[Closed] DSLR camera's

Have a look at this one: http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3200.htm

I've got a Canon 600D and it is great. There is now a 650D which isn't massively different to be honest.

Whatever you get, make sure you get it in time to have a good play with it and understand the basic physics of aperture, shutter speed and ISO, plus the various other camera features before you go off on holiday with it. It will take good photos in point and shoot mode, but if you want to get the most out of it, learning how to use it properly will give much better results.

One piece of advice is that you can get a decent photography book for £10-£15, whereas a magazine will cost ~£5 and be much less useful for a not dissimilar price.

Btw - that deal on GroupOn isn't that special

[url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-Digital-Camera-18-55-3-5-5-6/dp/B004MPQXZ0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369827583&sr=8-1&keywords=canon+600d ]Amazon 600D[/url]

Don't worry about the 600 d being old. I have a 500 d which is a few years old now and it's still a much better camera than I am photographer. I have absolutely no urge to change it for anything newer as it would make no difference to the quality of the photos I take.

Improvements in dslr technology have slowed down a lot in the last 2-3 years and changes to new models are generally things which don't make any real world difference.

Agree with the above though, take some time to learn how to use it and shoot in raw format from the start.

Canon have been reusing the same ancient sensors for years now, so no worries about getting an old one.

If you want a modern sensor you need to look at nikon, pentax or sony.

Nikon D90 is a good camera. I have one.
It's an older model now so can be had for a bit less, close to £500.
Shoots basic movies too.
Also, get her this book..

[img] [/img]

If you can get one still, the 550d is a better stills camera than the 600d. I'd prefer a used 40d and decent lens for around the same cash

Buy a Canon, Nikon or Sony for whatever seems the best deal on here - http://camerapricebuster.co.uk

You can't really go wrong TBH.

I'd agree with kayak

I'd get a D90 and 18-105

still a great camera and a wider range zoom is a massive advantage. Way more use than a few more pixels

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-d90-with-18-105mm-ed-vr-lens/p1028015?cm_mmc=googlebase-_-cameras-_-digital-slr-cameras-_-nikon-d90-digital-slr-camera-with-18-105mm-ed-vr-lens_1028015&utm_source=googlebase

You'll save a bomb buying used but perfect condition off ebay

When is the honeymoon? How familiar are you both with using an SLR? Will you have enough time to adjust to it, or will it just be in 'auto' mode? Will you want to lug it around with you?

Not wanting to put a dampener on what you are after, but are you looking for the right camera for your needs, or do you just think that a DSLR will take the best pics?

I hope this doesn't come across as rude/arrogant or whatever, but an SLR won't automatically 'take good pics' which seems to be what a lot of people assume, they are quite bulky and a decent compact or mirrorless compact may do the job perfectly well.

You mention it needing to be an all-rounder of sorts, which will predominantly come from the lens rather than the body itself. Will you be buying more than one lens or buying a camera with the kit lens?

You could get something like this:
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-1-j2-black-digital-camera-with-10-30mm-and-30-110mm-lenses/p1532249
for under your budget which takes very good photo's and comes with a 'normal' lens and a telephoto lens too. The money left over would get you a decent case and plenty of memory.
Other brands do similar cameras, such as Olympus, Panasonic and Sony.

If you are honeymooning somewhere like the Maldives, will you be doing any snorkelling? You might want to factor in a 'tough' camera that will be waterproof enough for you to get some decent shots while swimming. A friend of mine has recently bought one of those Nikons that I linked to (but without the telephoto lens option) for about £240 and then spent £70 on a waterproof case for it.
Our honeymoon is towards the end of June and last month I bought a Nikon 'tough' camera for just this purpose. I'll also be taking a compact and an SLR, but I imagine that 'most' of my pics will be taken on the compact and the 'tough' camera, rather than the SLR.

This is what I've got
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-Alpha-Interchangeable-Camera-18-55/dp/B007IU3WPU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369832833&sr=8-1&keywords=sony+a57

+ a Minolta "Beercan" zoom off Ebay (£70) - all well within budget and a fantastic piece of kit.
(All with the helpful advice of STW, naturally)

One of the best reasons for getting this is for your lady is that it is so damn [i]light[/i]

PS. Can't post samples as they are mainly of kids playing rugby & football and I'm not allowed to post them publicly (I know I know!).
Email for link if you want to take a look.

One of the best reasons for getting this is for your lady is that it is so damn light

OMG sexist!

But stumpy01 and DezB make some good points - some people end up not taking out their DSLRs after the initial excitement as they are too bulky/too much hassle. Some kind of mirrorless or mega-compact like the Sony RX100 or Fuji X10 might be more suitable.

Or get something slightly limited but awesome like this.

[img] [/img]

http://www.parkcameras.com/17126/Fujifilm-FinePix-X100-one-ex-display-model.html?referrer=Froogle

[i]OMG sexist![/i]

Women are weak. 😀

(I got a stiff neck after borrowing my old man's D80 for a day!)

Grum has the most sensible advice so far. They all take good shots when used correctly.

I'm with stumpy & grum. DSLR rarely used since I bought an Oly XZ-2 earlier this year.
Just so much more convenient 95% of the time.

Yeah.

My girl friend has decided that she would like an SLR for her upcoming birthday
...
The criteria is:
Easy to use

These requirements are at odds. Or rather, a dSLR is easy to use if you stick it in 'auto' and squeeze the trigger, but if you're going to do that then there's the square root of bugger all point in buying a dSLR in the first place.

a dSLR affords you more direct control over your camera and therefore over your photographs. There is a learning curve to this. If she wants to learn photography then a dSLR may be a good choice; if she wants to just press 'click' and take half decent shots some of the time then an expensive, bulky lump will probably spend more time in a cupboard than round her neck.

I can't quite get my head around why a dslr is any different to any other decent camera. Entry level dslrs, compact systems and decent compact cameras all have the same modes, all have scene modes, and all cost about the same.

Dslrs have better auto focus for moving subjects but are bigger.

Stumpy +1. My mum just got exactly that camera and lens combo (nikon1) after a lifetime of shooting film, then digital slrs. I was sceptical but had a chance to have a play with it last month.

It's a brilliant little camera - you literally can put it in your jacket pocket and it is absolutely jammed with features which are actually useful rather than gimmicky. You can use it exactly like a Dslr or just treat it lime a compact point and shoot.

Perfect for holiday use (and afterwards too!).

As above, do you really want a DSLR? Or a good camera?

If DSLR is what you want then at any given price point pretty much all brands are roughly the same, there is little to choose in terms of performance.

Pop into a camera shop and see which one fits in your hands nicely and which menu and buttons you find the easiest or most intuitive to use and go for that one.

The difference is that it's harder and more expensive to add to your kit if you get hooked. And dslrs will always win in low light and for fast moving subjects.

5th Elefant, DSLR have much bigger sensors and therefore have better image quality.

However, the digital 4/3 have similar sensors and are a lot more compact. The adjustment are a bit more difficult to use but the image quality are comparable.

In my case, I use a semi-pro (Canon 40D) DSLR all the time because I just like to set everything manually quickly which a semi-pro allow you to do quite well with all the well placed buttons. The wider selection of lenses also allow more flexibility.

My wife uses a digital 4/3 (Panasonic GF3) as she likes a more compact camera and like the camera to do most of the work for her while not sacrificing the image quality too much.

Nothing much to add except I agree with the above, it's very difficult to "point and shoot" with an SLR, and everyone in the photo knows they're having their photo taken and poses/hides accordingly. They also take longer to set up (camera out of bag, swap lense, switch on, auto focus, set appeture/shutter, focus again, click). A good compact will do all that for you. I reckon I miss far more good photos through actualy missing them with the SLR than I do getting the 'wrong' results with a compact.

If you want a DSLR then considder pentax. Bodies are far better sealed against dust/water/temperatures, image stabilisation is in camera (which makes lenses cheeper), 2 control dials (which is the whole point of an SLR, if you dont want control over appeture/exposure get a compact!), lenses going back to the 70's fit if you can live without auto focus (which IME is a good thing, the other reson for an SLR over a compact is they have a very shallow depth of field, the camera will focus on say a face, whereas you might want the teeth and eyes to be in focus and the skin flatteringly blurred) focus rings on some AF lenses just feel like an afterthought.

sorry to nit pik nicholas but i think you mean micro four thirds.

olympus epm2 might be another smaller good alternative to a dslr

I can't quite get my head around why a dslr is any different to any other decent camera. Entry level dslrs, compact systems and decent compact cameras all have the same modes, all have scene modes, and all cost about the same.

Size, and versatility.

To the OP - don't buy a DSLR unless you spefically plan to get 'into' photography. It's a waste of money otherwise. It's like buying a Commencal Meta to ride to work.

A compact system camera (Olympus Pen, Sony Nex, Panasonic Gwhatever etc) will take pictures just as well as an SLR and be much smaller and lighter.

However a good compact will also take just as good pictures in the hands of someone who isn't 'into' photography, and be smaller and lighter still.

There's one key point to mention about compacts though (as opposed to compact systems like the Pen etc). Due to the small sensor they always have a good close-up macro mode, and they often have good telephoto capability too. To get these capabilities with an SLR or compact system camera you'd probably have to buy two extra lenses which is not only expensive but a whole world of faff.

If you can imagine yourself putting two lenses and a camera in a camera bag and be swapping them around as you shoot, then go for it. Otherwise, don't dismiss compacts.

These requirements are at odds. Or rather, a dSLR is easy to use if you stick it in 'auto' and squeeze the trigger, but if you're going to do that then there's the square root of bugger all point in buying a dSLR in the first place.

There are arguments both ways on this.

The DSLR often wins on low light ability, autofocus, having a view finder, dyanmic range and the ability to throw the back ground out of focus. These all apply even in full auto.

If you don't want controls then you might as well skip the quality compacts as well and just by sowmthing small with plenty of zoom

I would assume if my wife said she wanted a DSLR thats what she wanted

5th Elefant, DSLR have much bigger sensors and therefore have better image quality.

The DSLR often wins on low light ability, autofocus, having a view finder, dyanmic range and the ability to throw the back ground out of focus

Hmm.. how many DSLRs have an AF assist lamp (genuine question)? The biggest issue in low light is focusing, and compacts with an AF assist lamp are ime far more likley to get a shot without flash than DSLRs without one. And yes the noise is worse but only if you go looking for it. If you are just printing them out on a home printer or putting them online, then no-one who isn't 'into' photography is going to notice in a million years.

Dynamic range - again unless you're 'into' it, the question is 'wtf is dynamic range?'

the ability to throw the back ground out of focus

This is the main one where DSLRs and compact systems win I reckon, cos you can't really fake this. However you have to know how to actually do it.

molgrips - Member
Hmm.. how many DSLRs have an AF assist lamp (genuine question)? The biggest issue in low light is focusing, and compacts with an AF assist lamp are ime far more likley to get a shot without flash than DSLRs without one.

My D80 has an AF assist lamp. And to be fair, my P300 struggles to focus in light levels using it's AF assist lamp where the D80 wouldn't even need it on.

The reason my SLR stays in the bag a lot of the time on holiday is that when I get it out (fnar fnar) my OH immediately does that freezing up and not looking natural thing, whereas with the little compact, she is as happy as larry (well, happier anyway)....

Of course, the SLR has masses of advantages.
My original 'do you really need one?' post was supposed to be just that. A question to provoke a bit of thought from the OP (who seems to have disappeared or given up) as to what he/his wife is really after.

Yes, the reason I am advising caution is that I know of loads of people who buy DSLRs because they are the cool gadget, and they find they are too much work to actually carry about and use.

They are for when taking pictures is an activity in itself.

I mostly use mine when we are out doing other things, but I am always looking around for interesting pictures, thinking about composition and effects, and sometimes I may spend ten minutes faffing about trying to get a particular shot or idea. If this is you, then SLR or compact system will be good for you.

^^^well written molgrips. You are right with that post.

I know a few people who had bought SLR's "because the take good pictures" and then been disappointed....

I have focus assist lights on my dslrs - I've switched them off - annoying and pointless. Much more important is apperture size - shooting at f2.8 and below ensures the large apperture lets in masses of light which helps the camera focus. Even if you're shooting at f11, the camera utilises the lens' largest apperture to attain focus.

Not Willy waving, but I can focus in close to no light with fast primes.

shooting at f2.8 and below ensures the large apperture lets in masses of light which helps the camera focus. Even if you're shooting at f11, the camera utilises the lens' largest apperture to attain focus.

1st points wrong, 2nd corrects it, the aperture ring stays open and only closes down when the mirror flips up. The exception is if you can force the camera to leave it closed like the stop down metering used when using new cameras with older lenses. The autofocus wouldn't work at small apertures ad the depth of field would leave most things in focus.

Not wrong, perhaps badly worded. I should have said, "using lenses with appertures of 2.8 or less...".

I know of loads of people who buy DSLRs because they are the cool gadget,

Plenty of people buy dSLRs because they "take better photographs", whereas the truth is that they empower you to take better photographs. It's "it's not about the bike" all over again. You can have several grand's worth of bouncybike but if you can't ride in a straight line without falling off then the bike isn't going to fix that.

annoying and pointless

Well no - they do work. However much light your lens lets in, it'll always let in more if there's a light shining on the subject.

I can focus in close to no light with fast primes.

You can, or your camera can?

My dslr certainly can. My nex and (previously M43) can't.

My camera can. Due, as on the last page's post, to the large apperture using the available light to find focus.

The focus assist light is fine if you're shooting at close quarters, but no good to me - I'm fleeing about in dark wedding receptions trying not to draw attention to myself. The last thing I want is to light my subjects with a beam of light so they turn towards me 🙂

If it's properly dark, the IR gubbins in my flash does the same thing invisibly.

So are sensors sensitive to near-IR then?

shooting at f2.8 and below ensures the large apperture lets in masses of light which helps the camera focus. Even if you're shooting at f11, the camera utilises the lens' largest apperture to attain focus.

One of the reasons that fast lenses focus better is that they let in a wider angle cone of light. This lets the phase detect autofocus work much better.

It also explains why many camera cannot focus an f8 lens however good the light. The cone of light is simply too narrow

molgrips - Member
So are sensors sensitive to near-IR then?

No - well yes, my D70 has had its IR filter removed from the sensor so it ONLY sees IR light - lots of fun.

The flash emits an IR grid of light and then(as I understand it), like a bat, it calculates the distance from the subject and focuses accordingly. You can often see the red grid on the subject when in darkness.

EDIT: and when I can afford it, I'll be buying one of Nikon's flash commander units which sits on the hotshoe. Won't use it with flashguns though - it does the same IR 'range-finding' trick as regular flashguns, just without the actual flash.

So are sensors sensitive to near-IR then?

My nex grinds to a halt at low artificial light. My dslr can cope with a lot less.

But... manual focus is very, very easy on a nex.

Just googled about AF assist, people seem to think their assist lights are IR but they generally are just red.

Interesting about cones of light. I bought an f1.4 prime for the purposes of low light photography, but weirdly it's rubbish at focusing in low light, worse than my f4 zoom despite an extra 3 stops of light to work with. I read somewhere that the Olympus system is not designed to work with lenses faster than f2.0 but I can't seem to find any solid references to it or any reason why that might be the case.

My (camera) assist light is just a beam of light, which is why I switch it off. Flashguns are the things which utilise an IR beam - it comes from the opaque red windows on your flashgun.

The flashguns also use the info in conjunction with other info to help decide how much flash power is required.

Morning all,

Thanks for your help so far, very much appreciated. To answer some of the questions so far:
The honeymoon is in 3 months so the plan is she/I will have some time to learn how to use the camera and at least attempt the get the best out of it. I will also be investing in a book(s) to learn a more.

Re. the ease of use comment, she uses a compact already and does a good job with that but wants to try something more "interesting". She is quite prepared for more than a "point and click" however, she doesn't want something that is overly complicated just for the sake of it.

There is no doubt there is a degree of "shiny thing syndrome" about this purchase but as a mountain bike forum I'm sure you'll agree this is no bad thing.

Anyway, a couple more questions after last nights research.
I'm still of the (wholly uneducated) opinion that the Canon 600d is the best one for the price. We've seen a few deals which offer a 50mm f/1.8 II lens with it, is this worth having? It seems to retail at about £80 but most deals with them add about £30 to the price.

Secondly, We got thrown a curve ball by a friend who has a Canon 1100d which can be had for cira £300, he thinks it is the dogs dangly's. My instinct is to spend more on the better camera but is the 600d worth an extra £100?

Finally, some of the online retailers sell the camera with an 18-55mm IS lens whilst others come with a 18-55mm DC III lens. Initial research suggests the IS lens has image stability which the DC doesn't. Is the IS worth having for an extra £20 ish?

Apologies for the long post and thanks again for your help.