Which way to go??
Discussion
Morning All
Currently in several minds over which way to go next on a camera purchase...
I have a Canon IXUS that’s about 6/7 years old. It’s very small and convenient and takes acceptable pictures in optimum conditions (though noticeably inferior to my sister in law's powershot sx210 and miles worse than a friend’s Canon DSLR). It also has a really poor lowlight performance and isn’t great where the subject matter isn’t more or less perfectly still.
So…new camera time, but with the caveat that the Ixus would be perfectly good to take on holiday.
Options
1. A much better compact? Keeps the compactness but with better all-round performance. Cheapest option!
2. A digital SLR, most likely to be used on Auto only by my wife though she tells me she'd like to get into it a bit more, and I’d be interested in learning a bit more about it as well. I had an EOS1000 about 18 years ago and did enjoy playing around with it but only went so far as the cost of developing 35mm experiments was a bit much as a student . However, digital offers infinite experimentation and much lower cost. The most expensive option though and I read that lenses that come as standard are often of a very average quality.
3. A ‘bridge’ camera such as Lumix DMC-FZx? Seems to have the positives and negatives of both compacts and DSLRs. Quite expensive though and doesn’t seem to fully realise the positives of either i.e. picture quality ultimately not as good as a DSLR and not nearly as small as a compact. Plus, lenses are either permanently attached or only a limited range to choose from.
4. A second-hand DSLR. These things seem to lose their value pretty quickly and this would enable me to get a very good body with a good to very good lens. I’d buy from a camera club or something and probably not eBay. I reckon that if it really wasn’t for me I could sell it again without losing too much.
Subject matter, initially, will be my son (posed and unposed i.e. running around) plus any other children that may come along. Plus family shots, and also nature (landscapes/gardens and close ups).
Budget…well £650-700 at the most.
Thanks in advance for taking the time to respond.
Currently in several minds over which way to go next on a camera purchase...
I have a Canon IXUS that’s about 6/7 years old. It’s very small and convenient and takes acceptable pictures in optimum conditions (though noticeably inferior to my sister in law's powershot sx210 and miles worse than a friend’s Canon DSLR). It also has a really poor lowlight performance and isn’t great where the subject matter isn’t more or less perfectly still.
So…new camera time, but with the caveat that the Ixus would be perfectly good to take on holiday.
Options
1. A much better compact? Keeps the compactness but with better all-round performance. Cheapest option!
2. A digital SLR, most likely to be used on Auto only by my wife though she tells me she'd like to get into it a bit more, and I’d be interested in learning a bit more about it as well. I had an EOS1000 about 18 years ago and did enjoy playing around with it but only went so far as the cost of developing 35mm experiments was a bit much as a student . However, digital offers infinite experimentation and much lower cost. The most expensive option though and I read that lenses that come as standard are often of a very average quality.
3. A ‘bridge’ camera such as Lumix DMC-FZx? Seems to have the positives and negatives of both compacts and DSLRs. Quite expensive though and doesn’t seem to fully realise the positives of either i.e. picture quality ultimately not as good as a DSLR and not nearly as small as a compact. Plus, lenses are either permanently attached or only a limited range to choose from.
4. A second-hand DSLR. These things seem to lose their value pretty quickly and this would enable me to get a very good body with a good to very good lens. I’d buy from a camera club or something and probably not eBay. I reckon that if it really wasn’t for me I could sell it again without losing too much.
Subject matter, initially, will be my son (posed and unposed i.e. running around) plus any other children that may come along. Plus family shots, and also nature (landscapes/gardens and close ups).
Budget…well £650-700 at the most.
Thanks in advance for taking the time to respond.
I'd say a new compact and a second hand DSLR would be the way to go.
In low light proper cameras are in a different league and if you fancy learning to use one then getting one second hand will mean you won't lose too much money if you don't get on with it. It's always worth having a reasonable compact camera as you won't want to carry a DSLR everywhere and you might miss some good stuff.
You should get both for comfortably under your budget.
In low light proper cameras are in a different league and if you fancy learning to use one then getting one second hand will mean you won't lose too much money if you don't get on with it. It's always worth having a reasonable compact camera as you won't want to carry a DSLR everywhere and you might miss some good stuff.
You should get both for comfortably under your budget.
I'd go second hand DSLR. If you get a Canon 450D or later (don't think it was on the 400?)then the 18-55mm IS kit lens is actually pretty decent.
The price of second hand camera bodies tends to drop quite rapidly. That of lenses far less so, as they have a much longer shelf life than the bodies, so if you but a second hand lens or two now, chances are you'll get back more or less what you paid for it when you come to upgrade.
The price of second hand camera bodies tends to drop quite rapidly. That of lenses far less so, as they have a much longer shelf life than the bodies, so if you but a second hand lens or two now, chances are you'll get back more or less what you paid for it when you come to upgrade.
giw12 said:
Unanimous so far for the 2nd-hand option!
To be honest, I was leaning in that direction.
Question...the 450D has been mentioned a couple of times...is it the 'daddy' or is it worth paying more for say a 40D?
The 450D is mid range - 40D gives you a bit more (I don't know what!). Depends how serious you are - for the 'average' amatuer I would think the 450D would be adequate To be honest, I was leaning in that direction.
Question...the 450D has been mentioned a couple of times...is it the 'daddy' or is it worth paying more for say a 40D?
giw12 said:
Unanimous so far for the 2nd-hand option!
To be honest, I was leaning in that direction.
Question...the 450D has been mentioned a couple of times...is it the 'daddy' or is it worth paying more for say a 40D?
I looked at both new, and went for the 450D out of choice rather than budget. One of my main reasons for this was that I was travelling a lot on business at the time, and the 40D is an absolute house brick in comparison, so I wouldn't have been able to fit it in carry-on luggage with a spare lens, which I could with the 450D.To be honest, I was leaning in that direction.
Question...the 450D has been mentioned a couple of times...is it the 'daddy' or is it worth paying more for say a 40D?
The 40D also seems to be mostly older technology, so if the faster maximum frame per second rate isn't important to you, then I couldn't really see anything to justify it. The 50D and 7D are a different matter, but then they're also a lot more costly!
dibbly dobbler said:
40D gives you a bit more (I don't know what!).
40D is an orsome camera, such a well balanced body on spec and pefomance fo price it should realy be no1 target.Great AF system, 6.5fps, great viewfinder, good LCD (not great by todays standards) superb ergonomics.
Just an all round excelent photographic machine and doesnt feel like a toy like the xxxD line does (nothing against the 450d but its tru).
RobDickinson said:
dibbly dobbler said:
40D gives you a bit more (I don't know what!).
40D is an orsome camera, such a well balanced body on spec and pefomance fo price it should realy be no1 target.Great AF system, 6.5fps, great viewfinder, good LCD (not great by todays standards) superb ergonomics.
Just an all round excelent photographic machine and doesnt feel like a toy like the xxxD line does (nothing against the 450d but its tru).
Having said that, it probably won't stop me saving up for an even larger 7D, but I'll be doing that knowing I can keep the 450D as a second body for travelling.
If you didn't know anything about photography and came to this forum you'd think Canon were the only camera maker in existence 
To the OP - One option you haven't considered (in your post, at least) is one of the new breed of 'mirrorless' cameras - they are DSLR-like in their manual controls and interchangable lenses, but compact-like in their size and weight.
They seem to be all the rage at the moment, but I don't know enough about them to offer any advice so you'll have to do your own research to see if they'd meet your needs.
There are also some very good compacts now that create great results and offer manual control as well - so they allow you dabble in the creative side of photography without the size & weight issues associated with a DSLR.
On the DSLR side, the Pentax K-x is regarded as a very good entry-level camera (disclaimer: I've never used one). It won "Best D-SLR Entry Level" at the 2010 Technical Image Press Association Awards. It (apparently) has awesome low-light capabilities, one of your requirements.
Adam
To the OP - One option you haven't considered (in your post, at least) is one of the new breed of 'mirrorless' cameras - they are DSLR-like in their manual controls and interchangable lenses, but compact-like in their size and weight.
They seem to be all the rage at the moment, but I don't know enough about them to offer any advice so you'll have to do your own research to see if they'd meet your needs.
There are also some very good compacts now that create great results and offer manual control as well - so they allow you dabble in the creative side of photography without the size & weight issues associated with a DSLR.
On the DSLR side, the Pentax K-x is regarded as a very good entry-level camera (disclaimer: I've never used one). It won "Best D-SLR Entry Level" at the 2010 Technical Image Press Association Awards. It (apparently) has awesome low-light capabilities, one of your requirements.
Adam
adamfogerty said:
If you didn't know anything about photography and came to this forum you'd think Canon were the only camera maker in existence
To the OP - One option you haven't considered (in your post, at least) is one of the new breed of 'mirrorless' cameras - they are DSLR-like in their manual controls and interchangable lenses, but compact-like in their size and weight.
They seem to be all the rage at the moment, but I don't know enough about them to offer any advice so you'll have to do your own research to see if they'd meet your needs.
There are also some very good compacts now that create great results and offer manual control as well - so they allow you dabble in the creative side of photography without the size & weight issues associated with a DSLR.
On the DSLR side, the Pentax K-x is regarded as a very good entry-level camera (disclaimer: I've never used one). It won "Best D-SLR Entry Level" at the 2010 Technical Image Press Association Awards. It (apparently) has awesome low-light capabilities, one of your requirements.
Adam
I'm in the same boat as the OP and have been tinkering with getting a better camera than my Ixus (which I have to say has seen some action and abuse in the past 6-7 years and is still very reliable). Similarly it needs to be something that is handily sized and keeps the automatic, quick snap ability but also allows some manual tinkering as it's something I want to start playing with. To the OP - One option you haven't considered (in your post, at least) is one of the new breed of 'mirrorless' cameras - they are DSLR-like in their manual controls and interchangable lenses, but compact-like in their size and weight.
They seem to be all the rage at the moment, but I don't know enough about them to offer any advice so you'll have to do your own research to see if they'd meet your needs.
There are also some very good compacts now that create great results and offer manual control as well - so they allow you dabble in the creative side of photography without the size & weight issues associated with a DSLR.
On the DSLR side, the Pentax K-x is regarded as a very good entry-level camera (disclaimer: I've never used one). It won "Best D-SLR Entry Level" at the 2010 Technical Image Press Association Awards. It (apparently) has awesome low-light capabilities, one of your requirements.
Adam
I ended up looking at the micro 4/3rds format cameras and they seem to tick my boxes; first generation ones like the Lumix GF1 or Olympus PEN seem to be a tad expensive but I can see their appeal. (Albeit from a neophytes perpective!)
You will get a good deal on a refurbed 450 on the canon outlet on ebay. Both my 350 and 40 have come from them and they have been perfect.
http://bit.ly/bLaVwy
I've never used a 450 but from a 350 the 40 seemed a massive step.
D
http://bit.ly/bLaVwy
I've never used a 450 but from a 350 the 40 seemed a massive step.
D
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff