1) DSLR bodies;
a) Spend as much as you can in the hope of not outgrowing or being left behind technologicaly
b) Buy the low end one and spend the money on lenses, but does this risk ending up with a load of aps-c sized lenses which wont work quite so well if FF sensors trickle down? Not that I can afford a FF body, but could be tempted to wait if they’re likely to trickle down in the next couple of years.

2) Cheep Flashes.
Someone recomended some of the flashes and remote’s off DX. But I can’t find the thread and it’s winter time again so natural lights a bit limited.

3) Cannon Vs Nikkon
Is it still the case that the bodies are much of a muchness but the cannon kit lenses aren’t as good as the nikkon ones? Looking at the cheeper end of the spectrum.

full frame sensors aren’t going to trickle down.

Lenses are more important than bodies and keep their value better

cheap flahses – if you;re going off camera, then yes, get cheap flashes. CHeck the talk photogrpahy forum for more info

Canon, nikon, whatever takes your fancy / fits you better / is available

4) If you are considering choosing between Canon and Nikon choose the one you have most experience of – the controls on them are *generally* very similar across the range. I use Canon simply because I had a Canon 35mm film camera and the controls are almost identical to the newer digital versions and it saved me re-learning controls.

1) In my opinion, buy the body that suits your budget at the time, but don’t pay over the odds for one at the sake of a crappy lens.
My D80 still does the job, but bodies have come on quite a way and I hanker after the improved ISO performance of the newer bodies.

2) cheap flashes. Don’t know. I recently bought an SB-700 for my camera, but haven’t had the chance to use it really that much. I wanted to get something that would work with the Nikon creative lighting system and would be an easy introduction to using flash. For me, the extra money spent over non-Nikon flash was worth it to get improved functionality & help me learn about using flash, particularly off-camera.

3) I thought it was only the old Canon 18-55 that was considered a bit rubbish? That at least seemed the case when i bought my D80 several years ago.
With the whole ‘which brand’ thing, the most important thing is to get what feels comfortable & intuitive to you.

You can buy a FF body for not crazy money – £600ish for a 5D MK I (which I’ve got). It’s just that to make the most of FF you then end up wanting/buying some crazily expensive lenses. 😉

Canon vs Nikon:

Nikon – better AF/high ISO noise in low light, better wireless flash control
Canon – better video modes – decent lenses a bit cheaper than Nikon equivalents

Well my current camera’s are a Asahi/Pentax film SLR (veryyyyy basic, 28mm and 50mm lenses, but suprisingly fun to use as a result) and a fuji S9500 bridge bought off here which I’m finding I’m using more and more fully manaualy, and it really struggles in low light (iso800 is a bit grainy, iso 1600 is like a 90’s compact with a plastic lense) so I was hopeing a larger sensor would help with shooting moving targets in the dark (i.e bikes in the woods).

So in terms of controlls I’ve no preferance.

I played with d40’s and 350d’s last time I was looking into getting a camera (ended up with the s9500), and didn’t have any ergonomic criticisms of either. Hence thinking the same again.

You can buy a FF body for not crazy money – £600ish

Yea, that’s the kind of level I’d get into trouble even using the usual “halve it’s value and don’t include any accesories when you tell the missus what it cost” rule.

Fair enough 🙂

My perceptions of what is a reasonable amount of money to spend have been slightly skewed by getting into paid wedding photography, where spending £600 on a 5D MK I is being a skinflint. 😯

If £600 is a lot of money to you for this hobby, then that answers the full frame point for you. Just ignore full frame entirely.

Canon v Nikon (or others) doesn’t really matter if you don’t have any previous equipment/experience.
I would say if you get a Nikon cheap, make sure it has a motor for the lenses (the D40 didn’t for example which limits your lens choice).

Go and handle a few and see what feels right in the hand. For me, at the time I bought I liked the Nikon D70 and the Canon 40D but didn’t like the smaller ones.

In fact if you aren’t really bothered about video, I would just go out and buy a used Canon 40D. There. Job done.
Add a nifty fifty and a good walkabout zoom lens (I use a Tamron 17-50) and you’re good to go.

Re: flash. Cheap flashes are great for off-camera work (maybe with some cheap wireless triggers) and for instances where you can control the shooting environment (home studio and experimentation), but if you want a do-everything flash get a camera-brand-specific one.

1) Lenses tend to hold their value and don’t get superseded all that often. Bodies on the other hand are constantly coming out with new features. If you do find that you need to retire a lens for whatever reason, the resale value should be good.

3) Canon vs Nikon; there’s subtle differences but they’re comparable for all practical purposes. More important would be “what feels right to you” and “do you have any mates who can lend you gear”.

Like MF said, I went with Canon because I picked up a Canon and it felt comfortable and intuitive to me, I picked up a Nikon and went ‘urgh, WTF?’

Nikon – better AF/high ISO noise in low light,

Not wanting to start a boring argument, but I thought lower noise at high ISO was one of the Canon advantages?

I was hopeing a larger sensor would help with shooting moving targets in the dark

A larger sensor will improve your image quality, but what you really need there is a faster lens that lets in more light. (Not that I’m biased or anything, but Canon do a 50mm F2.8 prime for 80 quid…)

I would just go out and buy a used Canon 40D.

Why the 40D particularly over, say, a 500D? (Not that I’m disagreeing, just curious as it was a route that hadn’t occurred to me).

but what you really need there is a faster lens that lets in more light. (Not that I’m biased or anything, but Canon do a 50mm F2.8 prime for 80 quid…)

True, and 90% of the time I use the 50mm lense on the pentax and there abouts on the fuji’s zoom, so a fast ~35-40mm lense would be on the shopping list, but if the body can work at iso800 or 1600 without looking pap then thats a bonus.

Cheap flashes are great for off-camera work (maybe with some cheap wireless triggers)

Pretty much my plan, plenty on DX with subtle differences so just need to decide on which one exactly to get if anyone has any experiences. I’ll probably get these first as I can play arround with them on the fuji as well.

Why the 40D particularly over, say, a 500D? (Not that I’m disagreeing, just curious as it was a route that hadn’t occurred to me).

Well.
The differences between the 600D and 60D are pretty subtle, but back when it was the 400D/40D/500D/50D there were quite a few.
First, the handling is completely different including the size/shape and also the lovely extra function wheel on the 40D. It makes changing settings while looking through the viewfinder really easy.

I owned a 400D briefly and never got on with it that well. As soon as I got the 40D it transformed how confident I felt about taking photos just because everything was at my fingertips, I found it easier to hold steady and there was a noticeable reduction in image noise. (that might not be true when comparing the 40D/500D though).

When the 50D was launched it was slated a bit for being no better than the 40D so I always felt like I’d bought at the right time.

I still don’t feel any need whatsoever to upgrade apart from the addition of video.

I’m not saying the other routes aren’t good for someone else, but I really did feel that the 40D was in a different class to the 400D.

looking at it from the other point of view, I turned down the chance to buy a 50D and have recently purchased a secondhand 500D, as I found the 50D too big and bulky to be practicable to carry around when biking. I was looking at the 600D but decided that the extra £200 for a new 600D over a s/h 500D wasn’t justified for what I’m going to be doing.

<nods> I pulled out the 500D fairly arbitrarily there, I was meaning the xx0D range in general really.

the 60D and the 600D seem to be very close feature wise (looking at their respective ages, I’m expecting them to announce a 70D Real Soon Now). I can’t see much to justify the large price hike of the 60D. The 50D seems to have been ill received (again, too little a change from the 40D for the price) and so the 40D is a bit of a darling. But, it’s getting long in the tooth compared to the current crop of three-digit models.

I think perhaps you’ve both nailed it there – they’re fairly comparable but the 40D has more direct controls (as you’d expect from a higher stream camera) but at the expense of size and weight.

I still don’t feel any need whatsoever to upgrade apart from the addition of video.

TBH I’m not all that fussed about video. I really like the swing-out LCD on the 600D (and the 550D? I think) though, I can see that being really useful for strange angle shots. Live View and a monopod, anyone? But yeah, there’s nothing to make me want to run out and upgrade my 450D yet..