Giving an older SLR as a gift

My son is almost 16, and is constantly stealing his mum’s Canon 60D SLR to use and experiment with. Even with his iPhone, he is showing an immense amount of talent for photography.

The question I have is (from a technical perspective – I know you don’t know my son!): Would he be happy with something like a Canon 10D to keep learning on and developing? Or is that just too old, and he would get frustrated?

Are there very affordable old SLR models that are perhaps a little more up-to-date in terms of spec, but that similar quality to the Canon?

Any help appreciated!

Definitely he would learn.
I’ve just picked up two Nikon D40s for each of my nieces, £100 each with a kit lens from London camera exchange. I had that camera which is an entry level camera from several years back for a good many years and learned loads.

They may lack the sensitivity and speed of something newer but you still have all that creative control. He’ll be chuffed I imagine. Go for it.

Plenty of cheap used canons available. It really depends if mum wants him borrowing her lenses. If she doesn’t get anything but a canon. If he’s brand concious a Nikon, otherwise whatever comes up.

My main issue with the older Canons is how tiny the rear screen is.

The 10d is very slow and I’m sure would be frustrating as hell for a 16yr old…

More recent second hand DSLRs would be much better

I borrowed a 10d off a friend before buying my first DLSR (a Nikon..) I remember it being very heavy, and as cp says slow compared to the D80 I originally bought. I guess one advantage of a heavy camera is that they’d more likely be careful with it – but its weight is not going to be conducive to taking it everywhere with you and always having it ready in my opinion.

I probably wouldn’t go all the way back to a 10d, but something like the 40d is often recommended (30d owner myself). Can probably be had for about £200 these days.

The xxxd series you might find a bit cheaper. 400d or 450d maybe? I much prefer the controls on the xxd series though.

If you go back older, say 350d (I have one of these too), or 20d, then the LCD screens get pretty small, noticeably dated, and more difficult to view – though they too are still very capable cameras.

The main advantages of newer models are the technology. Video, and low light performance being two big ones. Live view, flip out screens, stuff like that. Image quality you’ll find much the same. This comes from the (rather expensive) lenses.

Not sure if your west-midlands based? but I have a Nikon D70s, 2 lenses 18mm-55mm and 35mm-70mm. It works well takes some great pictures, has a couple of faults but they haven’t effected me over the last few years.

First fault is the pop up flash doesn’t work, never has tbh.

Second fault is the digital screen while you can see your picture fine, sometimes when you play back a set of pictures it flashes up dark lumps. These don’t effect the picture when you transfer across to the laptop.

Only reason for letting it go this ive brought a micro dslr which suits me better for taking on hols.

Not after much for it, would take a reasonable offer. I was going to ebay it with a starting bid at £10 to see what it would make.

I’ve just replaced my 10D with a 60D. As said, the 10D is really slow, and has a very small screen. Yes, he’ll learn with it, but I suggest you get something a bit newer.

Try MPBPhotographic.co.uk

They’re Brighton based but do mail order. I’ve bought most of my gear 2nd hand through them. They offer warranty on all their stock so you get some piece of mind.

Just looking now the 450 is going for around £150. The 10D is around £75. You’ll need to add a lens but the 18-55 is around £50.

My wife was chuffed to bits with her ‘old’ Olympus E-420 for £120. Partly because she knows the household budget and knows how cheap it was. In use it’s absolutely fine, great little camera. The only disadvantages are the ISO only goes up to 1600 and it only has three focus points (not that it’s an issue for her anyway).

That’s coming from someone who liked taking photos with a compact but isn’t really a gear freak.

I’ll keep saying it but 20D was a step-change moment and massively over-engineered. 30D/40D/50D didn’t really add much for the learner photographer. Should see 20D for <100 quid now on ebay.

My best man was given a 20D by his now wife for his birthday a couple of years back. Judging by how many photos he takes, and how they’ve improved since he got it, I’d say it was a great way to get someone of any age into photogrtaphy

Thought about a film camera?

Somewhere on a camera forum somebody is suggesting a penny farthing would be a good present for a young lad wanting to get into cycling.

I’ve got a 20d that I keep meaning to put on ebay.
It’s in really good condition and has taken about 7000 shots if I remember correctly – I upgraded to a 40d when they came out then sold that to help fund the 7d I still use, kept the 20d as a back up but haven’t used it for several years now. I’ve got the kit lens and a genuine battery grip as well.
email in profile if interested

I think the fundamentals don’t change, so yeah, an old camera would be great. I’ve still got my Nikon D40 and while it’s pretty much fit for the skip, I couldn’t justify anything more advanced – straight out of the box I think that old 6mbp starter DSLR took as high a quality shot as my abilities as a photographer woyld need. Plus, you can take risks with an older camera you wouldn’t dare take with something newer or more pricey. 🙂

Whilst I slagged off the older cameras, here’s a shot I took with my lads 350d and kit lens at the weekend.

It’s fiddly to use for sure but the results aren’t too shabby.

5thElefant – Member

Somewhere on a camera forum somebody is suggesting a penny farthing would be a good present for a young lad wanting to get into cycling.

I agree with a lot of what has been said above apart from the film camera option.
Things like the Canon 300d to 450d are now available for less than £200 and sometimes you can pick up some nice accessories in the bundle. The same goes for the lower end Nikons As richpips has demonstrated the final image is as much to do with the photographer as the equipment.

In for Matt24k’s opinion. Canon 300d to 450d are affordable now and will not too old for using.

D40 is hardly old tech.
I take photos with my D50 (which is older than the d40) that are often used as stock for brochures for a mate of mine who is a graphic designer.
This a reflection of digital profligacy, the camera and subject matter rather than my ability. I just hammer out 100’s of pics and 1/100th of them are decent.

This a reflection of digital profligacy, the camera and subject matter rather than my ability. I just hammer out 100’s of pics and 1/100th of them are decent.

Spray and pray huh? I disagree, digital cameras are excellent for learning as you can be free to experiment without worrying about expensive film and processing times, but if you have the approach of taking hundreds of photos in the hope you might get one decent one, you’re kind of missing the point.

D40 is a fantastic camera, but I guess you’re more hooked in to Canon.

I disagree, digital cameras are excellent for learning as you can be free to experiment without worrying about expensive film and processing times, but if you have the approach of taking hundreds of photos in the hope you might get one decent one, you’re kind of missing the point

Yeah I’m not sure why you I should conform to your ideas of what photography is about.

I was trying to illustrate that the D40, whilst old is still an excellent camera, not necessarily giving you a critical insight into my photography ontology. One of the things that pisses me off about here is how people are happy to drop into insult and criticism that they would be unlikely to to carry out in real life.

Whilst I have been able to learn a lot because I have been able to experiment, there are also times (like with kids) when there is little time for set up or composition, just taking lots and knowing the camera will produce something good is a pretty great thing, and reinforces the fact that the D40 is a good camera for a beginner to learn on.

D40 might not be old tech, per se, but it’s an old tech by the standards of beginner kit today – haven’t looked for awhile, but compared to, say, D3100, D40 doesn’t do video, 6.1mp compared to 14mp, no HDMI connection, etc. You and I know that, all things considered, if you took one of each brand new straight out of the box and gave them to someone who’s new to shooting, there wouldn’t be much to choose between the shots either of them take, but people do get caught up by the numbers (I remember taking mine to work to take some pictures after, and every single person who expressed an interest asked what megapix it was – without exception, every single one was disappointed when I said 6.1 and thought their 8/10/12 MP phones/compacts would take better pictures 🙂 ).

I don’t have a problem with spray and pray (never heard that expression before! 🙂 ) as long as you learn from it – when I got D40 I was doing a bit of reporting on motocross and largely just used it as a big point and shoot, but over time, if I was disappointed with how some shots came out, I learned how to set it manually, rather than relying on the auto stuff, but I still subscribed to the “take hundreds and a percentage will come out great” philosophy. Now, unless I’m spending time somewhere where it goes from light to dark and back a lot, I’ll pick the speed and aperture myself.

As richpips has demonstrated the final image is as much to do with the photographer as the equipment.

It’s way more to do with the photographer than the equippment! Think of Oli Beckinsale on a £150 mtb. He’s still going to comfortably beat most of us, isn’t he?

if you have the approach of taking hundreds of photos in the hope you might get one decent one, you’re kind of missing the point

No, I think you’re missing the point. Photography is an art form, and as such we can do whatever we damn well please with it.

Anyway.. as for old tech.. my wife’s camere was old an obselete when I bought it last year. It was made in 2009! Old, in digital camera terms, isn’t really old at all.

It’s way more to do with the photographer than the equippment! Think of Oli Beckinsale on a £150 mtb. He’s still going to comfortably beat most of us, isn’t he?

Do you know, I once met the editor of a magazine who swore blind it was more down to the kit than the photographer, wouldn’t have it the other way round. I guess that’s why he’s an editor rather than a photographer. 🙂

Got my D40 in 2007 – if I could have another, box-fresh, I’d take it in an instant. Sure, newer/shinier/videoyer/monster megapixelier would be nice, but I really don’t need it, for what I’d use it for. 🙂

If you’ve already got a 60D and some lenses, it would make sense to keep on the same system for this camera.
My father, brother and I all had Konika SLRs when I was at college and it was handy having a system of lenses between us.

I can heartily recommend a 40D. I sold mine for about £170 in absolute mint condition. It feels even nicer to use than the 60D (better build, materials and ergonomics). Main difference is it lacks video.

If that’s too expensive, then perhaps look at the 550D – it has amazing video, as well as being roughly on a par with the 40D for image. Downside is the handling – a bit fiddly (although I’m sure this wont prove to be a limitation to your son’s images).
A quick look on Ebay suggests they can go for as little as £130 body-only.

Add a canon 50mm f1.8 and he’ll be able to experiment with pretty much any type of image.

it would make sense to keep on the same system for this camera.

Sure, that sounds like a great idea, until you start hoarding each other’s kit…

“Honey, can I have the macro for a bit?”
“Ok, do you want this tele?”
“No I’ll take the wide angle if you brought it”

.. and so on.. this is how our family walks go.

I can see that, but I can also see that nobody will want to fork out for 2 Ultra-Wide-Angle lenses in the same family. Good lenses are just too expensive. (I haven’t even been able to afford one UWA yet)

Anyway – I’m sure the OP will be able to work out whether it’s going to work out for him or not.

Interesting comment about the magazine editor saying the kit was more important than the photographer………….WTF!
Mrs Matt24k had an image used as a double page spread in BBC Wildlife magazine. What super high end camera was it shot on?
It wasn’t.
She used her skill to get a cracking image from an EOS300d that she recently sold on a well known auction site for £140.

I thought the punchline was going to be ‘iphone’.

Interesting comment about the magazine editor saying the kit was more important than the photographer………….WTF!

He was an idiot, and subsequently turned out to be really not a very nice man at all.

Edit – and well in, MrsMatt24k. That’s rather cool! 🙂

For some examples of what can be done with an iPhone look here:
http://inologist.com

The restrictions can provide drive and focus.

I’ve just bought a secondhand Nikon P500. It’s a fixed lens ‘bridge’ camera but has everything you’d want. I used to be a film camera user with 2 Nikon bodies, mostly prime lenses and all the gubbins.
The bridge cameras have everything a removable-lens SLR has except they have a massive range lens that cannot be removed but then with 22mm to 810mm equivalent AND VR system, why would you want to? Just get one with a proper viewfinder rather than an arms length viewscreen.

VR system, why would you want to?

Isn’t that the stabilisation thing? If so, it’s massively useful, and would be even more so on a smaller sensor camera.

You’d also lose out on phase detect autofocus, and you won’t be able to get as wide an aperture in a compact.

Don’t get me wrong, you can do great stuff with a compact, but SLRs definitely offer a big step up in versatility and ability. Can’t really argue with that.

The lens of the P500:

maximum apertures of f/3.4 at 22.5mm and f/5.7 at 810mm

example of ‘SLR’ lens:

Nikon Zoom-Nikkor Zoom lens – 18 mm – 105 mm – F/3.5-5.6 – Nikon F

Apertures compare quite well, don’t you think? Except you’re getting an equivalent (in 35mm) of 22.5mm to 810mm!

maximum apertures of f/3.4 at 22.5mm and f/5.7 at 810mm

In optics, the f-number (sometimes called focal ratio, f-ratio, f-stop, or relative aperture[1]) of an optical system is the ratio of the lens’ focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil

So you can’t start multiplying the focal length by a number and claim that the other one is still the same.

It’s a 4.0-144.0mm f3.4 – f5.7.

Not in any shape or form anything vaguely like a 22.5 – 810mm f3.4 – f5.7.

Isn’t that the stabilisation thing? If so, it’s massively useful, and would be even more so on a smaller sensor camera.

You’d also lose out on phase detect autofocus, and you won’t be able to get as wide an aperture in a compact.

i wonder how I manage with a mamiya rb67 with automatic nothing and no batteries. 11 pics per roll costing around £5, unless i use sfx infrared which is closer to £10. Means i tend to think about each picture rather than firing off a hundred shots because one of them will turn out ok. It does a have a removable back so i can switch films mid roll, a switch on the dark slide holder to prevent the back being removed when the dark slide is out (wooo technology) and a rotating back to switch between portrait and landscape (woooo more technology). negs are 6cm by 7cm, so quality is awesome and weight is even more impressive so my stamina/upper body strength is coming along nicely as well.
And I love playing in the dark rooom, coz I’m just weird that way.

Yes but for £50 ish you can fit a f1.4 lens on to an SLR. The P500 will never be able to do that.