[Closed] What Digital SLR Camera?

Not an SLR but the micro four thirds Panasonic and Olympus offerings are more portable if you want to take them on a bike - not actually a rangefinder but rangefinder style with various changeable lenses.

Of the SLRs Cannon and Nikon rarely disappoint (I went with Nikon as I had some lenses already) - pick the price point you want to bid in at.

I reckon you can't go far wrong with any of the big names - Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony...

The former two probably have the edge in the number of lenses and accessories available, but if you're just starting out that's no big deal - you'll go a long way on the kit lens which comes with any entry-level model. Once you become a bit more discerning, you can start to add prime lenses and quality zooms and build to a second body from the same system.

My basic advice would be to go for a basic model with a decent starter package (a couple of lenses). Any SLR will have all the basic features you'll need and encourage you to explore modes beyond "auto".

I bought myself a basic Sony SLR a couple of years ago and I don't feel I've outgrown it yet.

http://www.dpreview.com is a great source of info.

There was a thread about intro type cameras nikon D40 styley ones which would be worth a read. I've got a D40 with a couple of lenses and filters and I wouldn't wish for much more from a beginner DSLR. I guess the downsides are the act that it's a bit bigger than some of the bridge type cameras. Quality of photos will probably be good enough though.

Canon 550D

550D is absolutely one of the best out there right now. Amazing value for what it has. Ludicrously good video for the price too.

Seconded for the Canon 550... Far more camera than i can make the most of, but i would recommend buying just the body and a decent lens as the 18-55 kit lens that canon group with it is pretty basic.

Get a fast 50mm Lens like [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00005K47X/ref=asc_df_B00005K47X723008?smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&tag=googlecouk06-21&linkCode=asn&creative=22206&creativeASIN=B00005K47X ]this[/url] for £90 and you will be shallow depth of field heaven. Its sharp and fast (lets in lots of light) and is vast improvement on the zoom that comes with it.
Although it functions as an 80mm Lens due to the Canon's 1.6 sensor (but i might be getting a bit too technical for you....).

Anyway I've learnt more about photography since I bought a digital SLR 3 months ago than I have in my entire life using Point and shoots and 35mm SLRs. As you can see and correct your mistakes instantly.

Urchinboy is right, the video is amazing. I just worked on an advert for TV which was entirely shot with a Canon 7D which has exactly the same video capabilities as the Canon 550D. So it is very much more than a SLR.

Lord knows what camera's will be capable in next few years!!!!! 😯

Try them in a shop. Canon's are typically quite small, Nikons are typically quite big. You should decide which you like holding and operating best. After that, they're all the same.

Samuri makes a good point - the way a camera feels in your hand will make a big difference to your enjoyment of using it. I use a Canon 450 at work and just don't like the way it sits in my hand. Sony just felt right when I first picked it up. All very personal though before I get flamed...

Canon 350D should be quite cheap now and I've always had good results from it. I have access to a 7D at work but tbh I kinda prefer the 350D just for the way it feels. The kit lens is crap though.

What styles of photography are you interested in? Landscape? Social? Sports? Low light?

Panasonic Lumix G1 or G2 if there are no G1's left.

My D300 hasn't moved out the bag (for non pro stuff) since I got the G1.

smaller, less "rob me rob me" to the criminally insane sections of our community, lighter, less poncy looking, excellent results, superb controlability.

If I could get away with using the G1 at a wedding, I would so that's the only time the D300 gets used.

I bought a Sony NEX-5 a couple of weeks ago and am very happy with it. I toyed with the idea of a DSLR but thes size put me off - I just didn't think I would take it biking with me.

I am not a brilliant photographer, I'm just playing really. I wanted more than a compact camera could offer but not the bulk of an SLR & the Sony is fine for me.

I bought a decent 35mm film camera and an 18-50mm lens for under £100, allows me to take wide angle pictures that would be impossible with a compact, or a really expensive DSLR. It's a novel approach if you can stand spending 15p on every shot...

I am in the "want to learn a bit more about photography" camp, and went through the "which DSLR?" threads and reviews. In the end I went for a Lumix GF1 - the micro 4/3 camera with the zoom rather than "pancake" lens. As said above, it's encouraged me to switch off the Auto mode and start experimenting with the settings to good effect.

Check out Grums photos for what can be achieved with a GF1 - I've got one and so much easier than carrying the DSLR about.

I would get a second hand of refurbished Nikon D40. Can be had for just over £200 these days. You won't regret it.

G1 here too, epic little camera, can be had for much cheapness too. Low end nikons also good and have decent kit lenses.

I bought a Nikon D40 for £150 with 18-55mm kit lens of a work colleague. I bought a 55-200 VR zoom lens to go with it and I love it to bits.

The D40 has been replaced by the D3000 now but I can't really fault it. It's what I used to take the mountain mayhem pics.

Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony...

Don't bother with Nikon and Canon - nice, yes, but too many fanbois pushing the price up (see this thread). Olympus, Sony and the rest are just as good but cheaper. Olympus E series are also noted for being nice and small, and having great compact lenses. The E420 is way the smallest SLR around. Sony are also super-good value for their features.

But the micro 4/3 cameras are even smaller and as good.

I bought a decent 35mm film camera

I would never go back to film. It's a nightmare after you've been used to digital!

Try them in a shop. Canon's are typically quite small, Nikons are typically quite big. You should decide which you like holding and operating best. After that, they're all the same.

but too many fanbois pushing the price up

Thanks for all the advice, I knew this was a good place to ask..

Anyway, been down to the London Camera Exchange in Derby today, and had a 'feel'. Think its going to be the Canon 30D. I liked how it felt over the nikons, and the olympus's where a tad on the small side.

On another note, i have got a fair few Olympus OM lenses, and i have found adapters on ebay to fit these lenses to Canon cameras, has anybody done this? What results did you get?

Cheers
Josh..

Another SOny fan here, but more because I had a minolta film slr and lenses were transferable, as said above you get alot of camera for the money with sony

Check out Grums photos for what can be achieved with a GF1 - I've got one and so much easier than carrying the DSLR about.

😀

The G1 is a great deal at the mo - the 14-45 kit lens is really superb. You would have to pay about twice as much to get a lens (on its own) as good from Nikon or Canon imo.

Seeing as no-one else has done it - I'll use the flimsy excuse to post a pic. 🙂

[img] [/img]

They say the best camera is the on you have with you. i certainly wouldn't have wanted anything bigger/heavier slogging up this with my 6" mincecore machine. 😉
[img] [/img]

also, if your going to write "copyright [your name]" on the photos, do it in a place which isn't easily cropped out.

Agree with the used D40/D60 recommends. Great little camera. If you have the cash the D90 still stuffs the 550D in low light (mountain biking).

The Olympus lenses will only be manual focus if used with an adapter

Depending how much the shop is selling the 30D for, you could probably get a 40D s/hand privately for the same or not much more

My personal choice if I were buying today would be the Pentax K-x, great camera and can be found with kit lens for £399

also, if your going to write "copyright [your name]" on the photos, do it in a place which isn't easily cropped out.

Yeah I see your point - tbh I just have the watermark as a standard export thing on Lightroom, because I post lots of gig pictures etc on facebook for work - and people keep nicking them

eg - http://arkmag.co.uk/live-review-fate-fell-short/
http://arkmag.co.uk/live-review-the-kite-festival/

I know they could easily crop it out but I don't want to spoil the picture too much and it's better than nothing.

Never fail to be impressed by your pics from the GF1, grum 🙂 now I'm earning I'll finally be able to afford one soon.

Cheers _tom_ 😀

There seems to be a few coming up for sale s/h at the mo' over on talkphotography.co.uk if you want to save a few pennies.

I would never go back to film. It's a nightmare after you've been used to digital!

I'm not sure I agree there. Different, yes, but certainly not a nightmare if you use it properly. I was running a slide film through my old Canon (which can be bought for £8 on ebay!) and when it finished, swapped over to my 5D. Whilst there was definitely more detail in the digital shots at high magnification, they just missed the feel of the film - colours just seemed a lot more vibrant

Grum, looking at those photos, are they what come out of the camera, with or without a filter or are they lightroom adjusted?

The thing i like about the GF1 is that it will (just) fit in to my jeans pockets. which means i can take it where-ever i feel.

The thing i like about the GF1 is that it will (just) fit in to my jeans pockets

Even with a lens on? Must have big pockets!

First one is pretty much straight out of the camera RAW file imported into Lightroom and cropped I think. Used a CPL and an ND Grad filter though.

Second one has been tweaked a little in Lightroom

My GF1 doesn't fit in my jeans pockets, but will fairly easily fit in most of jacket pockets - with the 20mm or the 14-45mm.

I'm just about to get my first DSLR- a Nikon D5000, and wondered what the best thing for converting RAW is- bearing in mind I'm a volunteer, living in Ethiopia and on a limited (non-existent!) budget...

I like Lightroom. Alternatively you could set the camera to jpeg mode (I guess?), lose some detail but it saves having to use "special" software!

Picasa should do it - works with the GF1 raw files anyway - and it's free. I always prefer to shoot RAW if possible.

As it's a Nikon, Nikon capture one, I'd have thought. Surely it must come with some free software like Canons?

The best software for handling NEFs in terms of out and out quality is Capture NX2. Nothing else comes close for getting the white balance and colours bang on and giving you the shot you saw through the viewfinder in my experience. However it only works with NEFs, TIFFs and JPEGs, so if in a years time you sell the Nikon and get a Sony or you plan on importing files from another brand of camera you'll need new software to get the best out of it, which is a bit limiting.
Lightroom is very convenient and flexible allowing you to import, catalogue, edit and export photos from one place. It doesn't render NEFs particularly well though, reds go orangey, highlights get blown, it can posterise some areas…
Apple's Aperture does a slightly better job with NEFs, still not as good as Capture but more convenient, if you don't have a Mac then obviously it's no good!