[Closed] advice a digital slr

I have a D60 though I wished I had bought something more like the d90 as I have quickly 'out grown' it. I didnt have the money at the time!

I have a Nikon D60 too and really like it, although I can understand it has it's limitations. The new version (D5000 I believe) is supposed to be very good indeed.

It isn't technically a DSLR but i bought a Panasonic GF1 and am very happy with it, far more discreet than most DSLRs with most of the advantages.

It isn't technically a DSLR but i bought a Panasonic GF1

in fact it isn't one at all...

sfb did i say it was a DSLR? no thought not, As i said something to consider, why is the OP after a DSLR, do they need a DLSR or are they using the term as a generic for a camera where the user has control and the lenses can be changed?

sfb did i say it was a DSLR? no thought not

you said "technically isn't" which implies "tenuously is"

you said "technically isn't" which implies "tenuously is"

I'm given to pedantry but Jesus H. Christ....

Considering one too (yes DSLR as I fancy being able to change lenses and recapturing the glory days of my old OM10).

Are Olympus e450s any good? Reviews suggest so, though no image stabilisation. Prices seem pretty good too.

GF1 +1.
SFB -1.

Mondays! 🙄

mollski - just about to ebay my Nikon D50 c/w 18-55mm, drop me an email if its any good to you?

I like the Olympus DSLRs.
I've an e330 and an e620.
Both are well made, the e330 especially, and the starter lenses that come with the cameras are pretty good.
The Olympus Pro lenses are superb but quite expansive though.

Go to a shop and play. The Canon vs Nikon debate is the same as the Cavalier(or whatever it's called now) vs Mondeo, both very competent and perfect for your needs.

I prefer Canon for the range of lenses and feel, I have an EOS10d and EOS20d. They are bigger that the [s]toy[/s] entry level EOS1000d etc.

I also believe there are other brands which function well but Canon and Nikon have market share for a reason.

You're not going to go wrong with either.

Ask yourself what you want from the camera + how 'into' photography you're going to get / anticipate getting?
Buying an SLR is all about lenses and the option to change them, so look into the lenses you wish to use (and why) vs the actual make and body model. Choosing the lenses first - which you will keep for a very long time, will answer what type of DSLR you're looking for, which will most likely be a canon or nikon as they have the greatest range of lenses, both with options to use adaptors to run older / other make lenses.

Full frame sensors (in camera body) are far superior to anything else (better end result, better low light performance, sharper images), yet if you're doing sports or fast motion photography you may benefit from a crop sensor with fast auto focus.

A note on lenses: Zoom lenses are pretty poor unless you're going for a constant aperture Canon L or equivalent nikon with high F-Stop - like 2.8. Image stabilisation is a very good investment too. I'd avoid zooms without one or both of these features and get a fixed focal length prime lens instead (cheaper + better end result).

The most important in camera feature is high image quality at Low iso performance. As for ergonomics, try one out in the local shop or hire one for the day (easy if you're in a big city) - very much like bikes in that sense. The camera should feel good in the hand + balanced. Look for how easy it is to change aperture in manual mode, followed by iso, these are the 2 things you will be doing constantly when using the camera.

Hope that helps + you're going to need to get brushed up on photoshop / aperture etc... to make the most if it.

binno has regurgitated "conventional wisdom" (if such a thing exists) and I would take issue with every point except the feel of the camera 🙂

Sony FTW.

They are good and well specced, and amazing value for money.

The most important in camera feature is high image quality at Low iso performance

The most important feature of a camera is the one you value the most. That kind of talk is counter-productive mate.

you're going to need to get brushed up on photoshop / aperture etc...

No, you're not! You can have a great time taking pictures without going near photoshop. Don't prescribe stuff to the OP!

This is ending up like the car forum spoof thread that was linked to the other day.

Are Olympus e450s any good? Reviews suggest so, though no image stabilisation.

I like my Olympus but I have an E620 which I got knock-down cheap, and it does have in-body IS. The small size really is a major plus for me.

Because of the small size I'd have loved a micro 4/3 camera but they were pretty expensive when I looked.

I was in a similar position a few months ago. Went for the Nikon D5000.

Very pleased with it, though I don't know how i would have felt with a Canon. Most reviews came down to Canon vs Nikon with some scope for Sony.

The Live View mode was the sticking point for me. Most enthusiasts insisted that it was pointless for taking 'proper' photos, but when learning, sometimes you just want to point and shoot.

but when learning, sometimes you just want to point and shoot.

and doesn't the eyelevel viewfinder allow you to do exactly that ?

Live view ... pointless for taking 'proper' photos

I confess I do not understand why. Surely if you can see the edges of the frame it doesn't matter if the image is in a little hole on the back or on a little screeen on the back. The only advantage I can see is that when the camera is touching your head head you have a further stabilising factor to reduce wobble.

Is there something I am missing or is it just buyers justifying their preference based investment?

Live view is great when coupled with a flip-out angled screen, because you can hold the camera high above your head or way down low and still be able to frame the shot.

Most reviews came down to Canon vs Nikon with some scope for Sony

Most reviews I read said that they are pretty much all good, and to go for the one that you a) like the look of, b) has a few features you find useful and c) is on special offer 🙂 People get far too hung up over almost imperceptible changes in image quality in certain extreme conditions (read the Sony reviews for an example) but in real terms a newbie buying a £400 camera isn't going to give a flying fig. However, if you can for example get a 300mm equivalent zoom lens for £99 that could be very useful.

The only advantage I can see is that when the camera is touching your head head you have a further stabilising factor to reduce wobble.

at arms' length is bound to be far wobblier, never mind that most EVF screens are not real time but slightly lagging and possibly torn too 🙁

What do you mean by torn?

One advantage, as I understand it, that has not been mentioned for EVF technology is that companies like Canon and Nikon whose specialisation is high quality engineering of shutters and flappy mirrors and the like are going to have to cede a little ground to the electronics folks like Panasonic and Sony as they are now able to build cameras much closer to a purely electronic system.

"torn" means when the subject is moving fast across the field of view it can't keep up so you see discontinuities in the viewfinder image. This cannot happen with a mirror.

If you read the review for the new Sony pseudo-reflex designs on http://www.dpreview.com you'll also see the viewfinder just blanks at high frame rates when it just can't keep up 🙁

As I see it, EVF screens:

Cons:
Struggle to keep up with fast action meaning you may mistime your shot.
Big drain on the battery.
Typically very hard to judge focus on.
Kill your night vision when trying to take shots in the dark.
Generally useless in low light.

Pros:
Useful when looking through the viewfinder is physically awkward (camera over your head or on the ground)
Usually come with video ability.
[i]May[/i] not black out when taking the picture.

Big drain on the battery.

good point! I never turn my D300 off and it'll last a week/1000+ shots before needing to be charged. Most of the EVF cameras I've read about manage about 300 exposures before the battery is flat 🙁 [ie typically mid ride for me]

I find live view pretty useful when taking considered landscapes on a tripod. The live histogram and 100% coverage (something my viewfinder doesn't have) are pretty handy. Horses for courses.

Dudie: yep that would fit my Pros/Cons. Landscape isn't going anywhere, doesn't require fine focus and is usually taken in daylight - so works well on a LiveView/EVF.

100% coverage and Live Histogram are definitely Pros I forgot.

Full frame sensors (in camera body) are far superior to anything else

And cameras with such things cost loads of money. £1700 for the Nikon D700 body only, and the Canon Eos 5D Mk2 body only. And upwards for higher spec bodies.

Just set yourself a budget, allowing for cam body, lens, bag, lens filter and a memory card. 4-8GB should be fine unless you want to take thousands of pics before you upload to a computer.

For example less than £500 gets you this decent starter bundle:

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/77481/show.html

Try a couple out, see which one feels the most comfortable and intuitive to use. Try not to pay too much attention to camera shop staff; they might be keen amateurs, but they're sales assistants, not pro photographers. They'll have little more experience of using all the cams than you do. Go with your own instincts and your own budget Don't let them 'sell up' a more expensive cam than you really need.

Basically, this, really:

Most reviews I read said that they are pretty much all good, and to go for the one that you a) like the look of, b) has a few features you find useful and c) is on special offer People get far too hung up over almost imperceptible changes in image quality in certain extreme conditions (read the Sony reviews for an example) but in real terms a newbie buying a £400 camera isn't going to give a flying fig. However, if you can for example get a 300mm equivalent zoom lens for £99 that could be very useful.

Lens' are the most important factor when buying an SLR.

If you are going to get teh most out of it, then you will want/need to put a few lens' together over time to cover everything you want to use it for. If your not flush then Secondhand prices/availability is important - Canon/Nikon is by far the best option.

Personally Canon i think have by far the best lens'/selection available.

Probably the most important thing you can have when you've bought your SLR is training. If you don't and you don't know what your doing - your very unlikely to really see any benefit of an SLR over a bridge/compact.

The Training sold/offered through Jessops is very good (it's not actually Jessops) and I should know as I trained some of them (but am nothing to do with the company and have no affiliation to them)

Oh and lastly - my advice get a basic body (450D/500D/550D) and a lens around the 18-135 mark so it covers a good range comparible to most compacts if that's what your used to. Canon 17-85 or 15-85 isn't a bad place to start. If your using it for sport make sure if possible it's a USM lens (which means fast acurate focusing)

Personally Canon I think have by far the best lens'/selection available.

Canon and Nikon have comparable extensive lens selections. More than other brands. They do tend to cost more than other brands though, and at the pro end of the ranges, it could be argued their lenses are better than others. But at the budget end, most lenses are pretty much similar really.

Buy some kit that allows you to take pics. Don't worry about the ultimate in quality etc until the level of your pics demands 'upgrades'. Budget stuff will still deliver very good results if your know what yer doing.

I'm waiting for a sub-£1000 smallish Nikon DSLR with full-frame sensor. Hurry up Nikon. 🙁

got a nikon d50 with the fabulous nikkor 18-70 lense, takes great pictures despite me. Some of my pics are used in graphics stock for brochures etc.

99% of people really don't need full frame, it's a bit of a status symbol - to me it's like having to have XO shifters over X.9 shifters, just about no real practical reason to have it, it's just "bling"

And before anyone says anything, i know technically in certain situations Full frame is "technically" better image quality, but I'd challenge anyone to actually spot the difference.

I'd agree that anyone buying a kit lens' will not notice any difference between brands - but if they knew enough, they'd not be using a very basic kit lens. It's more about upgradeability (not sure that's a word) your buying into a system, not just a one off purchase.

99% of people really don't need full frame, it's a bit of a status symbol - to me it's like having to have XO shifters over X.9 shifters, just about no real practical reason to have it, it's just "bling"

And before anyone says anything, i know technically in certain situations Full frame is "technically" better image quality, but I'd challenge anyone to actually spot the difference.

Nothing to do with 'status'. [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR ]Full frame = superior picture quality.[/url] As well as the ability to use my old Nikkor manual focus lenses. So for me, a full frame DSLR makes sense, and the absence of an 'affordable' FF sensor cam is why I've not gone digital yet. Plus a D700 is still a bit of a lump to schlepp about with. I'd ideally like a DFM2 really!

you can still use the old manual focus lenses, I use an old nikkor telephoto on my d50? Whats the problem?

So why does full frame = superior quality? Please feel free to enlighten me! 😉

I suspect "full frame lust" is as much about wide-angles and shallow depth of field as it is absolute quality.

But it is an illusory concept anyway, since it is only really "full frame" in the context of one particular historical film format (i.e. 35mm).

Personally I'm happy enough with the extra reach and smaller, lighter lenses of APS-C.

So why does full frame = superior quality?

I believe it is to do with the resolution of the lens and the fact that larger sensors suffer less noise. So in theory "full-frame" is sharper and less noisy.

Well said GrahamS - couldn't agree more (although you can pretty much get as wide with something like a 10-22 on a crop sensor.

You've gotta love how we all like to hijack a sensible thread! Appologies to the OP (who probably gave up on the thread some time ago!), but if you get into this photography lark - you'll come to realise!

Resolution of the lens?

The only reason for better noise control in low light is that pixels on a full frame camera are less tightly packed together and therefore are able to gather more light! Not really anything to do with the lens.

Remember that you can use high end lens' on low end cameras, where any fall off in edge sharpness will often be irrelevant as it doesn't cover the smaller sensor

Some good explanations of the pros and cons of sensor size here:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

{double post removed}

Resolution of the lens?

Yep, smaller sensor means the lens has to make a smaller focal image, which means you hit the diffraction limits of the lens sooner.

The only reason for better noise control in low light is that pixels on a full frame camera are less tightly packed together and therefore are able to gather more light!

Yep for two sensors that offer the same pixel resolution, the larger sensor will be able to use larger photosites which can gather more light.

Not really anything to
do with the lens.

Didn't meant to imply it was.

Am I right in thinking that a full frame camera would mean that a 100mm focal length lens would be equivalent to a 100mm lens on a 35mm camera? So this would make it much more expensive to get say 300mm worth of zoom on a full frame camera? Not to mention heavier and larger?

On the subject of Nikon/Canon vs other cameras - I've noticed with my Olympus that there is less choice in new and second hand lens. There are basically three or four 'budget' options. They are pretty good options mind, but that's really it. However on the plus side, the lenses themselves are wonderfully small and light. I'm amazed when I see the size of other people's (fnarr).
[img] [/img]

40-150mm (equivalent to 80-300mm) on the left, standard kit 14-42 on the right (equiv 28-84mm)

The full review is [url= http://www.photocrati.com/olympus-e-620-four-thirds-dslr-two-lens-kit-review/ ]here[/url]. Bear in mind I paid £300 for the camera + 14-42 and £99 for the 40-150, but I think I was lucky. I do however think that non-Canon or Nikon are discounted far more often, since everyone wants those two brands.

Am I right in thinking that a full frame camera would mean that a 100mm focal length lens would be equivalent to a 100mm lens on a 35mm camera? So this would make it much more expensive to get say 300mm worth of zoom on a full frame camera? Not to mention heavier and larger?

Indeed, but some would say it is worth it for the reasons above (i.e. sharper, better bokeh/shallower DoF, less noise in low light).

I'm happy with my APS-C size sensor and DX lenses, but then my own hobby photography doesn't justify pin sharp high-end lenses.

some would say it is worth

Yeah, gear freaks, genuinely good photographers or pros.

The OP is a beginner, so whytf people are recommending high-end kit is beyond me...!

The Olympus 4:3 system is essentially the equivalent of the "half frame" system Olympus made in the 60's and 70's.
Olympus designed it as a digital system from the start.From the outset they wanted smaller cameras and lenses, all the 4:3 lenses are designed to cover the sensor with no light fall-off at the edges making a proper digital system, rather than cobble together DSLR systems form existing 35mm technology like Canon and Nikon did initially.

All camera systems have their limitations and within its limitations the 4:3 system is superb, magazines and "camera buffs" can argue about photosites and low ISO noise all they want but for the majority of photo situations its more than acceptable. I've had images, taken inside with no flash, on my (7.5mp)e330 enlarged up to 2m x 1m on banners and they look fine.
The "live view", an Olympus innovation panned by the press until Nikon and Canon adopted it, allows more freedom in positioning the camera, if you don't like it, don't buy a camera with it and stick to the same old methods used with film.
If you are a pro then "full frame" may be worth it so buy appropriately, for everyone else who fails to see the need for some expensive "male jewellery" the budget DSLR made by whoever is giving the best deal at the time of purchase will be fine. Most people never bother with anything but he kit lens.

The OP is a beginner, so whytf people are recommending high-end kit is beyond me...!

I don't think anyone other than binno was recommending full-frame to the OP. That's just the way the discussion went.

"camera buffs" can argue about
photosites and low ISO noise all they want but for the majority of photo situations...

You say that like shooting indoors is some weird theoretical situation that only "buffs" talk about. I'd say for most camera users it is the commonest situation outside the holiday snaps (e.g. parties, weddings, kids play, etc), so low noise at high ISO is pretty important.

I find my wife's camera (Panasonic) completely unusable indoors because the noise is so bad that the picture is barely recognisable.

I'd say for most camera users it is the commonest situation outside the holiday snaps (e.g. parties, weddings, kids play, etc), so low noise at high ISO is pretty important.

Hmm, I'm sure this is true for all camera users, but for all DSLR users? I would guess that most users have a DSLR for hobby stuff and a small compact for snaps and parties etc?

But yes you do make a good point.

all the 4:3 lenses are designed to cover the sensor with no light fall-off at the edges making a proper digital system, rather than cobble together DSLR systems form existing 35mm technology like Canon and Nikon did initially.

I find this a curious statement - lenses are always designed to cover some format or other, anything else would be incompetence. And I don't think a degree of backwards compatibility can be rightly described as "cobbling together" when larger sensors can deliver better quality.

I would guess that
most users have a DSLR for hobby stuff and a small compact for snaps and parties etc?

Possibly. Though I tend to use my DSLR at parties etc particularly because I can stick on my 50mm f1.8 and shoot in available light, rather than annoying everyone and getting crappy shots with a flash.

I find this a curious statement - lenses are always designed to cover some format or other, anything else would be incompetence. And I don't think a degree of backwards compatibility can be rightly described as "cobbling together" when larger sensors can deliver better quality.

You say that like shooting indoors is some weird theoretical situation that only "buffs" talk about. I'd say for most camera users it is the commonest situation outside the holiday snaps (e.g. parties, weddings, kids play, etc), so low noise at high ISO is pretty important.

when larger sensors can deliver better quality

I think you would have to either:
a) Be a pro photographer
b) Be really particular about your image quality
c) Pay far too much attention to advertiser driven reviews
To find much to criticise about the quality of images from DSLR's from any of the big name players.

I'd feel like an idiot with an SLR at parties. When I've done this in the past with film, I was always having to remind people not to spill beer on it etc etc.

Two camera household here - DSLR and the smallest compact we could get, so it lives in my pocket or Mrs Grips' hand/nappy bag. For the real impromptu stuff of course I have my phone.

I'd feel like an idiot with an SLR at parties. When I've done this in the past with film, I was always having to remind people not to spill beer on it etc etc.

That's the good thing about the e-p1 / GF1, 4:3 cameras, they're almost as good as a full sized SLR, you can change the lens, and with a fixed focus lens, they are pretty similar in size to a compact, my e-p1 fits in my coat pocket easily. A bit less of a pain than things where you need a special bag to carry them around, especially for situations where picture taking isn't the main focus of the activity.

Joe

I saw the Pen style cameras, but they were £700 so didn't look again. However that e-p1 is quite a bit cheaper now, so I wish I'd considerd it. Micro 4:3 lenses seem to be much more widely available than 4:3, and the size was one of my main considerations 🙁

@Everywhen: you seem to be attributing a lot to Olympus (first live-view, first to do lenses for small sensors, special no light fall-off design??). I've no idea of the veracity of these claims, but it does seem a little odd that Olympus has lagged so much in sales if it is so on the ball for tech.

Eventually the manufacturers will use the smaller sensor technology to cram even more photosites into the "full frame" sensor to keep ahead in the megapixel race and its back to high ISO noise. Where do we move then? Do we all go to "full frame" medium format?

Nikon and Canon aren't just chasing huge pixel counts. They have recently been focussing on low noise at higher ISO with the D3S and 1D Mk IV now supporting up to ISO 102400!

But yes I did see that Canon have also just announced a 120 megapixel APS-H CMOS sensor.

I've no idea why Olympus aren't more popular. Their cameras have always been ACE for me. My old compact C5050 took brilliant pictures and had full manual control, came out in 2001 IIRC.

I've no idea why Olympus aren't more popular.

Olympus OM10, cheap as chips and bombproof, had mine for 10years without problems. Happy days.

but it does seem a little odd that Olympus has lagged so much in sales if it is so on the ball for tech.

It does not surprise that it is not widely known that Olympus were "first to market" with some now common DSLR technology as they are really very poor at self publicity.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Nikon or Canon, I used Nikon 35mm SLRs for years, I just get a little frustrated when Nikon and Canon are trotted out as the only options (I have found camera shops guilty of this) when its just not the case. Give the little fella a chance!

I just get a little frustrated when Nikon and Canon are trotted out as the only options

Me too!

Olympus OM10, cheap as chips and bombproof, had mine for 10years without problems. Happy days.

but hardly relevant to digital surely ?

This is not in dispute, but when do you stop?

I'm not advocating either larger or smaller sensors, you have to assess a whole camera, not just its components

I just get a little frustrated when Nikon and Canon are trotted out as the only options

It's not that they are the only options, as I said earlier they are the Mondeo/Vectra of the camera world and as a novice you can't really go wrong.

Olympus may be considered to be an Alfa or Fiat, no reason not to buy but a bit more quirky, more interesting but possibly not so good on a day to day basis. 😉

but hardly relevant to digital surely ?

Am I not allowed to reminisce? 🙄

And since when has being directly relevant to the OP been a law on STW?

I think the OP left some time ago 😀

I think the OP left some time ago

Olympus may be considered to be an Alfa or Fiat

I just get a little frustrated when Nikon and Canon are trotted out as the only options

But they've been consistently the biggest players in 35mm then digital camera manufacture, have the greatest range of lenses and accessories, and compatibility with older kit (the Nikon F mount hasn't changed in thousands of years and even eight hundred year old lenses fit the latest bodies, more or less). Other manufacturers have had their own standards which have changed fairly often (din't Sigma have their own 35mm lens mount which is pretty much defunct now?). So the availability of second hand or other makes of lenses in the Nikon or Canon fit is far more extensive.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount#List_of_lens_mount_types ]List of lens mounts. [/url]

So buying a smaller brand with it's own proprietary lens mount comes with the risk of it becoming defunct in a relatively short time, leaving you with limited options and kit with little resale value. Buy a Canon or Nikon, and you're pretty much guaranteed to be able to get lenses to fit for a good while yet.

When I started doing photography, I bought a cheapo Vivitar cam with Pentax K fit lens mount. Very popular and widespread fitting, loads of lenses available cheaply. But when it came to getting better kit, I went for Nikon because the quality of optics and build was better than most, plus there was compatibility with AF and manual focus lenses. A beginner could buy a Canon or Nikon DSLR, build up a selection of lenses that would then still be compatible with a new body when they come to upgrade. I may have read somewhere that the micro 4 3rds system is already doomed. May be wrong though, but it's a small sensor and I can't help thinking that a larger sensor would then require a whole new lens mount.

Don't get me started on Minolta's own flashgun mounting system...

more interesting but possibly not so good on a day to day basis

Not true at all. The Oly gets great reviews consistently. The ONLY disadvantage I can think of is the dearth of second hand lenses. However Oly uses an open standard, which two manufacturers use, so should be better, in theory, in terms of longevity and brand independence.

A beginner could buy a Canon or Nikon DSLR, build up a selection of lenses that would then still be compatible with a new body when they come to upgrade.

However Oly uses an open standard

with patchy adoption and already modified by Panasonic ?

I did say 'in theory'...

molgrips - Member

more interesting but possibly not so good on a day to day basis

Not true at all. The Oly gets great reviews consistently. The ONLY disadvantage I can think of is the dearth of second hand lenses. However Oly uses an open standard, which two manufacturers use, so should be better, in theory, in terms of longevity and brand independence.

So you mis-understood me, good!

So the dearth of second hand lenses isn't the same as the scarcity of Alfa dealers and dificulty in getting parts then? 🙄 Did I say they were cr4p?

That explains it then, I've had 3 Alfasuds..

😆

True. Most just stick with the kit lens though.

Do they? Seems a bit pointless buying an SLR if you ignore on of its main assets.

For the record, I consider myself a beginner and I have four lenses (the 18-70 kit plus a 10-20, 50mm and a 70-300).

You said 'not as good', I thought you meant that the camera itself wasn't as good ie in the actual taking of photos - 'day to day' usage.

I reckon I'll need three lenses. The kit 14-42, the ultra zoom 70-300mm and something that'll be good for close-up work. Possibly the fixed 25mm job.

not so good on a day to day basis.

I took 'on a day to day basis' as meaning in general picture taking. You don't buy lenses every day, so that's not a day to day basis thing 🙂

[img] [/img]

Well the macro seems to work okay 😉

is that Occam's razor ?

Mrs SP started getting in photography last year and bought a Nikon D5000 after doing a bit of research.

She recommends it and doesn't seem to want to upgrade yet - unlike when I buy a bike

Lots of reviews if you google

Oh right 'splitting hairs' I see.

Bit slow [s]today[/s].