Want a new Camera - advice please!

StormFeather

StormFeather

Just passing
Joined
Apr 15, 2009
Messages
772
Location
Slave to cats and kids
I know there are some very teched-up people out there with some fancy bit's of kit, and I'm hoping that some of you can give me some advice.

I want to get a new camera - I currently have an Olympus compact camera - useful, but I want to expand my abilities, and maybe do a course. Therefore I'm thinking about purchasing a digital slr type one, but have no idea of what to look for, what is reliable etc. I'm looking at spending in the £500 range, so any suggestions that any of you have would be gratefully received!

Thank you :D
 
According to my other half, you can't go wrong with either Canon or Nikon.

He has a Canon EOS 40D which is very good (though it's no longer available except second hand because of upgrades to the models). He'd strongly recommend a visit to a good camera shop because until you actually hold a camera and play around with it, you can't be sure what will be comfortable in your hand, which makes a big difference. Jessops and London Camera Exchange have branches all over -- LCE tend to carry a bit more stock and are probably better/more knowledgeable than Jessops, but a lot depends on the local staff, of course.

He also says, always get the best lenses you can afford and it's best to get maker's own lens (ie Canon with a Canon body). What kind of lenses you want very much depends on what kind of photos you are taking -- landscape, close-ups, sport etc. A good all round Canon lens is 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS zoom, which goes from a semi-wide-angle to a semi-telephoto, so it's a good day-to-day lens, and not too bulky. (The IS = Image Stabiliser which helps to reduce camera shake which is well worth having.)

Very often cameras are sold with a specific lens as a starter-kit, which may well be a cheaper option, but the lens itself is often not the best, so he would recommend buying body and lens separately, though this is likely to cost more.

There are a number of photo magazines around, such as Amateur Photographer, which have reviews of cameras. He subscribes to EOS magazine, which is a Canon magazine (I don't think Canon own it, but it's very much marketed at their wares) but is very good and helpful -- EOS magazine online home page might be a starting point if you're interested.

Good luck -- let us know what you get!
 
Canon and Nikon are the most prominent, and as such lenses for those cameras are a lot more plentiful and generally cheaper. There's nothing wrong with the smaller companies though - I've got a Pentax, which I love, and I wouldn't really consider changing brands, and I know plenty of people who adore Olympus and Sony SLRs. As TJ says, best bet is to get to a camera store and see how the different cameras feel in your hand. Olympus SLRs tend to be smaller and lighter, but otherwise most beginner to intermediate SLRs are built along the same lines, with the big differences often being layout of buttons.

I'd disagree with TJ's assertion about other lens manufacturers. Tamron and Sigma make some great lenses, often comparable to or better than the equivalent 'name' lens, and also often cheaper. I have a Tamrom 90mm macro and a Sigma 17-70mm zoom, and both are superb lenses.

I'd agree about avoiding kit lenses though - I fell into this trap, and got two fairly dodgy pieces of glass with my SLR body. I would have been much better served getting one quality lens instead.

Plenty of info out there on the web, as well. Do some searches, you'll find some good review sites. Digital Photography Review is a good starting point: Digital Cameras: Digital Photography Review, News, Reviews, Forums, FAQ.
 
What sort of course are you going to do, SF? If it's digital photography then what I'm about to say doesn't matter, but I did photography at college (you wouldn't know it, seeing as I know nothing about taking photos now!) and I wasn't allowed to use a digital camera. We had to use a proper film SLR.

Anywho... I bought myself this: Sony Alpha a390 with 18-70mm Lens - Exclusive to Jessops - Jessops - Digital SLRs at the beginning of last month after looking at about a gazillion different ones.

A lot of digi SLRs don't have the live-view screen thingy at the back, you have to look through the viewfinder. (Yes, you can look at the screen after you've taken the photo, but you can't look through the screen to take the photo like you can on compact digi cameras) which is why I went for the Sony. Because it had that feature and you didn't have to squint through the viewfinder. (I don't know about you, but it makes my eye water if I look through a viewfinder!)

I don't know if more expensive DSLRs have that feature. I was looking for as cheap as possible, while still being good/have the features I wanted.

And here are some snaps I took with my Sony, so you get an idea of the quality. (I hope that link works!)
 
With your budget, I'd go for a secondhand SLR, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, as that'll leave some cash for a flashgun, extra lens etc.

Remember, there's no digital zoom on SLRs and the built-in flashgun is more of a sales gimmick than a useful piece of kit.

Independent lenses are a mixed bag but the likes of Sigma and Tamron have been around for years (far longer than Sony have made cameras) and they know what they're doing, the main pitfall in this direction is that manufacturers often sell a budget lens with low-end SLRs to keep costs down, which does degrade quality a bit.

Your best bet is to find a good dealer (Jessops or a small, local one), explain what you're looking for and handle a couple of likely candidates. That's the acid test, how does it feel in your hands ?

As a lifelong film photographer, I prefer a viewfinder to a screen (it also increases battery life by not powering the screen when you don't need it) but this is all down to individual taste.
 
Thank you all for your very useful replies!

Mouse - not sure which course yet - still getting my head around other courses that i'm looking at, such as jewellry and stained glass work. But, I'm concious that after this month's pay day, I'll be far more strapped for cash, and if I don't get a camera now, it may be years away!

(I did ask for a camera for my birthday. Hubby's response (which is fair enough on the one hand), 'I don't know anyone who knows anything about cameras.' Therefore, I'm having to buy it myself)

I have a Jessops nearby so will pop in when I next get the chance. Will let you know my thoughts before I actually make a decision!
 
Mouse said:
A lot of digi SLRs don't have the live-view screen thingy at the back, you have to look through the viewfinder.
Click to expand...

Actually, you'll find most DSLRs will have live-view these days, even at the cheaper end of the market. I think my Pentax, which is about two years old, was the last model they sold without it...
 
From the point of view of strapped for cash, I shopped around for months until I found what I wanted on special. I decided on a Canon simply because of the ease of getting lenses of all kinds, although it will be a million years before I can get all the lenses I want. The special I found included a twin lens kit, so I figured why not start with that as I couldn't afford to get a decent lens at that point anyway. Besides which, I hadn't been able to find a cheaper deal even body only. ;) In the end the kit lenses did turn out to be fairly crap but they were good enough to get me started and learning how to use my new digital slr! And they tided me over till I could find a Tamron 55-200mm lens on special (good lens btw).

I bought online, but I had gone to a camera shop when I started looking around and "had a feel" - and had a feel of friend's cameras etc. Managed to find a review which mentioned the lightness and feel of the particular camera I had settled on (they said it felt small, which sounded good to me as I have small hands) - and they were right. My camera, an entry-level Canon 1000D, suits me fine. :)

Good luck!
 
Finally got a chance to go into Jessops today, and had a chat with the lovely 'Bob'. I explained that I'm looking for an entry level camera, that I really know nothing about these kind of things and I want to spend about £500 all told.

He showed me a Nikon that looked and felt ok, but then showed me a Samsung compact system camera, NX11. It's a little lighter, but seems to have everything the Nikon had at a slighty cheaper price. Currently, the offer they have is the camera, lens, 4G memory card, case, and an additional 'active' mini camera for £470. Whereas the Nikon was

Bob told me that he actually has one of the Nikons, and he loves it/can't fault them, but he's been having a lot of fun going out with the Samsung and taking high quality pics with it (the prints are on display near the camera).

A quick scan through the thread and I can't find any mentions of Samsung either way - so, does anyone know/have an opinion on whether they are reasonable for cameras? Also, what is the real difference between an SLR and a compact system - Bob tried to explain but my brain has refused to retain the information!

Have been reading up - the review seems quite positive - even if I don't understand it all!

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/samsung_nx11_review/
 
Last edited:
I've got a compact Samsung. My photo for the 300 word challenge was taken with a Samsung. :) They're good enough but the macro was a bit crappy on it.

SLRs take better quality photos than compacts. You can really tell when a photo's been taken with a SLR.
 
My other half doesn't know anything about Samsung, but of the two he'd still opt for the Nikon even if more expensive -- Nikon lenses are among the best so as and when you progress your photography you can upgrade without worrying about changing the body or compatibility. You'll also find there's a better second hand market for Nikon as and when you do decide to sell and upgrade for something better.

An SLR, when you look through the viewfinder, you see what you are going to take, since you are looking through the lens. With a compact you are looking through a window in the camera, not through the lens itself. Also, a good SLR will always take better quality pictures than a good compact.
 
Mouse said:
You can really tell when a photo's been taken with a SLR.
Click to expand...

I'm always telling people this. On the rare occasion that I do get my hands on a SLR I go crazy because I just love the quality of photos you get from it.

I have a bridge camera, which is like a top of the range compact, but with extra deelies like a viewfinder, pop-up flash and is generally much more beastly than the slim compacts. It takes pretty good quality photos and the macro's not bad -- but I'd still leap at SLR if I could.
 
Yeah definitely. Compacts take some really good photos, but SLRs are totally different.

I've got two film SLRs, one lovely Canon EOS one with several macros lenses!* and one Minolta... which is one of those weird type of films that I can't remember the name of now. The ones where you don't have to wind the film on, you just drop it in. Then I have my DSLR which is the Sony.

*which I'd sell to you, Hoops, if you were interested.
 
Oh, a film SLR! That sounds awesome (although the lazy part of me does love the convenience of digital) and I am an absolute sucker for macro. Unfortunately I have no money for anything fun at the moment, but thanks very much for the offer! If I finally get my life sorted (as my friend keeps calling it) then I may take you up on it.
 
No worries! It's not going anywhere so I'll still have it if you ever were interested. Wouldn't be mega bucks or anything. ;) It's quite hard to buy actual film now, I had to get it online... from Amazon I think. Though it's probably easier to get in Exeter.
 
I have two Canon EOS film cameras (5 and 600) and a Haselblad 120 film camera. Unfortunately they are all gathering dust now. I think you will find it harder and harder to get film now digital has come so far and to be honest, other than for very specialist work, I don't think I would bother any longer. The "small" format digital cameras now have resolutions way higher than the grain of even the best, slowest 35mm film. For fine photography I would image that some people will continue to use 120, 5x4 and 8x10 film cameras but other than that I think film will pretty much disappear within the next few years. I can get a digital back for my Haselblad but it comes in at around £10,000 believe it or not, which is just a tiny bit outside my budget :(

Re lenses; I wouldn't worry too much about them. Whilst Nikon are still very good and possibly have the edge over Canon lenses, techniques for making and coating lenses have come so far nowadays that you would really have to look closely to tell the difference between the results even with cheaper lenses. The biggest difference between compact and SLR lenses is that I suspect most compacts are still only a single lens or maybe two or three (though don't quote me on that, they are much smaller diameter though), whereas an SLR lens will be a compound lens with typically at least 6-10 elements in it, and much bigger diameters. This makes a huge difference on image quality especially at the edges of the frame.
 
Samsung are beating their chests about producing an SLR without a mirror-box, a contradiction in terms.

With an SLR, the lens is the viewfinder (the lens projected the image onto an internal screen via a 45 degree mirror which retracted the instant before the shutter fired. As the distance between lens/screen and lens/film was the same, so focus on one was sharp on the other, sharp viewfinder=sharp print/slide.) and in the days of film this was critical as all viewfinders were optical (and unpowered) so only an SLR could show you exactly what would appear on film.

With the advent of digital, this disappeared as the sensor delivers the same image whether viewing or storing, although SLRs with their optical viewfinders and interchangeable lenses still have the edge in flexibility.

Mouse, I'm assuming your camera is the Minolta 110 SLR taking drop-in cartridges.
I own the Pentax equivalent, the Auto 110 which takes interchangeable lenses (which I also own), film and processing is a nightmare, though.
 
The Ace said:
Mouse, I'm assuming your camera is the Minolta 110 SLR taking drop-in cartridges.
Click to expand...

I just googled it, Ace, as I'm too lazy to actually go upstairs and check. It's one of these:

minolta-vectis.jpg


A 'vectis.'
 
Sheesh ! Their APS SLR. I forgot they made one.

APS was designed as an easy-load alternative to 35mm, as the cartridge could be simply dropped in, changed at mid-roll and the whole thing could be processed without ever being opened.

Digital took off before APS got into its stride properly, so the Vectis S1, despite being a nice piece of kit, never really got the chance to achieve its potential. Fuji were the only other company to make an APS SLR, but theirs was nowhere near as good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Astro Pen Curious about this "gyro?" camera mount Technology 1
M Anyone know a good camera repair place in UK? Technology 16
Toby Frost Phone camera recommendations (Samsung) Technology 10
M Animals with Cameras Science & Nature 1
Dan Jones Lights, Camera... Action?? Writing Discussion 13

Similar threads


Back
Top