Starter DSLR

[rfn]

I've had a variety of Canon Ixus cameras over the past few years, and I've just sold my 950IS to a friend for a reasonable sum. I'm looking to upgrade to a DSLR, but really don't know where to start.

From reading lots of threads on here the consensus seems to be to stick with Canon or Nikon, and I know I'll need a tripod, some lenses and maybe in the future a flashgun.

I currently have a tripod, though it was only cheap, so for now I want to focus on the body & one or two starter lenses - I tend to like taking photos of automotive stuff, racing, moving cars etc, but will be doing some candid wedding shots in October?

What can people recommend as the best "on a budget"? Ideally I'm looking in the £300 to £400 budget?

[clonmult]

I was just about to post the same basic question!

I'm trying to stop myself from getting into the DSLR game (I've just put a battery in my rather lovely Canon AE-1, 30 years old, still going strong), but I'm failing ....

I'm figuring on :
Nikon D40 - Argos had a good deal on them (£245), but they don't appear to have any in stock. Anywhere!
Sony Alpha 200 - looks quite good
Olympus E420 - micro four thirds makes the size a little easier to get on with, although not a great selection of lenses available at the moment
Canon EOS1000D - a little more expensive, but I was brought up on Canon SLRs (AE-1, AV-1, A-1)

SWMBO has started to question how many cameras I actually need though. Whats she going on about, I've only got the 5mp in the phone, 12mp Kodak (thats very inconsistent), and the 5mp/HD camcorder. Thats only 3! Well, plus the AE-1 .... (film is a bit expensive these days!)

• eta*

Check out :
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat1.html

Good for getting the prices on the more popular models around.

Edited by clonmult on Friday 3rd July 15:14

[jon-]

You could do a search as it's been covered a fair few times recently

Basically, as you're a canon user some will say 450d + kit, others will say 400d + nicer lens second hand and some smart arse will pipe up with 40d. So take your pick, YMMV

Personally, I'd get a reconditioned / barely used second hand 400d and put the savings over the 450d towards a nicer telephoto than kit and a 50mm f1.8 prime.

[GetCarter]

You are right - stick to Nikon or Canon - best choice of new and second hand lenses (and most respected glass).

If you choose the Nikon route, then for motorsport I suggest the 70-300.

As I understand it, the D40 has kinda' been replaced by the D60... hence stock issues.

As with the D40 and D40X, the new D60 doesn't have an built-in focus drive motor which means it can auto focus only with lenses which have their own drive motor (AF-S and AF-I lenses).

Nikon: 'shoot and foot' spring to mind.

Edited by GetCarter on Friday 3rd July 15:28

[clonmult]

jon- said:

You could do a search as it's been covered a fair few times recently

Basically, as you're a canon user some will say 450d + kit, others will say 400d + nicer lens second hand and some smart arse will pipe up with 40d. So take your pick, YMMV

Personally, I'd get a reconditioned / barely used second hand 400d and put the savings over the 450d towards a nicer telephoto than kit and a 50mm f1.8 prime.

What about the 1000D? Is that considerably worse than the 450d?

A 50mm f1.8 ... takes me back - I had a 50mm f1.7 years back on a Chinon CM-3, excellent lens.

[jon-]

clonmult said:

jon- said:

You could do a search as it's been covered a fair few times recently

Basically, as you're a canon user some will say 450d + kit, others will say 400d + nicer lens second hand and some smart arse will pipe up with 40d. So take your pick, YMMV

Personally, I'd get a reconditioned / barely used second hand 400d and put the savings over the 450d towards a nicer telephoto than kit and a 50mm f1.8 prime.

What about the 1000D? Is that considerably worse than the 450d?

A 50mm f1.8 ... takes me back - I had a 50mm f1.7 years back on a Chinon CM-3, excellent lens.

Have a google for the exact details, but i believe the 1000d is a mishmash of parts from the 350/400/450d and has some pretty undesirable parts carried over from the 350d.

ETA: it's the AF in the 1000d that's from the 350d, 6 point instead of 9.

The 50mm f1.8 is probably the best £90 you'll ever spend

Edited by jon- on Friday 3rd July 17:10

[Ravell]

I'll echo the stick with Nikon and Canon comment. As far as Nikon goes, the D40 and D60 with the 18-55mm kit lens is a great starter SLR. For the automotive stuff, having some telephoto is more than a bit useful, so you can either keep it really cheap and go for the Nikkor 55-200mm, or for a bit of extra cash, the 70-300mm. For the wedding type stuff, having the cheap but excellent 35mm f1.8 is worth concidering, as it's great for low light and provides very good subject isolation with it's limited depth of field at or near full apeture.

[anonymous-user]

again Nikon or Canon. I have a Nikon D70 & D300 (SWMBO decided a D3x was not allowed ).

Lenses


1. 50mm 1.8 (Nikon or canon this will be the best lens you will get)
2. 70-300 VR (nikon or canon)
3. tamron 28-75 F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)

What you get next depends on what you shoot, for landscapes, groups etc then a wide angle zoom, or for long range stuff eg sports, game, birding, andpossibly motorosport it's worth trying to find a secondhand (or save up for ) a sigma 50-500.

edit to add: you will keep the lenses longer than the camera body in most cases, so worth planning your lens collection (unlike me who just bought more shiny toys)

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 4th July 08:58

[Nolar Dog]

Or a second hand D50 or D70.

With the 18-55 and 70-300 lenses and you're away.

[BigAlinEmbra]

If you're dead set on starting cheap, then a D40 is a good bet. I got one for £215 just before xmas, and you can get them for £280 on Amazon still.

In addition to the 18-55 that came with it, I've managed to snag a Sigma 70-300 and Nikon 50mm f1.8 for about £150. Meets your budget, and gives you a nice variety of lenses.

Splashed out a wee bit more on a Lowepro slingshot bag, as I'm not really a fan of the traditional bags and wanted something a bit more backpack like.
http://products.lowepro.com/product/SlingShot-200-...


Now all set to make a cod of picture of the Dolomites in a couple of weeks time!


IMO I'd avoid the Sony option. Their marketing strategy was to sell bodies cheap and make up money on the lenses. Added to that you've got non-standard memory cards which cost a bit more, and they just don't really turn out to be the cheap option.
Nikon and Canon have been at it years, and there must be some reason all the pros turn to them.
Might be worth also considering if you've got any mates into photography, as you can piggyback on their upgrades and nab their old lenses off them...

[rfn]

I've just bought a 350d. Came with the 18-55mm lens.

It arrived this morning and it seems pretty good, but not really sure what I'm doing yet - just playing in fully automatic mode!!

[convert]

BigAlinEmbra said:

IMO I'd avoid the Sony option. Their marketing strategy was to sell bodies cheap and make up money on the lenses. Added to that you've got non-standard memory cards which cost a bit more, and they just don't really turn out to be the cheap option.

I beg to differ. The Sony alpha range of DLSR's have a lens mount that can use a variety of the older Minolta Film and Digital AF lenses (50mm F1.7 for around £70 anyone). Sony's have the image stability system built into the body, another plus point.

I've used a variety of CF cards in my Sony Alpha, as well as Sony Memory sticks in the supplied adapter.

The only real issue with the Sony DSLR's is external flash; bery few manufacturers cater for the hotshoe used on the Sony (which incidentally is the same as the Minolta SLR'd and DSLR's). Sony do a few external flash guns, as do a few other manufacturers, but you can use several of the old Minolta Guns, the 2500D is the earliest I believe.

[onomatopoeia]

BigAlinEmbra said:

IMO I'd avoid the Sony option. Their marketing strategy was to sell bodies cheap and make up money on the lenses. Added to that you've got non-standard memory cards which cost a bit more, and they just don't really turn out to be the cheap option.

Compact Flash cards aren't used by anything else and are completely non-standard . Some of the Sony bodies also accept the sony memory stick (the A700 can take both for example but that's out of starter range).

As for lenses, Sigma and Tamron lenses generally cost the same irrespective of mount. If you are talking about Canon L vs Sony G then we are a bit outside a "Starter DSLR" topic.

The cost of some old Minolta glass has gone up due to the popularity of the Sony bodies, the 50mm f/1.7 is up to £100 for a mint one and the 70-210 f/4 £130-150. Quite a lot of the other stuff is still cheap s/h and almost all Minolta A mount stuff works on Sony DSLRs (a few very old Sigma and Tokina lenses need new chips for the camera to detect them).

One advantage of the Sonys - body stabilisation, so if you want IS instead of buying IS lenses you get it on the body and all the lenses you buy work with it, even the 20 year old Minolta ones.

I went Sony because my film camera was a Minolta and I didn't want to go through the aggro of selling the old lenses and buying new. As it happens I ended up with my interest being re-ignited to such an extent that I bought some better glass anyway .

[Simpo Two]

onomatopoeia said:

Compact Flash cards aren't used by anything else and are completely non-standard

You mean the CF cards as used in every Nikon above mid-range?

[GetCarter]

onomatopoeia said:

Compact Flash cards aren't used by anything else and are completely non-standard

Apart from about 50% of professional photographers of course.

[clonmult]

convert said:

BigAlinEmbra said:

IMO I'd avoid the Sony option. Their marketing strategy was to sell bodies cheap and make up money on the lenses. Added to that you've got non-standard memory cards which cost a bit more, and they just don't really turn out to be the cheap option.

I beg to differ. The Sony alpha range of DLSR's have a lens mount that can use a variety of the older Minolta Film and Digital AF lenses (50mm F1.7 for around £70 anyone). Sony's have the image stability system built into the body, another plus point.

I've used a variety of CF cards in my Sony Alpha, as well as Sony Memory sticks in the supplied adapter.

The only real issue with the Sony DSLR's is external flash; bery few manufacturers cater for the hotshoe used on the Sony (which incidentally is the same as the Minolta SLR'd and DSLR's). Sony do a few external flash guns, as do a few other manufacturers, but you can use several of the old Minolta Guns, the 2500D is the earliest I believe.

+1

CF cards are non-standard? They were THE standard on digital cameras up to 3/4 years back.

Can't say they're particularly expensive either, with a 4GB card coming in between £10 and £20, and SDHC being between around £8-£18. 8GB CF between £20-£40, and 8GB SDHC between £10 and £40.

And to be honest, if you're spending upwards of say £400, spending an extra few quid on a memory card smacks of stupid penny pinching.

My only issue with the A200 is that the popup flash doesn't popup far enough.

The big bonus has to be the lens mount being compatible with the older Minolta range - you can get the beercan lenses for relatively low prices, and there's a huge range available.

[GetCarter]

I just wonder if anyone sees any Sonys in the hands of a pro. I'm sure there must be some, but look at any footie match or Grand Prix, or outside number 10, and it's Canon followed by Nikon... with no third place.

(and LOTS of CF cards)

[onomatopoeia]

GetCarter said:

onomatopoeia said:

Compact Flash cards aren't used by anything else and are completely non-standard

Apart from about 50% of professional photographers of course.

and all Sony DSLRs. Sorry, I was being a bit silly, I was irked that someone posted that Sony used non-standard memory in their DSLRs and used sarcasm in an internet post, which doesn't really work.

edit as I just saw your other post - there were some Sonys amongst the press at Wimbledon on centre court, not as many as Canon or Nikon of course but more than zero.

Edited by onomatopoeia on Friday 10th July 10:33

[jon-]

GetCarter said:

I just wonder if anyone sees any Sonys in the hands of a pro. I'm sure there must be some, but look at any footie match or Grand Prix, or outside number 10, and it's Canon followed by Nikon... with no third place.

(and LOTS of CF cards)

Probably not too many hasselblads at footie matches either

[GetCarter]

jon- said:

GetCarter said:

I just wonder if anyone sees any Sonys in the hands of a pro. I'm sure there must be some, but look at any footie match or Grand Prix, or outside number 10, and it's Canon followed by Nikon... with no third place.

(and LOTS of CF cards)

Probably not too many hasselblads at footie matches either

I used to take mine