[Closed] Good starter SLR?

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.

Learn how shutter speed, apeture and ISO influence each other first

That holds true for all cameras not just SLRs.

That holds true for all cameras not just SLRs.

I don't know about most cameras. Most of the comapcts I've used have full manual controls. However you are of course quite correct about the effects of these changes being limited.

However deep DoF is not always a bad thing - hand-held macro on my old compact was way easier than on my SLR with the macro lens, because you got much greater DoF. Also made the pictures better too. To get the same results I'm going to need a ring flash as well as the macro lens, which on their own cost more than the original compact did...

Yeah, absolutely. Shallow DOF from dslrs takes some managing.

Which compacts molgrips?
Am looking for something with a proper viewfiinder, full manual control and reasonable weather protection at the mo, nothing seems to fit the bill.

Olympus C-5050Z was my old compact until last year. We've also got an Oly mju (I think, not sure) that also has full manual control.

There are things I miss about the 5050 actually - in MF mode it had a distance scale on the LCD which was quite useful. It also had an optical viewfinder.

Next purchase perhaps for me:

[img] [/img]

Addictive, isn't it?

Did you get a decent tripod BTW? Seem to remember you were after one.

Nah, no tripod yet. Have to allocate the funds, but I really want a wide angle lens for the up coming summertime trips in the Alps. 350 quid seems to be the bargain bin price for US/Hong Kong stuff, or used here.

Sigma 10-20 is never off the camera these days, plenty about s/h at the mo.
Tripods make such a difference to macro with an slr though, opens up a whole new world!

Compared to the Olympus Zuiko Digital 9-18mm F4-5.6, the Sigma [10-20mm] is simply outclassed in practically every regard, with only its excellent control of chromatic aberration to boast about. In contrast the Olympus is significantly sharper, especially wide open, and has much lower distortion and falloff, making it the clear winner in this contest)

I reckon I can get the Oly for a similar price.

This is the tripod I want for macro - dunno if the moving parts will make it not stable enough for telephoto:

[img] [/img]