I used to do a lot of hobbyist photography with a SLR (Nikon fm10), but I kinda fell out of it. However, I want to get back into photography and I'm looking to buy a DSLR. However, I have no idea what I should be looking at in a DSLR other than that Canon and Nikon seem to be the kings at the moment. I have a budget of £300-£500 for the camera and a good zoom lens.
Looking for a DSLR
- Thread starter Relative
- Start date
For that price bracket:
Used 30D or 40D
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Then if you wish to add things;
105mm f/2.8 if your planning on shooting macro.
OR
55-250mm (or 70-200 f/4 if budget allows) if you want to photograph sports/wildlife.
OR
10-20mm, if your primary intrest is Landscapes (and a tripod of course)
OR
85mm f/1.8 for portraits.
Just pick and choose which bits you need.
Regards,
p0ss3s3d
Used 30D or 40D
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Then if you wish to add things;
105mm f/2.8 if your planning on shooting macro.
OR
55-250mm (or 70-200 f/4 if budget allows) if you want to photograph sports/wildlife.
OR
10-20mm, if your primary intrest is Landscapes (and a tripod of course)
OR
85mm f/1.8 for portraits.
Just pick and choose which bits you need.
Regards,
p0ss3s3d
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
While that advice is fine for some people I really disagree with it being handed out every time - there are people for whom a 550D/D3100 kit is a better option. Just my 2p
Not really. I can't see any real instances where this doesn't really apply. This guys had a little experience with SLR's. He'll figure his way around this easily.
Unless the deciding factor is 600g of plastic vs 900g of plastic/metal.
OR
They don't want to buy used.
Thats the only reason anyone would rather a xxxD+18-55 over xxD+17-50.
Unless the deciding factor is 600g of plastic vs 900g of plastic/metal.
OR
They don't want to buy used.
Thats the only reason anyone would rather a xxxD+18-55 over xxD+17-50.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 9,515
- Location
- London Town!
Both of which are good reasons in their own right. Warranty is reassuring and size and weight will affect how often people take a camera with them, given he used an FM10 before (which is half the weight of a semi pro body like the D200/40D) that might matter.
Certainly in Nikon's case the entry bodies like the D3100 have better auto modes than the semi pro bodies, which might upset the purists but if you just want snaps of the kids quickly there's nothing wrong with that.
Camera's like the 550D and D3100 do gain an advantage from higher res, if you're shooting wildlife with a 55-250 them being able to crop is a godsend and you can crop tighter with 14.2 MP and 8MP (on the 30D for instance). Most people will never own a lens with greater reach than a 70-300mm.
Basically, I just disagree with the recent 'last gen high end camera is always better than current entry level' attitude which is going round here at the moment.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,417
If you dont mind 2nd hand go with something like p0ss3s3d suggests. New i would save a few more quid and buy the Nikon D3100 if i was in your position.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 139
- Location
- Thailand ATM
I am buying the 550d tomorrow, its costs £500 in Bangkok with the 18-55mm. It might be plastic but you get some impressive technology for your money. I also think it feels pretty good, if your a beginner like me you probably wont notice the difference.
Thanks for the suggestions guys, I think I'm going to wait for the D3100. In this case I would prefer something new with a warranty over buying used, and the weight of a semi-pro dslr is a factor, but thanks for the tip p0ss3s3d - I know where you are coming from.
Last edited:
Do you have any old glass still? If you do and it's good, you might want to adjust your ideas.
In a couple of months the D90 replacement (rumoured as the D7000) will come out and D90 owners (even D300 owners) will be shedding their old bodies for the upgrade. It's sounding like it's going to be a truly epic upgrade... But it's way out of your budget.
But for somebody getting back in the game, a nice second hand D90 sounds like a great plan. I say this over a D3000/D5000 because the D90 has screw-drive AF whereas the newer D3000/3100/5000 do not, making them pretty useless with old (cheap) lenses.
Even if you don't have old glass, you might want to hang on, snap up a second hand D90 for a good price and then use the saved money for something like a Nikon 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 lens. Aperture is slower than I'd like but it's roughly a third of the price of a Nikon something-200mm f2.8.
I'd also say that the Nikon lens is worth the extra dosh (it's probably twice as much as the Tamron equiv) as it's sharper across the whole image at several zoom points and the bokeh is a billion time nicer. I've seen too many Tamron shots with ferociously "busy" bokeh that just detract from the whole image.
I think the extra spending in your glass is worth it as it'll a) last for a good 8-10 years and b) holds its value very well if you look after it. Just make sure you get a decent cover for it.
In a couple of months the D90 replacement (rumoured as the D7000) will come out and D90 owners (even D300 owners) will be shedding their old bodies for the upgrade. It's sounding like it's going to be a truly epic upgrade... But it's way out of your budget.
But for somebody getting back in the game, a nice second hand D90 sounds like a great plan. I say this over a D3000/D5000 because the D90 has screw-drive AF whereas the newer D3000/3100/5000 do not, making them pretty useless with old (cheap) lenses.
Even if you don't have old glass, you might want to hang on, snap up a second hand D90 for a good price and then use the saved money for something like a Nikon 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 lens. Aperture is slower than I'd like but it's roughly a third of the price of a Nikon something-200mm f2.8.
I'd also say that the Nikon lens is worth the extra dosh (it's probably twice as much as the Tamron equiv) as it's sharper across the whole image at several zoom points and the bokeh is a billion time nicer. I've seen too many Tamron shots with ferociously "busy" bokeh that just detract from the whole image.
I think the extra spending in your glass is worth it as it'll a) last for a good 8-10 years and b) holds its value very well if you look after it. Just make sure you get a decent cover for it.
Last edited: