moving from 35mm to digital

[sawman]

many years ago I was quite keen on photography. I had (and still have) a Yashica FX-D with a couple of lenses. It was too much of a faff when the kids came along so I put it to one side and have had a few digital cameras. the last few years really just using iphone.

My lad was intrigued by my old 35mm yashica (which was still working once new battery installed) and has been running a few films through it, he thinks that a digital camera might be a step forwards, so we called in at the local camera shop today. - its safe to say cameras have moved on a bit in the last few years!

With a budget or around £500, we figured that pre owned might be the best way to go. to get a feel for things the chap in the shop dug a few out, we had a look at a Canon 5D mk2 and also an olympus OMD E-M10. both of which would probably come in around the budget with a lens (possibly a small zoom)

the canon felt pretty hefty compared to the dainty olympus, I have read some pretty decent reviews of the olympus, and I understand we may not be comparing like for like, but how do these older machines compare with modern bridge cameras at a similar price point such as Panasonic LUMIX FZ330

thanks in advance

[Simpo Two]

I would say that if you're comfortable with the layout and handling of an SLR like the Yashica, then move to a DSLR. The physics of picture taking is the same, there will just be a lot of buttons and new toys to learn on top. For me the greatest leap when I went digital in 2003 was the ability to manipulate the image afterwards.

I see the OMD E-M10 is mirrorless, so not a DSLR, but that's another debate...!

[sawman]

Simpo Two said:

I would say that if you're comfortable with the layout and handling of an SLR like the Yashica, then move to a DSLR. The physics of picture taking is the same, there will just be a lot of buttons and new toys to learn on top. For me the greatest leap when I went digital in 2003 was the ability to manipulate the image afterwards.

I see the OMD E-M10 is mirrorless, so not a DSLR, but that's another debate...!

The mirrorless/ dslr debate?? Whats the general feeling?

[craig1912]

sawman said:

The mirrorless/ dslr debate?? Whats the general feeling?

Either although the future is mirrorless and they do have advantages. Nothing wrong with the Olympus but I’d also look at Fujifilm X-T20 or 30. Very similiar to a film camera with dedicated controls for shutter speed, aperture etc. and the film sims are excellent.

[BobToc]

The Olympus (now OMD) is Micro Four-Thirds. While the future is mirrorless, I’m not sure m43 is going to be a big part of it. I’m an enthusiastic m43 person (love how compact they are) and I’ll be buying the Panasonic G9ii soon, I have half a dozen lenses, but you really don’t get the sense that either OMD or Panasonic are really behind the platform. If I was starting fresh I’m not sure I’d go with m43.

[survivalist]

Unless you want to print large pictures. I’d say with a budget of £500 you want to focus on what lenses you can get.

Canon and Nikon probably have the most second hand glass available and older DSLR bodies can be had for around half your budget.

Other consideration is full frame vs crop sensor. Crop is out of fashion and so a bit of a bargain.

If it were me I’d go for a canon or Nikon crop sensor slr, with a couple of zoom lenses and one decent prime (probably 35mm on a crop sensor).

[85Carrera]

craig1912 said:

sawman said:

The mirrorless/ dslr debate?? Whats the general feeling?

Either although the future is mirrorless and they do have advantages.

What are the advantages as it’s not clear to me what they are, other than smaller, lighter cameras?

[sawman]

Great feedback chaps,

Theres certainly a lot more to consider than i remember.

This helps focus my research, thanks

[craig1912]

85Carrera said:

What are the advantages as it’s not clear to me what they are, other than smaller, lighter cameras?

Reasonable article here

https://amateurphotographer.com/buying-advice/dslr...

[craig1912]

survivalist said:

Other consideration is full frame vs crop sensor. Crop is out of fashion and so a bit of a bargain.
).

I’m not sure crop (apps-c) is out of fashion. All camera manufacturers produce them. I agree they are a decent option. I went from full frame Sony to aps-c Fujifilm and haven’t regretted it at all.

[85Carrera]

craig1912 said:

85Carrera said:

What are the advantages as it’s not clear to me what they are, other than smaller, lighter cameras?

Reasonable article here

https://amateurphotographer.com/buying-advice/dslr...

Thanks, will take a look

[Derek Smith]

I went to micro four-thirds (mft) some years ago when my back was giving me stick. It's not only that the bodies are lighter, but the lenses are remarkably so. I carry three lenses with me whenever I go out shooting. If I'd stuck with DSLR, I'd have stuck with just a mid-range zoom. As it is, I go from 28mm to 600, with a cracking F 1.4 50mm prime. All focal lengths given as 35mm equivalent.

I am pleased I went with mft. For me, an excellent choice. I can blow up my images to a bit over A2 and the quality is great. Up to A4, I can crop to my heart's content. I put my images on my website and they look the business there. However:

If I was younger and didn't have severe back problems, I'd have gone with a mirrorless full frame. No question.


In other words, go for the type of camera that suits your needs. Go to a camera shop and play with as many types as they have.Then decide.

[sawman]

craig1912 said:

Reasonable article here

https://amateurphotographer.com/buying-advice/dslr...

thanks, great link (and to the amateur photographer website, which i had not got around to checking out yet)

[Simpo Two]

sawman said:

craig1912 said:

Reasonable article here

https://amateurphotographer.com/buying-advice/dslr...

thanks, great link (and to the amateur photographer website, which i had not got around to checking out yet)

The part of that article that catches my eye is 'price'. If value is important I think you'll get more photographic bang for your buck with a DSLR and a major name simply because there's so much stuff out there, especially if you're happy with good s/h products.

[sawman]

Simpo Two said:

The part of that article that catches my eye is 'price'. If value is important I think you'll get more photographic bang for your buck with a DSLR and a major name simply because there's so much stuff out there, especially if you're happy with good s/h products.

Yeah, no issue with used - iI am comfortable with the bargain barge philosphy.
is a 12 year old canon likely to be reliable??

[C n C]

Simpo Two said:

sawman said:

craig1912 said:

Reasonable article here

https://amateurphotographer.com/buying-advice/dslr...

thanks, great link (and to the amateur photographer website, which i had not got around to checking out yet)

The part of that article that catches my eye is 'price'. If value is important I think you'll get more photographic bang for your buck with a DSLR and a major name simply because there's so much stuff out there, especially if you're happy with good s/h products.

Agreed - although there are used mirrorless cameras available, there's a wider choice of used DSLRs and at arguably better prices.

One advantage of mirrorless cameras which isn't mentioned in the article above however, is if you are regularly shooting in very low light. With a DSLR the viewfinder will be very dark, which can make it difficult to see exactly what you are shooting. With a mirrorless viewfinder, it reflects the actual exposure, so when the exposure is set correctly, it's very easy to see what you're shooting.

For info, I use full frame Canon kit, and have both a DSLR (5Dmk3) and mirrorless (R5), both of which I use on a regular basis and am very happy with. I only have Canon EF lenses (no RF - new mirrorless mount) and I don't plan on changing anytime soon, in fact I'm considering adding another EF lens to the collection. This means I can simply leave the RF to EF converter permanently attached to the R5 body and swap lenses as usual. You can't use the new RF lenses on an EF mount camera. The EF lenses work perfectly on the R5 with no loss of image quality, as there is no glass in the converter - it is essentially an empty tube with the relevant electrical contacts.

If you go for a used DSLR, I'd try to get a "reasonably" up to date model, as newer cameras tend to produce less noise, so higher ISO settings are more useable. In terms of Canon, I noticed you mentioned a 5Dmk2. I understand there was a pretty decent improvement in noise handling from the mk2 to the mk3. The mk3 is certainly a LOT better at higher ISO than the earlier 5Dmk1 (which I also have, but now rarely use). I also understand that there wasn't that much more improvement over the 5Dmk3 going to the 5Dmk4, so in many ways the mk3 was a bit of a sweet spot.

I can't comment on Nikon or other manufacturers, as I have no experience there.

Edited by C n C on Thursday 7th December 16:32

[velocemitch]

Jut posting this to follow an interesting and informative thread.
I’m currently wrestling with the decision to upgrade my 550D, not quite sure what yet, but current favourite is a 7D Mk2. But do I go full frame.... or even mirrorless !

Also for the OP’s benefit I found the transition from Film to DSLR quite painless, I hadn’t used the 35mm for a long time, but it was just like riding a bike you don’t forget the basics.

[Simpo Two]

sawman said:

Simpo Two said:

The part of that article that catches my eye is 'price'. If value is important I think you'll get more photographic bang for your buck with a DSLR and a major name simply because there's so much stuff out there, especially if you're happy with good s/h products.

Yeah, no issue with used - iI am comfortable with the bargain barge philosphy.
is a 12 year old canon likely to be reliable??

Who knows, but condition and shutter count would be a guide. With lenses I'd have less issue; my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 was bought s/h in 2005 and still works, as does the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 I bought new the same year.

[Tony1963]

Simpo Two said:

Who knows, but condition and shutter count would be a guide. With lenses I'd have less issue; my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 was bought s/h in 2005 and still works, as does the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 I bought new the same year.

Agreed. And a look at prices on somewhere like MPB for any used digital SLR will reflect these factors. What I will say though, is that shutter life isn’t anywhere near the concern it used to be, and prices asked for aren’t miles apart due to shutter usage.

Many used dSLR lenses are a bit of a bargain at the moment due to the general move to mirrorless. But with your eyes wide open, and brain firmly engaged, and you could have a cracking body with three well regarded lenses for under £1,500. My only word of caution would be to not spend too much if there’s a chance you’ll want to move to a mirrorless body and native lenses in the near future.

[Steve_H80]

You will get a used Nikon 3000 or 5000 series off ebay for £200, which is an inexpensive way into the game. If you're lucky you might get a twin lens kit with it.
If you prefer Canon they have their equivalents.