way way lighter but the bodies are too small for me except the Sony, which is getting up there price wise.

Don't get wrapped up in pixel counts. My 5D back up and 8 mp gives beautiful colour rendition and fantastic results and its positively ancient by camera standards. My 6D is better but not by much. And yes, I'm a canon man and have too much invested to change at the moment.

A half decent body is ok but glass is where the money goes. Don't splash out heaps on a body until you know you're going to get into photography big time.

Mirrorless are nice but the glass is still limited and expensive. My wife's Olympus is an awesome little camera and came with twin lens kit at not much more than your budget. I can't get used to it, I prefer a big lump of camera in my hand.

Plenty of really good videos on YouTube to get you started. Photographersonyoutube is a really easy one to understand for the basics.

Best advice though is, if you're buying for yourself go into the shop and hold the cameras, play with the buttons and see what works for you.

[daltontrees]

I've used SLRs for years, the great advantage was that the picture would be what you saw through the viewfinder, particularly as the metering was throguh the lens. The size of SLRs means large siameter lenses which gather a lot of light meaning pictures in poor light conditions. Much has changed when cameras went digital, light levels are not so important as the digital sensor can be made to work in low light conditions. Increasingly even SLRs have real-time screens on teh back so that many people now don't even look through a viewfinder, they look a tthe screen to see what they're going to get. Lens interchangeability is still an advantage with SLRs, because zooms witha wide range are a significant compromise compared to several lenses covering the same range of focal lengths.

 

I currently use a Nikon EOS 3100 and Nikon D100, and I also have a film Nikon F2. I use a fisheye lens with the D100 for stereographic images for high hedges cases, but rarely change lenses thereafter. It is more important to have a wide angle lens than a telehoto, because you can zoom in later digitally but can't re-create a wider view once you've left the scene.

 

The modern SLRs have anti-vibration gadgetry, which works noticeably well, but I would say that one of the best things about SLRs is that they are heavy and therefore don't shake easily. Lightweight cameras are great for portability but you're more likely to get blurred pictures.

 

And I ile that if one bit of an SLR breaks, it can be replaced. Not so with other cameras. My D100 lens is playing up, so I can keep the body and am shopping around for a second-hand replacement lens. All my filters and lens hoods will fit the replacement lens. I like that, indeed it drives me nuts when good kit has to eb chucked out because one little bit of plastic snaps off.

 

A word of warnig abut Nikon. As someone else said, they are trading off their name - their more recent lenses are plastic and don't last. The D3100 was barely a year old when the aotofocus started to stick. The D100 lens no longer works on manual focus, which drives me crazy since I can't be bothered with autofocus (try taking a picture of a leaf and it focuses on the sky behind). I am on eBay a fair bit trying to get e new lens, and the 18-55mms that come with the current Nikons are a dime a dozen, all being ditched by their owners I suspect because they are starting to show signs of failing autofocus. You can get a modern 18-55 for £30, but one that is 10 years old, back when Nikon still meant quality and lenses were still made of metal, costs you £200 second-hand.

 

To be honest, for work I would like a bridge camera, the zoom ranges are incredible and they are pretty compact without being too flimsy. But I will possibly be the last person still using a SLR because for versatility, creativity, complete control and almost endless expansion possibilities they can't yet be beat. But can I recommend a current SLR for £300 for someone whose going to explore photography with it? I don't think I can. My wife got her Nikon as her model of the 3100 was being discontinued, and it was discounted and was a bargain, but I would be wary unless I had read reports from a non-partisan magazine.

 

There used to be dozens of mainstream SLR makers, now it's just Nikon and Canon, in an ever-diminishing market. They are cutting corners. Only their pro and semi-pro stuff seems to be any use, as it is made for people who aren't tryin g to choose between SLR and other formats. Poeple for whom control is more important than convenience. Quality of pictures for point-and-shoot punters is hardly the issue any more. An iPhone can compete with an SLR now.

 

So in my view it depends what kind of person you are buying for. I think £300 will just about get a reliable SLR.

[Taupotreeman]

I've used SLRs for years, the great advantage was that the picture would be what you saw through the viewfinder, particularly as the metering was throguh the lens. The size of SLRs means large siameter lenses which gather a lot of light meaning pictures in poor light conditions. Much has changed when cameras went digital, light levels are not so important as the digital sensor can be made to work in low light conditions. Increasingly even SLRs have real-time screens on teh back so that many people now don't even look through a viewfinder, they look a tthe screen to see what they're going to get. Lens interchangeability is still an advantage with SLRs, because zooms witha wide range are a significant compromise compared to several lenses covering the same range of focal lengths.

 

 

 

I currently use a Nikon EOS 3100 and Nikon D100, and I also have a film Nikon F2. I use a fisheye lens with the D100 for stereographic images for high hedges cases, but rarely change lenses thereafter. It is more important to have a wide angle lens than a telehoto, because you can zoom in later digitally but can't re-create a wider view once you've left the scene.

 

 

 

The modern SLRs have anti-vibration gadgetry, which works noticeably well, but I would say that one of the best things about SLRs is that they are heavy and therefore don't shake easily. Lightweight cameras are great for portability but you're more likely to get blurred pictures.

 

 

 

And I ile that if one bit of an SLR breaks, it can be replaced. Not so with other cameras. My D100 lens is playing up, so I can keep the body and am shopping around for a second-hand replacement lens. All my filters and lens hoods will fit the replacement lens. I like that, indeed it drives me nuts when good kit has to eb chucked out because one little bit of plastic snaps off.

 

 

 

A word of warnig abut Nikon. As someone else said, they are trading off their name - their more recent lenses are plastic and don't last. The D3100 was barely a year old when the aotofocus started to stick. The D100 lens no longer works on manual focus, which drives me crazy since I can't be bothered with autofocus (try taking a picture of a leaf and it focuses on the sky behind). I am on eBay a fair bit trying to get e new lens, and the 18-55mms that come with the current Nikons are a dime a dozen, all being ditched by their owners I suspect because they are starting to show signs of failing autofocus. You can get a modern 18-55 for £30, but one that is 10 years old, back when Nikon still meant quality and lenses were still made of metal, costs you £200 second-hand.

 

 

 

To be honest, for work I would like a bridge camera, the zoom ranges are incredible and they are pretty compact without being too flimsy. But I will possibly be the last person still using a SLR because for versatility, creativity, complete control and almost endless expansion possibilities they can't yet be beat. But can I recommend a current SLR for £300 for someone whose going to explore photography with it? I don't think I can. My wife got her Nikon as her model of the 3100 was being discontinued, and it was discounted and was a bargain, but I would be wary unless I had read reports from a non-partisan magazine.

 

 

 

There used to be dozens of mainstream SLR makers, now it's just Nikon and Canon, in an ever-diminishing market. They are cutting corners. Only their pro and semi-pro stuff seems to be any use, as it is made for people who aren't tryin g to choose between SLR and other formats. Poeple for whom control is more important than convenience. Quality of pictures for point-and-shoot punters is hardly the issue any more. An iPhone can compete with an SLR now.

 

 

 

So in my view it depends what kind of person you are buying for. I think £300 will just about get a reliable SLR.

 

 

You won't be the last mate. I know a lot of people who will never give up in their SLRs. Me included probably.

 

Always worthwhile looking second hand or, even better, refurbished. B&H have a good selection of refurbished as do both canon and Nikon websites.

[54gka]

I to was thinking of getting an SLR a couple of months back and ended up getting the Nikon coolpix p610 bridge camera.The main thing that i needed from a camera was a good zoom and with the 60x wide optical its more than enough for me.I zoomed right in close when we had a full moon and the detail and quality was amazing.

 

GKA Garden Services - Southampton Garden and Tree Services