[Closed] Help with Digital SLR Camera

Anything from Nikon or Canon will do, just pick a few up and see what you like the feel of.

to be fair, any of the dslr's around that price are pretty equally good... go and try a few and see which you like the feel of.

Most likely the reason you friends shots look better than yours is nothing to do with the camera. They are a bit like bikes you see. Its where you point them that makes the difference.

If you still want an SLR then spend money on the lenses as they will make the most difference to your image quality. The sharper they are and the more light they let in the better.

What you want more from your P&S? Why do you want to upgrade, answer that question and you will get specific answers.

Otherwise any modern DSLR will fit the all rounder bill without much of a problem.

Personally for 400£ I'd get a D40 and the new Nikon 35mm, small light,simple helps you focus on composition and improve your photography.

Also worth looking at are the new mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras.

I've just got a Sony Nex 5 and am very pleased with it.
No viewfinder (unless you buy a separate one), and autofocus isn't quite as quick as most dslrs (since it's contract detection rather than phase based), but otherwise just as good and [i]way[/i] smaller.

One of the stand out differences between point and shoot cameras and SLRs is achieving a shallow depth of field - its really hard to get a blurred background with a point and shoot camera because the sensors are so small.

For action/people shots, a blurred background is essential if you want to highlight the subject as it stops background clutter from distracting your eye.

Its much less important for landscape photography where a large depth of field is needed.

The other advantage of a large sensor is much lower noise in low light.

Clearly neither small depth of field or low light performance are much interest for landscape photography however, so if that's the main use, a decent compact (i.e. one with a good lens) may well be fine.

Close up work is the main reason for me looking at going SLR most of the shots I take at the moment are either live music gigs or outdoor events biking / climbing etc and been let down so may times by my compact but some of this is think is down to the shutter speed its not instant like I think an SLR will be ( or I could be wrong )

think it's PC Pro that have a mini test on DSLR in this price bracket.
Sony and Pentax ring a bell from purusing the article.

Close up work is the main reason for me looking at going SLR most of the shots I take at the moment are either live music gigs or outdoor events biking / climbing etc

SLR will definitely be best then. However, for best results, be prepared to spend plenty on decent lenses. You'll want a good fast (ie large aperture) lens by the sounds of it.

As glenh said be prepared to spend your budget if not more on lens alone.

The 35mm I suggested is plenty fast but maybe it lacks in reach. Depending on how far you are you might be after the 50mm (300£) or a 150mm or a 70-200mm either well over 500£.

Thus a cheap body like the D40 - can be had for less than 200£ body only if you look about might be a good solution.

Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus... any of them will have comparable cameras for your budget.

Personally I'd look at the Sony a450 [url= http://www.wilkinson.co.uk/store/product.php?productid=20821 ]£299 with 18-55mm lens here...[/url] The a450 is a last year's model, so very cheap.

Sony have sensor based stabilisation so any old lens will be stabilised (rather than having to buy a newer stabilised lens). Sony use the Minolta alpha mount so the entire back catalogue of Minolta lenses is available to you.

Add a used Minolta 70-210 F4 for £120ish or a newer (used) Tamron 55-200 for £50ish and you've got a very competent kit. New fast 50mm, 30mm, 35mm, and 85mm primes are availble cheaply (and stabilised). Used fast 50mm and 28mm primes are availble even more cheaply too (~£70). And yes... old primes are stabilised too...

let down so may times by my compact but some of this is think is down to the shutter speed its not instant like I think an SLR will be ( or I could be wrong

SLR will be all but instant.

Good advice above - definitely consider 'last years' models but, to me, the key advice is to get your hands on them - if you're likely to use it a lot comfort in the hand is a big thing. Once you get shooting it is just like bikes - there's always a new model or, MUCH more importantly, better lenses to consider.... 😉

I'd echo the advice about buying last year's model: I bought an Olympus for under £300, when a year previously it was a £900 camera. I have no desire to upgrade, as it does all I want, but I would recommend really learning how to get the best out of your new camera by reading all you can get hold of. In the olden days it was expensive to learn how to use a camera - you had to pay for film & processing, but these days digital is free unless you print things.

At that sort of budget I'd think you'd be better off with a Samung EX-1 or A Pnasonic LX-5. Manual control, sharp lenses and fit in your pocket - check the reviews.

At that sort of budget I'd think you'd be better off with a Samung EX-1 or A Pnasonic LX-5. Manual control, sharp lenses and fit in your pocket - check the reviews.

You simply can't compare a tiny sensor camera like the EX-1 to a dslr. They can't compete on noise, dynamic range, tonal range or depth of field control.

I would recommend going down the second hand route and trying to get good glass. For example, Nikon do a very good 50mm f1.8 lens and you can normally pick those up second hand for about £60 to £80 - it's a small lens (so portable), relatively inexpensive and importantly the f1.8 bit means that you can achieve the shallow depth of field effects mentioned above [b]AND[/b] when you're in poor lighting conditions (indoors, forests, dusk) you can continue to get high enough shutter speeds to make a well exposed and shake free shots.

If you want to take action / race shots (and don't mind carrying a larger lens) Sigma have sold a 70-200mm f2.8 for many years which can be bought for the different lens systems and which offers very good performance - look for ones with HSM. Typically people rush out and get a zoom, obsessing about "reach" but without considering whether the lens itself is going to be good enough to get you the shot you want. So, zoom lenses which are f5.6 for example let in half as much light as an f2.8, which means in poor light you will struggle to get well exposed and shake free shots even when using a high ISO figure (1600).

Really, as much as the marketing machines of the big companies would try and make you believe otherwise, you don't need the latest model to take stunning shots. You can go back not just to last year's model, but right back three, four, five years and there are still good bodies to be found. The further back you go, the cheaper the price and potentially you get a more professional model, for cheap compact prices. My honest suggestion is to get a relatively inexpensive older model to get to grips with and then as your interest grows, you can invest in a better model and re-use the lenses you bought because you bought wisely.

I'd support that above, Get an older body, its the lens that matters... Remember, good photographers have been taking good photos for years, regardless of what the manufacturers imply. More megapixels allow you to take bigger pictures, but are you going to blow up and print your pics bigger than A4? Don't stress, cheap second hand body, [i]but..[/i] pick a modern brand that you like with a nice camera over your budget, say £500 for a body and follow that brand, that way, the lens is compatable, and features might cross over, so if you get really into it and want to buy a newer, more advanced camera, it will be easier to work with familiar features and layout!

have fun!

I think the Nikon's come with a better lense as standard but comand a bit more money. I have a Canon 400D which is brilliant, saw this deal through Argos outlet for a 450D which looks like an amazing price with full 12 months guarentee etc.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=330494310304

First thing, with any interchangeable camera, it is the lenses you invest in, not the bodies. Consider the bodies disposable after 3 or so years.

At the £400 end of the DSLR market, you'll get a basic body and a entry level lens. I'm not a fan.

I'd advise staying away from the entry level DSLRs and going for a mirrorless camera system. My recommendation would be to get into the Panasonic / Olympus Micro Four Thirds system. The best value would be a Panasonic G1 if you can find one for under £400. Any of the cameras in the G1 / GH1 / G2 / G10 / GH2 range would be a good starting point, and they are compact enough to take cycling.

The problem with getting and SLR, like a bike, is that it is a slippery slope to bankruptcy.

First you will NEED a few new lenses as the ones you have aren't quite right. You will then NEED a tripod and NEED a new bag. Then you will NEED a flash and then NEED multiple flashes (you'll call them strobes by then). You will NEED a new computer to process all the images and NEED photoshop to make them look all pro. You will NEED to get them printed at an expensive lab. You will NEED a second body in case your main one breaks...

It may be a bit more money but have you considered getting a DSLR with video? If you had the patience you could shoot an awesome MTB video with a DSLR and a decent lens.