In the market for my first digital SLR camera. Any recommendations?

Is this any good:

Canon EOS 1100D

You can’t go wrong with any DSLR these days – choices are more dictated by what you prefer the feel of in your hand, and what system mates are using when you need to borrow that macro or telephoto lens.

So go to a shop and handle a few!

Cheers, don’t want to get something like the above and then find it needs upgrading shortly after.

Cheers, don’t want to get something like the above and then find it needs upgrading shortly after.

Of course it will. It’s technology.

It’s also ancient technology, hence the price.

If you don’t read camera forums though you may never find out.

What I’m saying is, is it ok for the average user. Obviously if you’re a pro then you’ll need something better.

dont know much about dslr to be honest but ive not heard many say the 1100 is the best choice unless your budget is the most important thing.

even the nikon 3100 should be better at slightly more money

lovetoride – Member
In the market for my first digital SLR camera. Any recommendations?

Is this any good:

Canon EOS 1100D

I have a 1100d and as a starter it does what I want and it’s a good price and takes good pictures. Had it about 6 months and no complains I do have the 300mm lens as well which makes a big difference.
If your going to mainly use the auto settings to start off with and while you get used to the manual settings why pay any more to start off.
Steve

it needs upgrading shortly after.

It won’t NEED upgrading. But if you let the internet bullshitters persuade you, you might think it does…!

All SLRs are good, as above. Just make sure you try the likes of Sony, and Pentax as well as Canon and Nikon. Also look at compact systems too.

I bought first DSLR for £60, two more lenses for £63. And really enjoy it. It is a great wee camera, and is teaching me much about taking pictures, how much I enjoy it, and what ‘better’ camera I would want later on.
It is a Pentax K100D. Blown away by image quality – not sure why you would spend £600-1000 on something that I am limiting factor on. (a bit like bikes..)

Just bought one, having cut my teeth on film SLR many years ago. Sure the kit lens isn’t the best but it’ll let you get a feeling for the format and inform you enough as to whether you wish to go further or not.

Still trying to make the leap into the DLSR world (other things get in the way)
Firstly What do you want to do with it? Landscapes, action, HD video?
Secondly try an independant camera shop/proper camera shop where you get to talk to someone who actually takes pics – got some great advice when I was looking.
Read some of the reviews out there
Back to point 1 and look at lenses

That looks fine as a “starter” SLR. I didn’t realize they’d got that cheap TBH. That’s got more features/spec than my 350D and I’m still happy with the body – I’ve got a better lens.
I’d suggest that the best way to go is cheaper body/expensive lens. The body will always depreciate faster due to new tech and if you upgrade you keep your good lens.
The great thing about a digital SLR, as opposed to the old film ones, is that you can get instant feedback on what you did and what effects the settings have – no need to jot every setting down in a notebook now as the info. is all attached to the image file, I found it allowed me to improve my photography very quickly.

I got my first dslr 5 years ago. They were the same price then (and the same spec as the one linked). There are less cheap ones these days as the cheap space has less competition from dslrs now (thanks to mirrorless moving in).

I just got the 700D (the one above that) and am happy with it so far.

Dont pay too much for a body as they wiil go out of date quickly. Buy a cheap body like the 1100D/100D/700D/650D/600D/550D or nikon equivalent.

Then invest in lenses, tripods, bags etc which wont go out of date. The body will be out of date in 3-5 years.

At any given price point all the cameras are basically the same in terms of performance. Where they differ is how well they fit in your hand, how easy you find the menu to navigate etc

As others have said pop into a camera shop and play around with a few as see what suits you the best.

Camera technology is not a new and emerging technology, so its not like its very basic at the moment with new features being added on in regular intervals. So you are unlikely to “need” to upgrade. But it is technology so it will be improved upon to make it better quality.

All that will happen is some of the features you get in high end cameras will filter down into lower priced cameras so its easy to predict what the future will bring. Have a look at cameras outside your budget and see if you will want to upgrade in the future.

SLRs on a budget are very tricky.
I don’t think you’ll be blown away by the quality of the kit lens.
Budget for a Canon 50mm f1.8 (about £75) and really see what it can do.

Problem then, is that a general zoom lens up to the same quality is £400+

Very difficult to keep DSLR photography cheap. For a long time, I just went everywhere with my 50mm and got used to the camera and techniques.

Eventually, I upgraded the kit lens to a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for about £250 and it’s fine, although still not as good as I’d like.

You may be better buying something older and cheaper like matt_outandabout said to see how you get on with it. Canon and Nikon lenses stay very expensive.

The body will be out of date in 3-5 years.

Again “like bikes” – it won’t be out of date. There will be newer versions available, but your 5 year old camera (or bike) will still do the job perfectly well.

Digital SLRs are a massive step up over normal cameras … we have a EOS 300D, its a dinosaur now but it still takes wonderful photos. Best tip I’d say is think carefully about the lenses you want, I’d say that will make more difference than the exact camera model as frankly they are all fabulous. As per @matt’s post above something used could make sense

Your next issue will be your computer and storage, if you get into digital photos you’ll probably want some more storage and possibly better processor/ram for photo manipulation and video …

Again “like bikes” – it won’t be out of date. There will be newer versions available, but your 5 year old camera (or bike) will still do the job perfectly well.

Yes, and the lenses are unlikely to change for a long time, so no compatibility worries.
My 40D doesn’t feel old – it’s only the lack of video that keeps making me think of a move to the 60D

Yes, and the lenses are unlikely to change for a long time, so no compatibility worries.
My 40D doesn’t feel old – it’s only the lack of video that keeps making me think of a move to the 60D

Dont do it, 70D is on the horizon, maybe July, with wifi and GPS, but still 18MP sensor, but with rumored new AF system.

I was holding out for one, but opted for the 700D to get me started.

If I ever upgrade now though it will be to an XD (6D, 7D, 5D) range and not the XXD, but that will only be when and if I outgrow the 700D.

But the 70D will be £700+ probably (maybe even more)

The 60D is £422 (new import) with the 40D still fetching £190 on ebay.

Go play with some in a shop. They all have the controlls in different places, designed for different sized hands, and have different features. None of them are bad, but some will work better than others at certain situations. You could make your decision on something as trivial as the menu system and how intuitive it is to you. The best camera in the worlds useless if you’re elbow deep in the manual while the moment passes.

I wouldn’t wory about bodies going out of date and being superceeded, if you buy the one with the features you’ll need or want then it’ll last until you break it. If you want to use it as a DSLR rather than a overly complicated and bulky P&S then seperate controls for appeture and shutter speed is nice. For MTB things like wireless flash triggers built in, TTL metering, fold out screen for getting low angles, the Cannon 650D has all that. Or the Pentax cameras have stabilisation built into the body rather than the lense, which makes future lense upgrades cheeper as you effectively have to buy the stabilisation system every time you buy another cannon or nikon lense. They also shoot 7fps and have weather resisant lenses and bodies, making them good for sports and outdoors use.

Most features are just niceties anyway. There’s very little that actually changes what you do with the camera. All SLRs, mirrorless cameras, and many bridge cameras have the basics that you really need to get pictures in pretty much all situations.

The only thing that more money gets you is stuff like higher burst shooting rate, better performance in low light, features for controlling remote flashes, higher video quality/frame rate, maybe faster autofocus (in the case of mirrorless cameras this has improved a lot since they came out – not much difference in SLRs really), image stabilisation and so on.

For me, two of the most important features are a flip-out rear screen and weather sealing. These things don’t really change, a flip out screen on a 5 year old camera still does the same job as one on a new camera just as well. Higher ISO performance is nice though, as long as it comes with similar AF performance. It’s no good being able to take pictures in dim rooms if you can’t focus on anything. Image stabilisation is really nice, and there have been some advances in that. The Olympus OM-D for instance has 5 axis stabilisation whereas my E-600 only has 2.

I spent a day with a pro photographer teaching me about lighting, and his most memorable comment to me was, “cameras are all sh*te, it’s the lens that makes the difference”.
He went on to say that most low end DSLRs will do the job unless you want really low ISO, or really high resolution because you are blowing your images up massively. Also the more expensive pro slr bodies are made of alloy rather than plastic, and are totally sealed against weather. So get a second hand pro body would be a better option IMHO

Pro bodies also tend to be huge and heavy.

The lens does make difference, but it’s fairly subtle. A 6×4 printout of a picture taken on a kit lens won’t look much different to one with a high end lens, to most people.

Larger apertures give more light gathering, but unless you are talking about prime lenses the cost is huge. My 14-42mm kit lens is f3.5-5.6, and goes for less than £100. The apparently fabulous 12-60mm f2.8-f4.0 is £800 and for that you don’t even get a whole stop of extra light. The images are a lot sharper when analysed, but you have to zoom right in on your computer and start looking around to see the difference. You can save yourself £700 by simply not doing that 🙂 It’s also a lot bigger and heavier than mine.

If you want to really expand your photography though, it makes far more sense to buy different types of lenses, as these really will make a huge difference to what you can do. You might have the best 50mm prime in the world but if a beautiful bird is 30 yards away you will never be able to get a decent picture of it. Nor will you be able to capture a beautiful landscape, or an insect closeup.

I’ve got a kit zoom, 30mm f1.4, ultra wide angle, long tele, medium tele, pancake prime, fisheye and macro lens. All that plus my camera cost me less than a Canon 5D with one lens 🙂

So get a second hand pro body would be a better option IMHO

I disagree 🙂

Unless you happen to need to shoot in the rain and sling your kit in the boot of your car every day weather sealed and heavy build is worthless.

A modern mid-range body will be cheaper, have a better sensor, better AF and better frame rates than a second hand pro body.

A 2nd hand pro body from Nikon or Canon is still going to be really expensive too.
(Canon 5D well used still go for £450+)

I just picked up a mint EOS 630 for less than a 3 pack of film & battery.

Why?

Why not. It was very cheap.

How did that happen?

I still enjoy my ancient 350d with the fabled 50mm prime. Only features I miss from newer higher spec models would be a bigger screen and video, bit neither are big enough motivators to get me to part with the cash.

I’d go for a cheap used body to learn the basics and possibly decide what really interests you then go from there.

I ended up most enjoying playing around with off camera flash which is cheap at a hobby level as you can get remote triggers, filters and reflectors really cheap from China.

I only really wish for weather sealing, better AF performance in the dark, more focal length and occasionally video. But I’m still happy with it – use what you have 🙂

Photography is more about light and composition than it is about having the best camera.

All i will say about the spec. is that’s the old kit lens on there – the new one is the 18-55 IS which is sharper and has image stabilisation, so if you can find one with the IS kit lens then go for that instead.

Other than that it’s a nice camera for the price and a 2 year warranty.

I still like my old Canon 400D, it takes good photos. Last year upgraded to a better lens and it made a huge difference. I would agree with others saying it’s better to invest in good lenses. If I were buying a new DSLR now, think I would go for Nikon, mainly because old SLR lenses still fit new DSLR bodies, which is not the case with Canon, where you’d need adapters…

The problem with old lenses is they don’t have autofocus. Grass is always greener……

These are all photographs taken with the 1100D.

ENJOY

I agree, the lack of autofocus can be a bit of a nuisance, depends what you’re shooting, I guess. I just like to experiment with old lenses (cheap ones as well), they give interesting results…but then with photoshop and others you can pretty much change photos in any way you want…

The problem with old lenses is they don’t have autofocus.

Depends what you mean by old. AF came into the mainstream in the mid-80s.

I’ve got a few 25 year old AF lenses. That’s pretty old.

Yes, and the lenses are unlikely to change for a long time, so no compatibility worries.
My 40D doesn’t feel old – it’s only the lack of video that keeps making me think of a move to the 60D
Dont do it, 70D is on the horizon, maybe July, with wifi and GPS, but still 18MP sensor, but with rumored new AF system.

I was holding out for one, but opted for the 700D to get me started.

If I ever upgrade now though it will be to an XD (6D, 7D, 5D) range and not the XXD, but that will only be when and if I outgrow the 700D.

The 60D image quality is far worse than the 40D, I was pretty disappointed when I borrowed one.

The savvy one would look at used Pentax ones, dirt cheap and well built.

I bought a K200D with two lenses and a lowe pro bag for £133 as a camera to take to the beach etc with the kids. It’s pretty good and the good manual primes are cheap. I ended up selling the 55-300 that came with it and buying two primes with the money, got myself a new genuine grip for £19.99 and a TTL flash for £20. (got a bit carried away)

Really – all reports I’ve seen suggest that it’s ever-so-slightly better (basically the resolution is a red herring – doesn’t add anything).

Here’s a link to the DxOMark comparison:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/663|0/%28brand%29/Canon/%28appareil2%29/180|0/%28brand2%29/Canon