Beginner dslr camera's

Kobi

Kobi

Kobi

Associate
Joined
30 Oct 2010
Posts
2,115
Location
Sunny Scotland
hey boys and girls! i'm pondering the idea of buying an slr and i'm after advice. What camera would you recommend for taking pictures of flowers(girlfriends a florist) some landscape and some macro. Also i'd be hoping to maybe take photo's/possible videos(time lapse) But that could wait for down the line.

Any all rounder? My brother an dad have canons but they use their cameras for taking pics of jets. So i'd happily use a Nikon if thats better for what i need.

i'd most likely go 2nd hand to start with, maybe a budget of around £500 for a body and lense? Possibly more if need be.

Cheers for any help and info.
 
It'd make more sense to go with Canon if that allows you to loan lenses from family, rather than shell out on £1000s on lenses to start. Any camera can take photos of the things you mention, but you'd be looking at buying two different lenses there really. Something like the nifty 50 (50mm 1.8mkII) and maybe the Canon 100mm macro.

I suppose it'd depend on what lenses family have too, but if they're taking photos of jets as you say, chances are they've got expensive long lenses. That being said you can get the 70-200 F4 quite 'cheap'.

Basically look at what you can afford in the Canon line up. If you don't care about saving money on lenses, then Nikons mid range stuff is better than Canon technically, currently.
 
Sounds like a second hand Canon would be a good option. I have a 500D, a 50mm 1.8 and some kenko extension tubes that do a great job for macro. I would definitely recommend a camera with live view for macro.
 
A Cannon would be a good shout as you have family who have Cannon lens you could use.

However, I've just got into photography and got my self a Nikon D3100 with the 18-55mm lens, and got my self a Tamron 70-300mm Lens. Next on my list is a 35mm 1.8 prime.

Couldn't recommend it enough, nice and easy to use, and very capable! There is a Nikon D3100 thats just gone up for sale on here too!

BTW, don't forget to take into account, A bag, decent SD card(s) and a UV filter. I only use the UV filter to protect my lens's. All this <------ would set you back minimum of £60, so take this into consideration when getting a camera.
 
Sandrine has picked up the D600 very well.. it's got the point and click still, has more options on those - which she's been playing with and I hope she will tackle the shutter & aperture shortly..

Lightweight and a great piece of kit.
 
Cheers for the replies guys. Yeah i guess going down the canon route is the better option.

This might sound like a stupid question, but would you say a good quality lens is more important than the camera itself? i see some 100mm macro lenses are about £600. The reason i ask is i could invest in an expensive lens and get a cheaper body?
 
Sorry for the double post, but on the lens front, i dont think they have that many lenses. My dad was a keen photographer back in the 'pre digital' days, but not so much now. lately hes just been with my brother taking pics of the jets, so they have big lenses. So their isn't many.

hopefully not thrown a spanner in the works.
 
Kobi said:
Cheers for the replies guys. Yeah i guess going down the canon route is the better option.

This might sound like a stupid question, but would you say a good quality lens is more important than the camera itself? i see some 100mm macro lenses are about £600. The reason i ask is i could invest in an expensive lens and get a cheaper body?
Click to expand...

Basically by investing in the lenses that are of higher quality to begin with, you save yourself the headache of upgrading later. That being said, it's all well and good me advising to go with better lenses, but if you find in the future that it isn't for you it's money down the pan.

You're best off getting the camera that suits your needs and getting the high quality budget lenses. 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8, etc.
 
I'll need to have a good read on lenses because it's all mumbo jumbo to me haha, it's like trying to explain pc specs to someone who doesn't have a clue about pc's.

Right, so from what I've been reading the 550d is pretty much the same as the 600d, and the 650d is pretty much the same as the 600d, apart from the 650d has better video stuff?

So do you think a 550d would be a good start, or even a 500d?
 
If your going to get budget primes (50 1.8 85 1.8) then your better off going down the Nikon route as the quality of these 1.8 lenses are better, and 50mm is a bit long on a crop sensor anyway.
Something like a D7000 would be a great solution.. better for landscapes especially. I can't think of a better camera body without going full frame.
p anamoz is usually the cheapest, something like a D7000 +35mm 1.8G + Extension tubes (may not need them if not getting 'really' close) should be a good start. Then add lenses as and when you need/can afford them.
 
Yeah I did look at the d7000, lovely camera. All depends what price 'budget' lenses are. I'd happily spend £300-400 on a lense. Most of this year's photos will be of flowers, so a distance of under 1 meter. Then I wanna get some proper close ups too. Hense why I'm thinking macro.
 
Kobi said:
Right, so from what I've been reading the 550d is pretty much the same as the 600d, and the 650d is pretty much the same as the 600d, apart from the 650d has better video stuff?

So do you think a 550d would be a good start, or even a 500d?
Click to expand...

550d and 600d are almost identical with the 600d having some functionality improvements, but the camera and quality is the same. The 650d has some features which make it a better camera for photography but it is identical to the 600d for video.
 
Kobi said:
Yeah I did look at the d7000, lovely camera. All depends what price 'budget' lenses are. I'd happily spend £300-400 on a lense. Most of this year's photos will be of flowers, so a distance of under 1 meter. Then I wanna get some proper close ups too. Hense why I'm thinking macro.
Click to expand...

The 35mm 1.8g should be good enough as it has a pretty good minimum focus distance of 40cm. If you need to really close like below, then some cheap extension tubes will do the trick, but long term you'l want a dedicated macro, like a 40 or 60mm.

flowr.jpg
 
For colour reproduction of flowers you can't beat a Sony/Nikon sensor. Colour depth and contrast is so much better.

My money would go on a D7000.
 
Yeah, well if you've not used a Sony or Nikon and become accustomed the colour depth and contrast when editing then you won't understand.

;)

VNBtS.png


2.7ev is MASSIVE and 1.8 bits is not to be sniffed at also.
 
Last edited:
for time lapse i got a wired remote off ebay thats pretty simple to use and was only 10quid :D

you can set it to take shots at whatever time interval, and how many shots you want
 
An Exception said:
The 35mm 1.8g should be good enough as it has a pretty good minimum focus distance of 40cm. If you need to really close like below, then some cheap extension tubes will do the trick, but long term you'l want a dedicated macro, like a 40 or 60mm.

*snip*
Click to expand...



Thats a lovely pic, exactly what im wanting to do! Looks like the d7000 is the winner then. guess i better get saving then!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom