Nikon? canon? looking to spend no more than £200 including the lens and probably second hand. will any of the entry level models from these 2 manufacturers do? Is there a particular model that consistently comes up cheap on ebay etc second hand etc?

you’ll get a canon 350 for that. good camera. i dont think there are any important differences between the nikon and canon at the entry level (others will disagree) so its really personal pref

Sony a200 cameras are very good also.

Rick.

thanks i’ll look into both of those. I’ve decided i can spend £100 on a point and shoot compact camera, or wait a while and get a second hand DSLR. everyone on facebook has loads of pictures of themselves out on the p*ss. I’ve decided i would rather have lots of quality biking photos. i’ve got a feeling they’ll be much more interesting!

Do you know if either of those cameras will do B+W photos?

You turn the digital images to B&W on your computer – really easy to do.

I’d go for Nikon or Canon (Nikon user myself) to start because as you move up the offers from the likes of Sony don’t compare to the big boys. As you’re starting from a blank sheet and aren’t locked into either brand because of lenses or loyalty, get the camera which is the most comfortable to use – go to a shop and hold them.

as you move up the offers from the likes of Sony don’t compare to the big boys

Not really true, as the Sony A900 can hold its own against the very best that CaNikOn have to offer. So starting from scratch, I agree it is best to go handle some cameras and see what you like.

would it be fair to say that canon and nikon are better supported in terms of third party accessories (sigma lenses etc)?? i dont know either way as i’ve only ever used canon.

YGM

3rd party stuff? Not sure about that. Probably more e-bay stuff for Canon and Nikon.

Don’t forget Pentax

Great range of old lenses to choose from,decent entry level camera in the K-m, nice mid range with the K20D and the new K7 which looks a match for Canikon models in that price range

My favourite is the recently discontinued K200D, in built anti shake,dust cleaner and best of all weather sealed.

Be careful with the cheaper Nikon’s, they don’t have a AF motor, so you will need lenses with a motor built in and they ain’t cheap. Same with Image stabilistation, if the body doesn’t have it, you will have to buy lenses with it in

Olympus and Sony both make good cameras too, don’t be lulled into thinking you must buy a Canikon.

Canon and Nikon are simply the 2 best known/biggest brands, there are great cameras out there at your price point from Sony, Pentax, Olympus etc as well.
Between all the brands plus the lens manufacturers like Sigma and Tamron you’ll be covered for any future upgrades. Try a Jessops or Comet etc for ease of handling all the Canon/Nikon, you might need a slightly more specialist shop to find Sony etc. Most decent camera shops have a good range of S/H stuff in as well. Try the back of the many digital photo mags on the shop shelves too or a photo forum, there’s often a classifieds section there.

You won’t find a Pentax in Jessops, apparently they refused to give them a credit line.
Not surprising with the precarious state Jessops are in, shares at about 2p and owing the banks £60m

Best advice as already mentioned, see what feels comfortable and go from there. Don’t think you will find a bad camera these days, so all down to personal choice

I really feel that buying a DSLR sometimes makes people believe that just be having one it makes good pictures. I I found a camera that was small and high;y portable and has lenses from 16 to 600 mm with remote flash and a high motor drive but was in one small package, I’d have it in a second.
If yur going to do either
a, buy one with just a single 28-80mm lens.
or
b, buy one and use it i programme mode al the time,
get a decent compact, canon G9 or 10.

DSLR’s lack shutter lag, and have a real time viewfinder. But if you never ask your brain to do the picture taking, or don’t make use of the variety or lenses (and 28-80 isn’t a variety it’s just a small choice)
28 or 200 is a variety, then buy something which is small compact light and less
‘look at me I’m a photographer!’
Either of the big brands Nikon or Canon build dirt cheap SLR cameras that I would have beaten you to get my hands on even 5 years ago, let alone 10 when they first made it into my office and kit bag.

just a thought, just take more pictures.

Oh and I’d avoid a second hand DSLR unless you know the pervious owner and it’s history inside out they are very very pricey to get fixed and not much can be done with the smaller ones if it does.

How much would am i looking at second hand for a 200mm lens and a fisheye for the canon?

How much would am i looking at second hand for a 200mm lens and a fisheye for the canon?

TWO almost unusable lenses ??

Fisheye is really extreme – are you sure you want one, or will a normal wide-angle do?
To answer your question, it depends …
For example, if you want a zoom, you could look for this:
http://www.kamera-express.nl/index.php?page=product&product=13720
If you go mad and want Image stabilisation:
http://www.kamera-express.nl/index.php?page=product&product=394
Big range of prices!!

Sorry to be no help 🙁

Indeed a strange combination,wouldn’t a short and long zoom be better if you just want two lenses

Fisheye is very specialised, I do have a wide angle fisheye adapter thingy, but only used it once

Don’t forget the 200mm will give you more like 300mm when you take the crop factor into account

Id probably just get a half decent compact camera with a manual function and learn how to take pics with that. You can still get shit hot pictures with a compact and you’ll be able to put it in your ruck sack when going riding.

As has been said, a DSLR wont give you good pics if you dont know how to use it. Ive taken plenty of shit pics with friends DSLR’s

Also, most cameras will allow you to shoot in black and white and its best to do this rather than converting them on the computer

Also, most cameras will allow you to shoot in black and white and its best to do this rather than converting them on the computer

Completely disagree, much better to capture the image in colour and do it on the computer-where you can retain the orignal image, whcih mnay look better in colour, aswell as allowign greater control on the use of black and white, cotnrast etc

I’ve had a nikon p5100, a compact that allows manual cotnrol and i now have a d40. In all honesty, i dont think i ever bothered taking the p5100 off auto and I dont really know why, however, since I’ve changed to a d40, it’s always on manual, and I enjoy choosing the appropriate settings for taking a photo. Perhaps it justs makes you feel more pro?! Also, if you get a compact with manual control ,teh tend to be bigger than your average POS, but their not as good as a SLR…

I’d have to recommend the d40, takes great pictures and the standard lens is fantastic. In comparison to pictures i took with a canon 400d, which i thought left me with rather lack lustre images tbh, not particularly sharp imo.

I managed to get my D40 for £200 new with lens fro Jessops back around chrismtas time, so i imagine you could get one of ebay pretty cheap.

Only downside with the D40 is that the motor for the autofocus is in the lens rather than the body, so if you require autofocus you’re limited to the newer, and thus more expensive lens. Nothing wrogn with good old manual focus though..

Oh and definately try out a number of cameras and their menus/settings. I personally found the canon hard to work out, and had to resort to the manual, somethnig that I didnt do with the Nikon, but its all personal choice really. Good luck!

Also, most cameras will allow you to shoot in black and white and its best to do this rather than converting them on the computer

I really disagree with that. On the computer you have an infinite number of ways of converting to B&W that you can use depending on the subject and your intent. I would never shot B&W in the camera.

On the subject of Manual mode: I attended a workshop by Pascal Baetens where he said “cameras all have a mode for professionals. It is the P mode. So leave your camera on that mode”. Of course he was exaggerating, but the point he made was that it’s easy to start obsessing about the wrong things and forget that the image is the important thing.

Also, most cameras will allow you to shoot in black and white and its best to do this rather than converting them on the computer

but the sensor actually works in colour, and the camera has no special ability to produce “better” B&W than post processing, though I suppose the B&W image might use less memory space than full colour, if that mattered…

i just picked a couple of extremes there to get a rough idea of price! I’ve got loads of questions obviously since i know nothing about cameras. I’m guessing the standard 18-55 lens would be ok for most mtb shots as long as i’m not too close or too far away

i just picked a couple of extremes there to get a rough idea of price!

interesting logic :o)

Dont bother thinknig about lens till you’ve got the camera and the standarad 18-55 lens. In general, it should cover most things, apart from the two extremes obviously, but most importantly it wil allow you take phoots, and then see what lens you actually need.

I reckon I’d have bought a big lens like a 17-200mm right at the beginnign, but in all honesty, now i know i’d benefit most from a 50mm prime, and some sort of wideangle lens!

I reckon I’d have bought a big lens like a 17-200mm right at the beginnign

they are rather good :o)

I’m guessing the standard 18-55 lens would be ok for most mtb shots as long as i’m not too close or too far away

I used a normal kit lens (18-55) for years, in fact a lot of the shots I’ve had published (in Singletrack and elsewhere) were taken on it and are perfectly adequate. You get a lot of folk on here saying to bin the kit lens, it’s crap etc etc but the truth is that it’s a versatile and cheap lens to start learning with, once you know what kind of shots you’re taking, which end of the zoom you’re using most etc THEN go out and buy a decent lens with the range that you want. It’s pointless obsessing about lenses when you’re not yet sure of what camera you’ll be buying, what type of pics you’ll be taking etc.

And as mentioned above, I’ve seen some incredible shots taken with basic compacts and some utterly rubbish ones taken with top end SLRs – the person behind the camera is more important than the number of pixels etc within the lump of metal/plastic.

FWIW, my standard lens is a 17-85mm Image Stabilised job, I’ve got a 50mm fixed and a 70-300mm zoom as well but I rarely use the big zoom one.

does anyone else second the comment above about nikon taking better images? i’ve seen some great images taken with nikon DSLRs but i have no idea what lenses people are using. Is the lack of autofocus on a standard D40 lens going to be an issue? i seem to remember using my sisters canon 400D and focusing manually anyway, would it have let me do this set in auto mode?

the shot i am thinking about taking (just as an example, obviously i wont be buying a camera just to to take one shot!) is of a rider coming down a large set of stone steps in a woodland area. I’d be stood at the bottom about 10m away from the subject. there are trees overhead. would a lack of autofocus mean getting someone to stand halfway down the steps first so i can dial in the focus? if i’m going to be taking mountain biking pics then either i’m going to have to be quick-draw-mcgraw on the focus or take some time to set up the shot first, right?

and another thing. on the camera finder on flickr, a lot of the pics are photoshopped/altered after the pic has been taken, arent they?

You’re worrying too much about it.
ALL DSLRs come with autofocus and modes where the camera will do everything or you can set some bits and leave the camera to do the rest or you can set everything yourself. All the newer lenses will switch between auto and manual focus.

Don’t get bogged down in detail. try a few out (any decent camera shop should let you take a few test shots), see which you like, which feel best to use and go from there. A good photographer witha cheap camera (any brand) will get better shots than a crap photographer with decent kit (again, brand is immaterial). Go out, take LOTS of pics (after all it’s free once you’ve bought the camera!) and go from there.

Is the lack of autofocus on a standard D40 lens going to be an issue?

The issue is that the camera will not autofocus old lenses with no internal focus motor. Newer lenses will work fine

Is the lack of autofocus on a standard D40 lens going to be an issue?

The issue is that the camera will not autofocus old lenses with no internal focus motor. Newer lenses will work fine

im just after a cheap, basic setup. i havent got a clue what lens comes standard with a d40 or if it will autofocus 🙂

I’m not sure those suggesting compacts are as good as DSLRs are really being truthful, though I suspect they’re aiming their comments fairly. From my point of view (amateur, enjoy taking (hyper- sometimes)realistic photos but am no “photographer”) the main difference between DSLRs and compacts is the contrast, colour depth available (RAW), and primarily the sensor noise. The graduation of smooth areas of similar colours is totally mashed by some compacts, even expensive ones, even cheap DSLRs seem to manage these things fairly well.

i havent got a clue what lens comes standard with a d40 or if it will autofocus

it will

I’m not sure those suggesting compacts are as good as DSLRs are really being truthful

IMO they are delusional

there are compact cameras…
And then there are compact cameras.

Yes but…

I have an Ixus 65, a G9 (the G10s predecessor), and a Sony A200 as well as sometimes using the wife’s D80. The G9 is far far better than the Ixus 65, but it is a far less competent camera than either of the DSLRs. Response times are a lot slower, the view from viewfinder doesn’t remotely match the picture you’ve taken, can’t get to higher than f8, no way of setting a focus point, etc, etc etc. The G9 is a grand camera, and great for taking with you when you walk the dogs, but really no match for any modern DSLR.
Of course, some people will take better pictures with their G9/10 than I ever will with my DSLR, just the same way as some people will clean climbs on a rigid singlespeed that I can’t get up on my full susser. I don’t think that means I have to ride a rigid singlespeed until I’m as good as them before I’m justified in getting a full susser.

Colin

Compacts don’t live up to SLR performance but if I want to take the SLR, and subsequently/inevitably Flash gun and second lens (EFS 10-22 yummy!), and sometimes third lens (EF50 prime) it involves taking the camelbak motherlode and I generally enjoy the ride less – I have to make a decision as to whether I’m going to out to snap or to ride.

My wife’s Panasonic TZ3 does an admirable job and fits in my regular pack – yes you can tell the difference in the photos a mile away but that’s the choice you have to make.

No matter what people say, taking an SLR out on the bike is a PITA!

i was advised to shoot B&W from the camera bys someone one here (cant remember who)

Analogy was, its like riding a hardtail, you’ve got to be good using something simple and hard to get right before you can expect to be good with anything else.

And its not free once youve bought it! Theres still a cost involved in printing (no a dissimilar ammount to producing photos from film). And the shutter has a fiinite (and fairly random) lifespan (anywhare between 50k and 150k opperations). And the added cost of photoshop. IIRC it works out at 2p-3p per photo in the end.

I’ve got the PowerShot G10.

I was torn between a dSLR and a compact. I went for the Powershot G10 as you have the control of a dSLR, but its a lot smaller than a dSLR. It feels like a dSLR, but in a smaller case.

A good camera is one you use, not leave on at home because its too big/bulky.

Fits in my mule perfectly, or even the saddle bag.

I second the recommendation for the Powershot, I’ve been delighted with mine. There are disadvantages compared to an SLR – fewer frames per second and electronic rather than optical viewfinder are the obvious ones – but it takes stunning photos, has all the lens range I’ll ever need, and is much easier to carry around.

I second the recommendation for the Powershot, I’ve been delighted with mine. There are disadvantages compared to an SLR – fewer frames per second and electronic rather than optical viewfinder are the obvious ones – but it takes stunning photos, has all the lens range I’ll ever need, and is much easier to carry around.