£200 - Can I really get started with this?

Hxc

Hxc

Hxc

Soldato
Joined
29 Oct 2004
Posts
12,501
Location
London
Hi all.

I've posted in here before but never got round to actually buying the kit due to car issues that came up at the time... now I'm back in the position financially and would really love to get myself a DSLR camera.

I keep fiddling about with my sisters whenever she is around and I really do have fun with it, she has a Nikon D40 and I do like it, although I also used my uncles Cannon 400D, and found I actually sorta prefered it's setup.

Basically though, due to age various other commitments, my budget isn't huge. I'd say £200 basic...but I'm not sure that this will even get me anything worth having!

I've seen a couple of 350Ds with kit lense go for around this so I'm tempted...or is it worth saving up a bit more?

Cheers
 
Somebody already wants the 50mm (which normally go for around £60) so if you split it with that guy it wouldn't be much more than your budget for the rest, however you wouldn't have a standard zoom, but you could maybe sell the longer lens of flash for that?

Yeah, not very easy, but £200 isn't going to go too far with SLR's :)
 
a large high street catalogue store has a clearance store on a well known auction site - last week they were selling refurbed Sony A200s with 12 month warranty for £190 ...
worth keeping an eye on.
 
I got a sony A200 and kit lens plus a 70-300mm lens for £330 second hand - waiting for delivery but I feel that on a low budget (as mine was, and yours is) 2nd hand with a kit lens is really all you can get! I'm sure you can find a sony A200 for around 200, there were some on the auction site recently.
 
I've decided to try and grab myself a bargain A200 on ebay... tried out a Sony in jessops today and got on very well with the interface... the only thing that concerns me is availability of lenses... can I get a "nifty fifty" for this fairly easily?
 
This is something Raymond Lin posted in another thread recently which I completely agree with, I would consider your options again.

Raymond Lin said:
Well, i am going to get flamed by some people here for this but what the hell.

Stick with Canon and Nikon !!!!!!

Olympus & Sony do cheap entry bodies SLR with abundance of features is because they want to get into or get a bigger share of the SLR market, and the best way is to get users who are new to photography by offering them MORE for their money compared to the rivals. Because once people buy into a system/brand, they are sticking to that brand. Not out of loyalty but because they are stuck, unless they sell of everything they already have and switch to a different brand/system which costs a lot of money. last I checked, Canon and Nikon together holds 80% of the Market and there is a big reason for that, their system, range and choices as a whole are much more comprehensive, both in New and the Secondhand market.

So, when buying a camera, unless you are CERTAIN you are NEVER upgrading then get whatever you want. If you are not certain, then why limit yourself to a system that has:-

a. Limited choice of lenses and accessories
b. more expensive lenses and accessories
c. harder to sell secondhand if you choose to upgrade

My point is that, you shouldn't think of it as buying a camera, but buying a system. Because that is the whole point of an SLR, you can change lenses to suit what you want to photograph. Why limit yourself to something that might restrict your photography? It might be a little bit more money (like £100), but it'll be a saving in the long run, should you choose to upgrade and it will be money well spent in the first place.

And if you want proof, look at the pros, there is a reason why they all use Canon or Nikon. I have never seen one using a Sony or Olympus at a football match or a Wedding (they might have a Leica but that's a whole different ball game). Same reasons as I have stated above, both of these system provide the best and biggest choices of gear for their user base.
Click to expand...
 
See that's what I initially felt but I'm not intending to get ultra ultra serious with photography.. I just want to take nice pictures and be able to do things manually properly. The majority of other places I've asked have suggested I go for the A200 over say the canon/nikon alternative, as it will be years older and not have the same featureset.

I'm buying 2nd hand as it is and as such when selling if I wish to upgrade (probably to a Canon or a Nikon) I will not lose as much money...

In my situation, where money is tight (I'm a 17 year old earning around £350 a month normally, and having to run a car apart from petrol), I am honestly swaying towards the A200 over, say the 350D... would you still disagree?
 
Hxc said:
would you still disagree?
Click to expand...

Yes. Get a second hand Canon or Nikon. You should be able to pick up something like a Nikon D40 or D50 for £150. Add a cheap lens to start with, and you have the foundations of a decent system. Then as you get more money and want more lenses you can easily get them. If you don't intend on getting additional lenses or taking up photography as such, then get a bridge camera. An SLR is a system. And to get the most out of that system you will need additional lenses. If you just want one lens, then a bridge camera will be much more versatile.
 
Arrgh. I'm confused. I'm getting lots of different reccomendations from different places.

I've been told repeatedly to stay away from the D40 due to lack of autofocus motor and the D50 being even older hasn't been mentioned at all....

I'm honestly not sure how much I'm going to get into it, it's something I'm really going to have to see... I will certainly be wanting more than one lens and the price of things Sony wise is putting me off, but as is buying a rather old piece of tech Canon/Nikon wise.

D40 is out of my current budget, I'd have to wait to get it. D50 is probably an option though...
 
Last edited:
Well depending on the lenses you want to use, the D40 is fine. If all the lenses you want are AF-S or HSM (Sigma), the D40 is fine.
 
Hxc said:
Arrgh. I'm confused. I'm getting lots of different reccomendations from different places.

I've been told repeatedly to stay away from the D40 due to lack of autofocus motor and the D50 being even older hasn't been mentioned at all....
Click to expand...

The d40, d40x and d60 all have no auto-focus built in to the body, something that wasn't pointed out to me until after I purchased it. However, it doesn't really matter. I manually focus and expose my 50mm prime.

why not look at Olympus dlsrs? I have never used them myself, but a couple of lads at work loves theirs, supposed to be cheaper than the nikons and canons but still has excellent quality and many are capable of using older lenses.
 
Just been offered a barely used (unwanted gift) Sony A200 in warrenty etc for exactly 200 notes... I'm finding this quite hard to say no to.. :/
 
I have an A200 and for 200 quid it is a fantastic deal! It's an awesome camera and I absolutely love mine. Here's a couple of pics taken with it.

3775627299_f1dc52c542_b.jpg


3776813663_f3c44e5559_b.jpg


3775712997_e1eb0282aa_b.jpg
 
Minolta 28mm Prime :)

80 quid

The lens which comes with it is pretty good too. Here's a couple from the stock 18-70 :)

3687640368_67a962f263_b.jpg


3707029220_d3621d85d2_b.jpg


3706243437_6fa200287d_b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom