Please help me buy a DSLR - budget around £600

rossyl

rossyl

rossyl

Soldato
Joined
27 Oct 2002
Posts
4,280
Location
London
Hi,

Apologies for a thread that no doubt gets started on here once everyday. I've read a few threads, and have had a bit of a read of Canon and Nikkon's offerings which seemed to be favoured on here.

Both me and my girlfriend are photography amateurs only having point and shoot type cameras. However, she is now very keen on getting a camera that can take high quality shots, where the focus is spot on on the item you are foussing on and the light in the photo is more life-like and as you see it.

I had wanted to get a fancy pocket camera like the Sony HX9V.

However, she is very keen on a DSLR. In terms of using the camera and all its features, i imagine that will be a learning curve. However, at the moment she is very keen on the Sony SLT's for their ability to focus very quickly, and to maintain that focus. The AF in HD video is also a plus.

The £600 ish budget is to include a lens, and if we could spend a lot less and still get something very good - i think we'd be happy with that.

So - are we making the right choice with the type of camera, rather than my sugegstions (from reading around on here it would appear so).

I imagine , however, that buying a DSLR and leaving it on AUTO is raher pointless and we'd need to take a photography course of some sort and learn how to get the best out of it?

Is the Sony A55 a good choice, or is the super-fast auto focus not that important a feature?

Reasons we'd like to get a DSLR - so that we can capture a sunset, so we can take photos in low light conditions that represnt what it actually looks like rather than a high-noice blur or have the image whited-out with a bright flash.

Anyways hope that makes sense...and hope you can help.
 
The immediate problem is that the camera doesn't do the focusing, you do. If you miss the focus, or focus then move the camera or the subject moves, you've got a throw away photo.

Also, unless using auto settings, again you'll be the one that dictates what an image looks like. Composition, etc are down to the user, but more importantly the processing will be done on your PC to get that extra 'pop'.

If you're looking for something that does all the processing in camera, I don't think a DSLR is where you want to be going, plus you'll need to buy lenses for it too. Still, that's up to you isn't it? If you're willing to lean and buy lenses for the focal lengths you require (zoom, wide angle, prime lenses, etc) then a DSLR is a great thing.

I've no idea about Nikon as I've never used them, but it might be worth looking for a Canon 30D second hand with the kit lens? That would be well within budget and you'd have a bit of cash left over for another lens :)
 
Nikon's option would be a D3100, should be able to get a twin lens kit (18-55 and 55-200 VR) for your budget.
Also worth noting that the A55 and such have an electronic view finder, rather then an optical one.
This has some benefits and drawbacks, but the biggest issue is battery drain, from my experience camera's with EVF's run out of battery about 40% quicker then those without.

Regarding the camera itself, you should check http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sony_Alpha_SLT_A33/verdict.shtml
it does a good job highlighting the pro's and cons of the Axx series. Although its the A33 not the A55 the pro's and cons are broadly the same.
 
Last edited:
ElDude said:
Also, unless using auto settings, again you'll be the one that dictates what an image looks like. Composition, etc are down to the user, but more importantly the processing will be done on your PC to get that extra 'pop'.

If you're looking for something that does all the processing in camera, I don't think a DSLR is where you want to be going, plus you'll need to buy lenses for it too. Still, that's up to you isn't it? If you're willing to lean and buy lenses for the focal lengths you require (zoom, wide angle, prime lenses, etc) then a DSLR is a great thing.
Click to expand...


Thanks - fair point re the losing the focus, and that is appreciated.

However, what I did not appreciate is having to do "processing" on my PC. I presume that this means playing around with each photo on Photoshop?

I would presume that the photos would generally look of much higher quality, focus, sharpness, colour etc...than a point and shoot and camera. And that you would only want to play with them on Photoshop in order to further enhance the photo. I.e. the photo does not have to be processed in photoshop.

Or am I wrong.
 
rossyl said:
However, what I did not appreciate is having to do "processing" on my PC. I presume that this means playing around with each photo on Photoshop?

I would presume that the photos would generally look of much higher quality, focus, sharpness, colour etc...than a point and shoot and camera. And that you would only want to play with them on Photoshop in order to further enhance the photo. I.e. the photo does not have to be processed in photoshop.

Or am I wrong.
Click to expand...

You don't absolutely have to process every single shot you take, but with the huge prominence of professional photography in our everyday lives you may find you need to to be happy with your shots.

The quality will be much better than a point and shoot, but programs like Adobe Lightroom make processing so easy that it's easily worth it in my view. Photoshop isn't ideal for processing photos unless you want to actually make stuff over.

To sum up: The image quality will be far higher on a DSLR than any point and shoot, especially for prints, but after a while you'll want to start trying your hand at processing, as it adds so much to images. If you're just using it as a higher IQ compact P&S then you'll be fine, but don't expect stunning artistic images without a bit of practice and post processing
 
Ksanti said:
To sum up: The image quality will be far higher on a DSLR than any point and shoot, especially for prints, but after a while you'll want to start trying your hand at processing, as it adds so much to images. If you're just using it as a higher IQ compact P&S then you'll be fine, but don't expect stunning artistic images without a bit of practice and post processing
Click to expand...


Thanks very much - and that makes perfect sense.

Just need a bit more of a steer on the actual camera's to go for. I think we might like the security of buying new, so we'll probably go that way.
 
I'm in the exact same position (same budget, pretty much the same reasons for wanting to buy and the same uncertainty about photoshop/lightroom)

After reading around for a few months I can't really see past getting either a canon 550d, canon 600d, nikon d90 or a nikon d5100.

All with just the kit lens to start off with whilst learning how to use it, then maybe buying a 50mm lens after a while. Once using it for a year or 2 I should know what other lenses (if any) I might need to buy in future.
 
many options in that price range so you're in a good place.

Pentax k-x twin lens kit £400ish
Nikon d3100 twin lens kit £499
Nikon d5100 (articulated screen) £600
Canon 550d £550 - £600

Comparison - http://www.dpreview.com/products/co...100&products=canon_eos550d&products=pentax_kx

at high iso / low light they are all VERY similar, almost identical. Forget the crap about nikon is good in low light, at this price point nikon isnt any better than the competing canon camera at that price point (550d)

If video is very important go with a 550D.

The d5100 may have an articulated screen but other than that the d3100 is the same performance for a lot less money.

The pentax k-x is great value, but the nikon is worth the extra to me. pentax has double AA batteries, lack of autofocus confirmation in the view finder and the lenses are a little more expensive.

The d3100 is the best value camera in my eyes. Get it! :)

The sony A55 records video for about 8 minutes, over heats and has to shut down for about 5 minutes. Not very practical. The Nikon d3100 autofocus is great, im sure you wouldnt notice a difference between them. the d3100 also can focus during HD video recording (continuous autofocus).

I'd also consider the 50mm prime at f1.8 for around £100 for the canon, the nikon version is more expensive at around £180 though.
 
Last edited:
rossyl said:
Thanks very much - and that makes perfect sense.

Just need a bit more of a steer on the actual camera's to go for. I think we might like the security of buying new, so we'll probably go that way.
Click to expand...

Personally I'd go with Canon or Nikon, as they are the two biggest players, so mostly all 3rd party products like flash triggers, flashes etc will be compatible, also you will have a bigger pool of users to sell to or buy from.

'Currently' between Canon and Nikon, Nikon currently have the best crop sensor which is found in the D5100 and D7000, although it's worth noting the lower end 5100 is not 'Auto Focus' compatible with older Nikon 'D' lenses which is a shame.

Canon bodies are compatible with all Canon AF lenses, so that may be worth considering, and out of the Canon bodies I'd go for the 550D or 60D if you can stretch to that, I personally wouldn't go for a 600D.

Ideally though IMO, your best Canon choice would be a used 5D classic, as it has lot's FF goodness, which will give you better IQ than the Canon 60D, 550D etc.
 
ashatron said:
at high iso / low light they are all VERY similar, almost identical. Forget the crap about nikon is good in low light, at this price point nikon isnt any better than the competing canon camera at that price point (550d)
Click to expand...

Not true, at high ISO, the Sony/Nikon sensor retains much sharper details then the Crop Canon sensors do, sure if your ISO test is carried out on a plain flat surface with little detail, then they will look very similar.
Also the low read noise/banding on the Nikon/Sony sensor will allow you to push shadows details without concern for IQ, if you to expose to the left in high contrast areas.
 
Last edited:
If you're not afraid to go second hand a good canon 40d and tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non VC) could be had for well under your budget, giving you space for bags/cards etc :)

There's no video, but it's a great camera for limited light and a fantastic lens for the price.
 
Steeps said:
If you're not afraid to go second hand a good canon 40d and tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non VC) could be had for well under your budget, giving you space for bags/cards etc :)

There's no video, but it's a great camera for limited light and a fantastic lens for the price.
Click to expand...

+1 for the lens, no nothing about Canon camera's so wont comment.
 
I bought a Sony A55 a couple of months ago, about the time the D5100 appeared in shops and am delighted with it. I tried all the usual suspects from Canon (550d,600d) Nikon (3100,5100) and Sony (A33,A55, A580). For me I liked the feel and the performance of the Sony more than the others and also the image quality with the kit lens seemed to be very good. The AF on the Sony if very fast and the EVF with its multiple modes works really well for me. Its also nice to have a working live view which means you can really use the articulated screen and hand the camera to somebody else to shoot with who isn't used to a DSLR.

I bought in addition to the kit lens the 50mm F1.8 and the 18-250mm as a walk about lens and again have been very pleased. The lens choice for Sony is also bolstered by the older Minolta lenses being available so your not short of decent lenses at sensible prices.

The movie mode is also very good and whilst with steadyshot on its time limited to about 10 minutes with it off it will go for 30 minutes. The 10fps and other modes for low light shooting, panaorama etc work well, and I've got some great shots out of it over the last few weeks.
 
Hi all...and many many thanks for all your help so far.

We are currently thinking the D3100 but we are waiting to atually have one in our hands and have a play.

The other options that have cropped up very recently are the:
-Panasonic G2 and
-Panasonic G3.
Would really appreciate your thoughts.

Thank you,
R
 
If your looking at the Panasonic G range also check the Samsung NX10. It can be had for silly low money with the 18-55 and the 30mm F2 lenses and the 50-200 can be had for about 100 or so. It has an DSLR sized sensor and produces fantastic images. It's also really light weight but well built and a nice size.
 
J1nxy said:
If your looking at the Panasonic G range also check the Samsung NX10. It can be had for silly low money with the 18-55 and the 30mm F2 lenses and the 50-200 can be had for about 100 or so. It has an DSLR sized sensor and produces fantastic images. It's also really light weight but well built and a nice size.
Click to expand...

Thanks.. cheapest i have seen for: "Samsung NX10 Digital System Camera Kit - Black (14.6MP, incl 18-55 OIS Lens)" is £417. Is that very cheap? I expect for that amount many would say go for the Nikon D3100 which can be had for £430 "Nikon D3100 18-55vr Kit"
 
I have a old D40, which compared to my friends d3100 is loads better, i was quite dissapoited with how it performed.

The D5100 tho was fantastic, and as its slightly bigger felt much more comfotable in the hand, i waould definatly buy it over the d3100.
 
rossyl said:
Thanks.. cheapest i have seen for: "Samsung NX10 Digital System Camera Kit - Black (14.6MP, incl 18-55 OIS Lens)" is £417. Is that very cheap? I expect for that amount many would say go for the Nikon D3100 which can be had for £430 "Nikon D3100 18-55vr Kit"
Click to expand...

For 450 you can get the nx10 with 18-55 and the 30mm F2 which is very good value as the 30mm is a great lens
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom