Newbie to SLR Cameras

Danny McGee · #1 30-10-2011

Hi Guys,

Am after some advice on slr camera's.

Am a begineer at all this so would liek opinions on where to start, what to look for etc etc.

I've had a little look on the web and so far im looking at this one.

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/...8032/show.html

Any advice, opinions and all that would be much appreciated.

Also, places to get them cheap would be good

who price matches etc etc.

Thanks

Danny

spud31 · #2 30-10-2011

Good choice i have an older nikon d50 and love it.
Have you been and felt the weight an feel of the camera as some of the newer nikons are plastic body so feel very light.
Best thing is older lenses fit an work with the auto focus so can be picked up 2nd hand

ejw · #3 30-10-2011

What are you going to use the camera for Danny?

Different cameras for different things,

static people pics? sports stuff involving fast moving subjects? low light level stuff/indoor shots or mainly outside brightly lit? Not all slrs are equal and some are inherently better for certain things!

Danny McGee · #4 30-10-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by ejw

What are you going to use the camera for Danny?

Different cameras for different things,

static people pics? sports stuff involving fast moving subjects? low light level stuff/indoor shots or mainly outside brightly lit? Not all slrs are equal and some are inherently better for certain things!

To be honest, I'm not massively sure, just want one

. An going on holiday soon so pictures from there. As well as touristy shorts in day / night. Guess a good all rounder would be my best bet.

Chris Green · #5 30-10-2011

Hi Danny,

I can't comment directly on the camera you mentioned, as I have only ever owned canon's in the past.

As Spud has mentioned, the D3100 is a plastic bodied camera, it is light, and quite compact for an SLR.

Would you consider buying used? You'd be able to pick up an older metal bodied camera within budget. (I recently sold a Canon 40D for £290 ish, which was mint, a 50mm F1.8 for £60, a 55-250IS lens for £130 or so).

What will you be using it for? I'm assuming you might try and take photo's of RC cars? If so, you'll need a decent lens or two.

Take a look at www.talkphotography.co.uk Its an excellent forum, with a classifieds area.

eyeayen · #6 30-10-2011

Photo Radar is another good forum, attached to Digital Camera Mag by Future Publishing.

The Nikon has had favorable reviews over the other entry level camera's and if I was to go for one it would be the Nikon D3100. However you need to go into the shop and hold each one and see which suits you best.

Also this is where manufacturers snare customers, you aren't just buying a camera you are buying into a system, look later down the line because you will get hooked, it's unavoidable, so what might you want to buy later on, flash, extra lens, remote shooting device. Look at costs of these.

I don't think you'll go wrong with the D3100 though. As for price...

http://www.camerapricebuster.com/

colmo · #7 30-10-2011

Are you sure it's a DSLR you want? There are now DSLT cameras (primarily Sony - permanent non-moving semi-transparent mirror) and EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens - modern day rangefinders where the composition is made on screens or electronic viewfinders straight off the sensor).

Each perform different jobs well. The DSLTs, smaller than DSLRs as there is no prism, are excellent for shooting video as they utilise superior focusing techniques, have no mirror slap (a slight problem in long exposures for DSLRs) but have no optical viewfinder (though the OVFs on cheaper DSLRs are crap anyway). The mirror loses 1/3rd of a 'stop' of light, which in practice is a fair trade considering the light sensitivity of modern sensors.

EVILs are great because they're so small - for holidays, I love my Sony NEX 5 (can be had for £312 with lens, the slightly newer C3 is £400 or so), which pushes Leica digital rangefinders (£4k body only) close for image quality. Fuji, Olympus and Nikon all have similar efforts too, though I believe the Sony is the market leader of that particular camera type.

My pick for a jack of all trades camera right now would be the Sony A77 (24MP, 1080P video at 60FS, 12 frame burst shooting, weather sealed), though at £1500 or so with lens, maybe a tad steep to start!

For the more traditional DSLR, I'll leave the Canon and Nikon shooters to advise you, I don't really keep up with those. They possess a superior range of lenses to Sony (especially expensive telephotos, which folks may hire). Pentax released the well regarded K-5 not long ago too. Sigma and Tamron have an excellent range of cheaper lenses for most mounts.

poopers · #8 31-10-2011

For SLRs I don’t think you can go wrong with any of the current offerings from either Canon or Nikon, they’re both excellent.

Like others have said, the best bet is to go to your local camera shop and have a good play around with a few, see which you like the feel of. Often the deciding factor can be small personal preferences, such as being able to feel the shutter button properly, checking you don’t keep catching buttons, or if the camera’s a comfortable size for your hands etc. That stuff makes more of a difference than camera body specs imo.

18-55mm is a good general use lens (though I have no experience of the Nikon version), but might be a little on the short side if you wanted to shoot RC racing. Whatever you buy, it’s probably best to get a UV filter for the lens as well, more to protect it from damage than anything.

And as a side note, this may well be obvious but you’d be amazed how many people do this. Try to get a camera that’s not so expensive that you’re nervous of using it. I see loads of people get awesome cameras then never take any shots because it’s hidden away in a bag waiting for perfect conditions and they’re scared to get it wet in the rain or have dust blow all over it etc.

Finally, check out warehouseexpress.com I've used them quite a bit and they often have good deals.

Origineelreclamebord · #9 31-10-2011

I currently use a Sony A200, it's my first DSLR and I'm very happy with it

The only drawbacks:

- Small viewfinder (I recently acquired an old SLR (Analog) which has a viewfinder at least 3 times as big if you look into it). I don't know how the other DSLRs are, but I'm sure that when I buy a next camera (could take another 5 years, I sure do hope so

) it needs to have a bigger viewfinder: It makes it so much easier to focus accurately and do it quickly.
- Not splash watertight. None of the cheaper DSLRs have this feature, but I'd like to be able to make pictures of things in the rain without worrying about the water coming down on my camera.

I'm sure with most big/A-brands you will get roughly the same camera - or at least you'll be happy with what you'll get. Just make sure it has the right size and right grip (The Olympus E-450 for example practically doesn't have a grip! Many cheap DSLRs are also small, whereas the expensive ones are large, not only in size, but also in grip. It's as if the manufacturers are making the assumption that women will only buy cheap DSLRs so they need to be good for small hands, whereas the expensive ones need chunky grips for huge hands. Not a good thing imo

I can't afford top of the range DSLRs, but I need a big grip. Luckily the A200 has a fairly big grip for it's size, the successor of the A200 doesn't.

To get the most from your DSLR though, get into picturing things with manual settings, it's a lot of fun

@colmo: I used EVFs (Electronic ViewFinders) in the past, it was on a Minolta Dimage 7 - it was absolutely )^@(! I totally recommend an optical viewfinder, I couldn't see at all it the picture was focused, I could count the pixels on the screen really. I'm sure it's been adressed and improved, but it will never ever be as good as an optical viewfinder. The solution is to use AF, but I find it boring to work with, so it's not an option for me. If one uses AF all the time though, it shouldn't be as big a deal.

Cooper · #10 31-10-2011

Why not a mirrorless camera?
Micro four thirds (panasonic GF3 GH2, ... or olympus)
very compact and high quality!
or Sony Nex, a little less compact but also very good quality.

You can put a pancake lens on your camera and have a 'compact' and if you change to a bigger zoom lens you'll have nearly DSLR quality!

I have and GF1 next to my professional Canon 1D and I absolutely love it !!!!!!
I think mirror camera's are only good for fast actions, every other situation can be handled perfectly with a mirrorless camera.

F1END · #11 31-10-2011

I can't really comment on that particular camera as I have only used Canons, but I'm sure it's more than good enough for what you want. As others have said, the smaller non-SLR cameras around these days will also easily be up to the job you want it to do.

One piece of advice I'd give if you do go for an SLR is that the lens is more important than the camera in my opinion. An entry level camera with a really good lens will take a better photo than a pro camera with a cheap lens on (I've tested this with a professional photographer I know).

Like others have said, how the camera feels in your hand is important too... I much preferred the way my old Canon 300D felt in my hand to the 450D I upgraded to.

colmo · #12 31-10-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Origineelreclamebord

@colmo: I used EVFs (Electronic ViewFinders) in the past, it was on a Minolta Dimage 7 - it was absolutely )^@(! I totally recommend an optical viewfinder, I couldn't see at all it the picture was focused, I could count the pixels on the screen really. I'm sure it's been adressed and improved, but it will never ever be as good as an optical viewfinder. The solution is to use AF, but I find it boring to work with, so it's not an option for me. If one uses AF all the time though, it shouldn't be as big a deal.

The latest generation of EVFs in the Sony A77/A65 (watch out for the A65, 24MP at around £700, hard to resist!) and NEX 7 are stunningly good. I had a play with the A77 in Jessops, and can tell you the A77's EVF is better (i.e. bigger) than the OVF of my A100, unless you move really fast, with enough resolution that you barely realise it's digital.The one in my NEX 5 is not quite so good, being problematic in bright sun (not a huge problem in N. Ireland - the sun is a myth here...), and there are accessory hoods for it anyway.

If it's not moving quickly, I'd agree mirrorless is the way to go. The size and cost savings are substantial, though autofocus will not be as good. It is nice to use magnified manual focus for critical shots, and focus peaking is a nice feature. The ability to use adapters to attach pretty much any lens from the last 60 years is just gravy.

P.S. One last thing in favour of cameras with EVFs - the ability to compose on a tilting rear screen makes waist level candids a possibility. There's nothing that will alert people to your presence like lifting a camera to your eye. Yes, I know that sounds a bit creepy....