[Closed] Good starter SLR?

I have a Sony A200 which is more than a match for me 😉
Lens included in the price but without getting the bag out I couldn't tell you any more detail.
Priced < £300

Some examples on my flickr page - http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnhooper_drum/

not all photos taken with the Sony but the Canada set, White Christmas set and anything to do with The Wick Effect will be

[url= http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/ ]Have a look for what's in your price range...[/url]

You'll be hard pushed to find a bad one.

Like John, I too have a Sony A200..

Cheap as chips, but a great starter..

IMHO.

I'd have thought you'll be hard pushed to find a new a200, they're 3 generations out of production.

The a290 or a33 would be the recent options.

Go to MPB and check their D40s + if you can stretch to 350 in total get a 18-105 VR or if you want to keep it well under 300£ get an 18-70 instead. I still have the D40 albeit with slightly more expensive lenses and it takes some cracking pictures.

Also if you can find a Pentax *ist second hand they are also quite brilliant even if fairly old.

i should have said, i would be buying second hand....

Nikon D90. Suuuuuperb camera!!

i should have said, i would be buying second hand....

I'm really liking my Nikon D3100 as an introduction to DSLR photography

Hi,
I have a Nikon D70 with 18-70mm lens in perfect condition with only 9000 shutter releases just put on ebay.
Give me a shout if interested.

I have d50 brill camera get one 2nd hand ebay or LCE

I have a Sony A200 and a Sony A55. Many people have favorite manafacturers that they swear by, try and borrow/use as many different cameras as you can to get a feel for them all. A benefit of Sony DSLR cameras is that they have image stabilization in the camera body and there are loads of old Minolta lenses that will fit.
For Sony/Minolta info check out [url= http://www.dyxum.com/index.asp ]Dyxum.com[/url]

My daughter recently bought a Canon 550D with twin kit lenses as her first DSLR and I think its excellent. She has already taken some great shots and its coming down in price now with the launch of the 600D

This was one she took Sunday and sure most of us would be pleased with it, was taken at the far end of the 55-250mm is lens which is an absolute bargain for the money

[img] [/img]

MPB is second hand equipment just with a bit of peace of mind due to their 6 month warranty. If that tells you anything when I bought my D40 second hand I bought it for 200 including the kit lens. That camera still sells for the same amount today nearly 4 years after I bought it and a good 5 since it was introduced...

Olympus E450 deal for 300? There are benefits to going non-Canikon - mainly that everyone asks for them so they don't get discounted much.

I'd suggest finding someone close to you with a basic Nikon (D40 is an excellent choice) and a basic Canon and having a play to see which feels "right" in your hands. [url= http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/ ]MPB[/url] are very good, you can buy from them in confidence. However, there are many good photographs taken on compact cameras and I'd suggest having a look on the "Talk Basics" section of the forums on talkphotography.co.uk - buying a better camera won't make you a better photographer, knowledge and experience will 🙂

a basic Nikon (D40 is an excellent choice) and a basic Canon and having a play

And a Sony, Pentax and Olympus.. don't ignore those!

If it helps I like my local Jacobs shop - if you have one it's worth a look.

What you need to do is head to a local camera shop and get a 2nd hand Nikon or Cannon.

I bought my Cannon EOS 20D a few years ago.
Cracking camera but a few models have been released since so you'd get a second hand one very cheaply

Mag body, built very well perfect 1st camera.
You don't need 10 or 12MP - spend the money on a decent lens or 2.

buying a better camera won't make you a better photographer, knowledge and experience will

I dunno if I agree with this, I went from a nikon collpix5100 to a nikon d50 and some of my pics on the slr are ace, and I really have no skill, the camera and lense are bloody amazing.

something like the canon 20D or a 350D seems to fit the bill with regards to cost (up to £200 ish), but i've really got no idea what to look for, with regards to which is better, which have good lenses etc etc

Got any mates that could advise you?

I'm no expert, but let me have an idea of your max spend and what sort photography you are interested in and will have a look round to see what might fit the bill
(this doesn't imply any guarantee of the actual function of the equipment or honesty of the vendor)

Do frequent several sites where decent enough older gear comes up and probably a safer bet than the bay of e or gumtree.

Duplicate, so please ignore my stutter

Just seen a Canon 300D with 18-55 lens for sale at 130 quid in Northumberland
6mp and comes with charger, two batteries and memory card

Might that be of interest? email in profile if you did want me to enquire further

Another one for the nikon D3100. I bought one just before christmas, fantastic. The 18-55 kit lens is fine for most situations. Once you get into it you'll want more lenes though.

Having said that sony are the cheapest but i didn't go with them due to a possible lack of lenes to upgrade to in the future.

Having said that sony are the cheapest but i didn't go with them due to a possible lack of lenes to upgrade to in the future.

So not a big worry.

I'd second MPB - prices are good and they honour the warranty without quibbling.

I would suggest going for Canon or Nikon, just because the availability of second hand lenses is much greater than say Sony or Olympus, with Canon the most common.

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/

the availability of second hand lenses is much greater than say Sony

I'd happily argue Sony is the best body if you plan on buying used lenses.

Am a Canon man thru and thru.

New 1100D out in week. This should give discounts on the 1000D.

Also, do go for 10MP or above. Gives you so much more to play with in the 'digital darkroom'.

My sixpenneth...

buying a better camera won't make you a better photographer, knowledge and experience will

I dunno if I agree with this, I went from a nikon collpix5100 to a nikon d50 and some of my pics on the slr are ace, and I really have no skill, the camera and lense are bloody amazing.

I'll expand on my original point. Buying a better camera won't make you a better photographer in the same way that buying a better bike won't make you a better rider - it'll help you progress, but unless your skill develops you won't improve. Your Coolpix 5100 was capable of great images, just search Flickr and see - you are more interested in using the D50 and it is technically better than the compact, but although it is capable of taking images which are superior, it is your skill that makes the difference. Oh, any just to be pedantic, there's only one e in lens 🙂

Not entirely true though.

Buying better tools won't make you a better mechanic but try stripping down a land rover armed with just a hammer.

OK, maybe not a land rover, but you get the idea... 😉

Got any mates that could advise you?

Got any mates that could lend you lenses and gear if you buy the same format as them?

just because the availability of second hand lenses is much greater than say Sony or Olympus

True but the Oly budget lenses are so good that you can just buy em new and be done with it.

It depends if you want to always be buying the new shiny thing or just want lenses to cover the common types of shooting.

I'm in a similar boat here at the moment. I've borrowed a friend's DSLR for a couple of weeks following her upgrading to a new one, she'll then be selling it.

I'm mostly agonising over whether I want to start an expensive new hobby or not. I think if I could just buy it once and be done with it then I'd do it in a heartbeat, it's the prosepect of lens envy that worries me. I think I'd want a nice zoom lens, panoramic lens perhaps, maybe a tripod, memory card, carry case...

I'm finding that all I want is a set of stuff to do what I want. Zoom, wide angle, macro covers it. Then a tripod or two maybe. It's not an expensive hobby if you are sensible about it and remember that the hobby is TAKING pictures not buying kit. Once you have the kit, taking pictures is practically free and is a very cheap hobby indeed.

If you end up wanting better lenses to increase sharpness and whatnot you're a mug.

Are you a mug? 🙂

It's not an expensive hobby if you are sensible about it and remember that the hobby is TAKING pictures not buying kit.

Don't listen to this dangerous hippy talk!

taking pictures is practically free and is a very cheap hobby indeed

Define quite expensive. It's what, 15 quid for 20 sheets of premium photo paper and that seems to last me a loooong time. As a hobbyist, how many do you print? Personally I've only got so much wall space 🙂

Photo books and canvas mostly. It's in £hundreds a year rather than £thousands, so on the scheme of things it's not a fortune but I guess it's the price of a cheap week in the med.

Personally I've only got so much wall space

I could just stop taking photos I guess.

I got a s/h finepix s9500 off here, like an SLR, but withut the faff of changeing lenses and only marginal loss of image quality (mainly in lower light as it uses a smaller sensor than a new APSc sized SLR).

Auto, shutter, appeture, manual modes, video as well. Pre programed night, landscape, portrait modes.

Manual mode is easy, thumbwheel adjusts shutter, press the button next to the shutter release and scroll the same wheel to adjust appeture, ISO is in a seperate menu to the settigns to easy to find.

Only 'issue' is the electronic viewfinder is hard to focus with, but in manual you can click a button by the lense to auto focus it.

It would help you to know/decide what sort of subjects you might want to take most pictures of to start with as it will effect your choice of kit
- general 'snapshots'or portraits (a standard zoom with macro or close focusing will do to start with)
- fast moving subjects (racing cycles, cars, running kids or pets - get a wide aperture lens and a camera than can take plenty of images per second)
- very small things like insects, close ups of flowers (a lens that will take macro or close focus)
- things that are far off (a long lens with image stabilisation)

If you have some idea it will help you choose a lens and a camera body wisely and will help others to advise you.

The lens you select will actually be THE MOST IMPORTANT BIT in a lot of ways and will effect what subjects you can take and how good the image is. It will travel with you from camera to camera as you upgrade over the years, camera bodies are temporary to some degree. You can get a nice camera with a good sensor in it, but a rubbish lens will degrade your images. Lenses can be horribly expensive but are a long term investment. A lot of very keen photographers use Nikon or Canon becasue they both have a huge range of lenses to choose from and lots of 3rd party manufacturers also make lenses to fit them. On the whole, Canon who do a 2 tier range of lenses (pro and enthusiast) tend to offer more affordable lenses than Nikon at a good quality. Try also Tamron lenses.

You may find to get what really suits the images you want to take, it is better to buy just a camera body and get a lens separately.

I would also find a friend or collegue who is into photography or ask for advice at a camera club. Also try camera forums.

http://dpreview.com/
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/index.php
http://photo.net/community/

There are loads of forums about and also lots of the same sites give product reviews. DP review is very respected for their very in depth equipment tests.

Shops mean well, but its impossible to tell which brand they 'need' to push that week or if the assistant actually knows what they are on about (Jessops staff are not always the most aware!).

[url= http://www.dxomark.com ]dxomark.com[/url] is worth a look too, you can compare image quality between cameras.

like an SLR, but withut the [s]faff[/s] flexibility of changeing lenses

FTFY.

It will travel with you from camera to camera as you upgrade over the years, camera bodies are temporary to some degree

Really? Why does one upgrade a body other than for the sake of new shinyness? Ok so given 5 or 10 years it might be worth it to catch up with new tech but that's a long time.

Remember kids, there's a difference between being into photography and being into cameras.. cannot stress this highly enough.

Also try camera forums.

I'd avoid, they are like fat old blokes on STW trying to decide which bike is the fastest most hard core when they can't ride for toffee.

Basically, any SLR will be fine. You only need to satisfy the practical criteria, things like do you have access to stuff that fits a particular brand? Do you like the way a camera handles? Is it on special offer?

Really, just buy whatever's on the best special offer...

Well, I just upgraded my camera body as with the previous one:

- mirror system failed due to high use and was not worth repairing.
- was over 5 years old, so noise control, low light photography was not as good as a modern camera, ISO levels were low (I like low light images without tripods)
- offered a slow frames per second shutter speed and I want series pictures of moving animals
- offered an out of date rather slow autofocus system and relatively poor viewfinder if I needed to focus manually
- had a view finder that was less than 100% view (I admit, that's a nicety)
- my new camera has an electronic spirit level which is dead handy as my eyesight is deteriorating, so I can now take buildings (without a tripod with its own spirit level) that don't list to one side!

On the whole, digital cameras are still at a stage where updating them has value. Most of the film cameras had got pretty much to the top of the game, so had longer lifespans.

I think these are good enough reasons for me. Maybe not for others.
I had my Olympus film SLRs for years and only moving to digital phased them out.

Well those are all fair points.. 5 years is a reasonable time to keep a digital body in this time of changing technology...

And dont just buy 'what's on offer' as it may not suit what you want to take photos of or may force you to soon buy a 2nd lens you did not want to cough up for yet. Even cheaper SLRs are fairly expensive to many people so do your research in case you decide to go further with your pictures than the odd snap of grandad by the duck pond.

Yes forums can be tedious, but if there is nothing of value on forums why read the Singletrack one even? Take what's useful and assess it. Ignore the rubbish. Its usually fairly easy to tell which is which.

I think Molegrips is right though - pictures are more important than kit, but getting the wrong kit if you are on a budget can become a disappointment.

In practical terms though what's going to be the difference in actual use and picture taking between any of the entry level SLRs? Which DSLR could be the 'wrong' kit, at entry level for general photography?

All the kit lenses cover more or less the same range of focal lengths and apertures, don't they? And yes some cameras will be slightly worse at higher ISO but you won't notice unless you really go looking for it.

There are things of value on forums, but there's a lot of waffle too. And a beginner might start think it's more important than it is. For example, "This lens exhibits a slight lack of sharpness at the edges" doesn't mean your pictures will be blurry.. it means that IF you take pictures of a test chart in a studio you might see some barely distinguisable differences in sharpness if you really zoom in and look for it.

Remember kids, there's a difference between being into photography and being into cameras.. cannot stress this highly enough.

You can quite happily do both though. I'm 'into' cameras, but I've probably taken more pics than you over the last year. 🙂

You have*, that's why I don't describe myself as being 'into' photography 🙂

* because of other time constraints

[img] [/img]

😆

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Ooh good one. I'll go for the only other one I can think of:

[img] [/img]

I can't beat that, I'm two tyred.

[img] [/img]

Admirable wins so far for sheer randomness. But

[img] [/img]

And...

[img] [/img]

Back on topic, just seen a Pentax K10D with 18-55 lens and usual bits for 205 quid delivered.
They are nice cameras and although not new very capable of producing the goods

All i can add to all the suggestions here is that after 2 months of trying to 'learn' to use my dslr i can take 10 times the picture i could two months ago. It doesnt matter if i had a £10,000 camera two months ago i could still wipe the floor with the pictures now with my 1000D which cost about £400.

You see, when it boils down to it, a dslr doesnt really take that good a picture on auto. You need to put a bit of leg work into it before it starts to give better results.

Personally i would choose the brand, price and 'feel' that suits your budget but if you dont put in the legwork, i reckon you will be just as well buying point and shoot

a dslr doesnt really take that good a picture on auto

Yours might not do!

You can certainly do other things, but 'auto' is there to give you defaults, which record the things you see well enough. Buggering about isn't mandatory.

Even on auto SLRs are better than compacts both in use and in terms of image quality.

im thinking that a canon 350d looks the ticket, they arent too expensive but seem decent quality.

Not knowing too much about photography am I right in thinking that its really just shutter speed and aperture that you have to mess around with.. Only other thing that comes to mind is ISO, but can that be set to 400ish and left whilst i'm learning?

Also how do you know what to set the aperture and shutter to, does it just come with practice?

is anyone is around is this worth a bid: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-Eos-350D-EF-28-90-mm-II-USM-/150582032090?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item230f6376da#ht_1163wt_1141

Even on auto SLRs are better than compacts both in use and in terms of image quality

Afraid I don't agree with that statement, algorithms in most compacts are geared to getting a good jpeg on auto with no expectation of post processing.
A jpeg from a DSLR will be soft by default and the reason many people are disappointed with their early efforts until the finer points are mastered

Olympus has a good JPEG engine on its DSLR and m43

(I don't own one btw)

If I was looking to buy now though, I'd consider Pentax for DSLR - they offer something decent at different price points.. can use any Pentax legacy lens without an adapter and all the body have stabilisation

A couple of the bodies K7 and K5 for instance are weather resistant.. which might be important if you plan on hunting Yeti's in Tibet or trekking across Outer Mongolia both of which are surely on the list..

The Pentax K-r is now 400 and pretty insane for the price.. just google some reviews

Consider lenses though and what you will be shooting, Pentax isn't the best system for zooms, but they make good prime lenses

As said, Olympus are hard to beat for value lens wise and boast a JPEG engine which many believe is the one to beat

Do you really need a DSLR though, you might find the quality of the micro 4/3 system is good enough. It will save you a heap of cash and bulk as well.

Need to decide on requirements innit

[i]Yours might not do![/i]

Are you assuming this is the only dslr i have access to. Oh yes, you are.

Why exactly should a dslr on auto take a better picture than a high spec point & shoot? Especially interested in the 'in use' comment.

Why exactly should a dslr on auto take a better picture than a high spec point & shoot?

An exponentially larger sensor and higher quality optics, for a start?

Actually as an aside,

Do we need an STW New DSLR Owners club? That might tip me into buying this one.

Why exactly should a dslr on auto take a better picture than a high spec point & shoot? Especially interested in the 'in use' comment.

Larger sensor
Better lens
Faster operation (for helping action shots)
Faster autofocus (similar to above)
Easier to get shallower depth of field due to geometry of larger sensor and hence more nice blurry backgrounds (or is that the other way round?)

Do we need an STW New DSLR Owners club? That might tip me into buying this one.

You can join our elite club as soon as you buy the camera Cougar 🙂

Sods, there's always something.

What do you reckon 'mate's rates' should be for a D450 + kit lens? £250?

Only other thing that comes to mind is ISO, but can that be set to 400ish and left whilst i'm learning?

Not knowing too much about photography am I right in thinking that its really just shutter speed and aperture that you have to mess around with

You don't NEED to mess about with them - the defaults will give you fine pictures. First thing to try might be choosing the 'correct' scene mode for what you are doing ie flick to the little running man for taking action shots.

But if you want to know what's actually happening to your pics when you choose the scene modes, then a bit of basic photography theory will help lots.

Changing aperture will have a certain effect, as will changing shutter speed. You may or may not want those effects, or they may not be relevant. If you are taking scenery shots, for example, then they won't really matter. With a digital camera there are other things you can change like contrast and metering.

The best technique to learn first I'd say (that'll have most benefit to your pictures) is the button half-press technique. Which incidentally usually works on compacts too.

If you are taking scenery shots, for example, then they won't really matter.

You'll want to look up hyperfocal distances too.

It won't matter as much as overall exposure... Remember we are talking about beginners here.

Aperture = depth of field. It matters.

But, yes, the mountainy icon thing does exactly the same thing as setting it manually.

As a beginner it's worth reading about hyperfocal distances though. It's not intuitive to focus on nearby things when taking photos of stuff in the far distance.

Better to master one or two simple techniques first tho..? Hence shutter half press.

Understanding depth-of-field is one of those simple techniques isn't it? You'll get better results out of a p&s in a lot of cases if you don't understand it.

Although sticking to scene modes as you suggest is a good alternative.

Yeah, DoF is page 2 of the manual I suppose.

like an SLR, but withut the [s]faff[/s] flexibility of changeing lenses

FTFY.

My other camera has 28 and 50mm lenses, maybe I don't know what I'm missing out on 🙂

Whatever you buy, read the manual properly.

You can set DSLR's up to suit almost any shooting situation, but you will be much better off if you learn the basics:
Learn how shutter speed, apeture and ISO influence each other first (it's not as difficult as people make out, a camera is just a box with a hole in it).
Plenty of great books out there that cover the basics in less time than it's just taken me to read this thread!

Once you've got that sorted, learn how the light meter and autofocus systems work on your camera, so it does what you want, when you want it to.

It's pretty difficult to buy a bad camera these days, TBH, but the future of the four thirds system is by no means certain, unfortunately.

Just pick the one that feels best when you pick it up and play with it.