Hi,

This Christmas my wife and I have decided that instead of buying each other presents we will invest in a decent SLR camera. We have a number of point and shoot jobies but we want something that will take better pictures. Additionally, I would like something which will compensate for camera shake (see my forum name).

What recommendations do you have up to £600?

Thanks Shakey

For a camera numpty – none, you’ll be severely dissappointed IMO. The switch from compact to DSLR can be a shock about how little skill you have, it was for me! The only thing that yielded decent results was the auto setting at first, and that yielded about the same as I got from a decent compact. If you’re willing to put the time and effort in to learn it’ll reward you though, just don’t expect better pictures from one to begin with. Expect blurryness, out of focus and questioning the hardware.

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/recommend-me-an-entry-level-dslr

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Olympus–PL1-Compact-System-Camera/dp/B0036DE10I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323175165&sr=8-1

I’ve had a fair bit of use out of this, astounding for this money, as above I was disappointed at first but with a little effort you can get great things from it.

I almost want to buy one as a back up at this price

It’s important to try different cameras out, if you can to see what ‘feels’ right.

You’ll quickly get an idea of what cameras suit you.

Sony SLRs have vibration reduction built into the body, whereas most of them rely on the lens doing it. So – if you go for a Sony, you don’t need to go for ‘stabilised’ lenses.
I think there is another brand that does this, but can’t remember off the top of my head.

As coffeeking has pointed out, an SLR won’t instantly make all your pics great. Perhaps think about investing in a book or two, to give you some pointers.

To compensate for camera shake, get a bit of string and a bolt with a thread that can attach to your cameras fixybit on the bottom. Attach bolt to camera, tie string to bolt, stand on the other end of the string and pull the camera up till tight.
🙂

To compensate for camera shake, get a bit of string and a bolt with a thread that can attach to your cameras fixybit on the bottom. Attach bolt to camera, tie string to bolt, stand on the other end of the string and pull the camera up till tight.

*Rubs chin in wonder*

I’d look at Sony a35 or a55. They have a lot of user-aids – sweep panorama, multi-image noise reduction for low light shots, in camera hdr etc which will help as you learn to do things yourself. They’re very good value too and have class leading video (fast auto-focus which is missing from all other dslrs).

More importantly only Sony and Pentax do full-size DSLRs that have body based image stabilisation. So unlike any other manufacturer you can use any lens and it will be stabilised. If you need stabilisation this is a deciding factor (it is for me at least).

Finally… sony have a great range of good value lenses and you can use old auto-focus lenses from Minolta which are excellent, cheap and readily available on ebay. They are of course all stabilised thanks to the body.

If you want to consider something smaller than a dSLR I’d look at the Olympus m4/3 range (the e-p2 or e-pl2 in particular), for pretty much the same reasons as above.

For a camera numpty – none, you’ll be severely dissappointed IMO

I disagree with that. I think you’ll find 90%* of DSLR owners these days are camera numptys.

(*approximate, made up figure to suggest LOTS.)

Just a plus 1 for the sony a35
I just got one as a first SLR, got the dual lense kit + card and bag for about £600 from jessops

has been really easy to get the hang of the menus and settings where as the Canon and nikon’s just flummoxed us!

Get a film SLR like a Pentax ME super off ebay and some pentax lenses (28 & 50mm). Stops you just ckicking away and not really learning. I learnt more with a few hundred exposures with film than I did with tens of thousands with digital.

And digital images aren’t free, cost of camera divided by mean acctuations to failure of the shutter, + cost of printing out any of those pics adds up to make film not a bad option. The biggest difference was (for me) actualy seeing (properly, a bit like the difference between hearing and listening) at what was in the viewfinder, I must mentaly not click the shutter ten times for every time I acutaly take a picture.

The other advantage is I can actualy hang pics on the wall, and if I want enlargements they’re good quality, My dad had some made from my pentax when it used to be his 20 years ago that must be 3ft accross and still look good, try that with a DSLR!

Get a film SLR like a Pentax ME super off ebay and some pentax lenses (28 & 50mm).

Get a nice traction engine to travel in at the same time 😯

The other advantage is I can actualy hang pics on the wall, and if I want enlargements they’re good quality

Just not as good as a DSLR thanks to the poor grain and that all enlargements are digital these days so they’re from a scan.

Well.. if you expect to press the button and have amazing things come up on the screen then of course you’ll be disappointed. Plain old DSLR snaps look like compact camera snaps more or less, of course.

However if you know what it is that an SLR does better you will be able to exploit that and get better pictures. Contrary to what the purists say this does NOT necessarily mean putting it on manual and fiddling with the details, it means understanding what you’re working with.

Get a film SLR

Don’t. That’s a daft suggestion. Digital is so much better in every practical way.

And digital images aren’t free, cost of camera divided by mean acctuations to failure of the shutter, + cost of printing out any of those pics adds up to make film not a bad option

Film SLRs still have shutters to fail, and since when do you print out every digital image? The advantage of digital is that you can take 300 shots on a day out and if only three are good then you only print out three. There’s no way in hell I’d blast through 8 rolls of film shooting at my kids and tourist attractions. And contrary to TINAS I learned a hell of a lot more by trying everything I could think of than by worrying about the cost of film.

My dad had some made from my pentax when it used to be his 20 years ago that must be 3ft accross and still look good, try that with a DSLR!

I would expect the DSLR to come out on top at that size, to be honest.

Anyway – back to the OP: Sony.

I know you want me to say Canon xxxD, or Nikon XXXX, but seriously, buy any current entry level dSLR, from any manufacturer. Any one of them will be more camera than you need, for the foreseeable future at least.

Read further, on whatever the forums good people tell you, at http://www.dpreview.com .

Read further on what people recommending going back to a film camera say as http://www.care_in_the_community_gone_horribly_wrong.com

http://www.luminous-landscape.com is worth a look. It’s arty, grown-up and genteel. Does very good reviews too.

For a camera numpty – none, you’ll be severely dissappointed IMO

I disagree with that. I think you’ll find 90%* of DSLR owners these days are camera numptys.

(*approximate, made up figure to suggest LOTS.)

Aye, and lots you speak to will either use it on auto (no point) or will fairly rapidly stop using it because they can’t get the results they expect. Just from people I’ve spoken to, not a scientific test of course.