Beginner dslr camera's

Not sure if the offer is still on but jessops have the 550D with 18-55 kit (with IS) and 70-300 for £500!

I paid that 6 months ago for the 550D and kit lens only! I looked into the 600D but for the extra money had nothing extra worth it in my opinion!
 
Although you have family with Canon lenses, which may obviously tend to sway your decision, FIRST thing to do, above anything else, is go to a shop/store & actually hold different cameras in your own hand. You might be surprised how different they feel.
Also try out the camera menu's/functions & see which feels easier & more natural to use.

Lenses are far more important than the bodies.
 
PhotoPixels said:
Lenses are far more important than the bodies.
Click to expand...

That's a misnomer. It depends on the camera body, and it depends on the lens.
Allot of people like to make this assertion yet 9 times out of 10 they don't fully understand the technical intricacies.

Lenses are however a better investment in terms of depreciation and sometimes appreciation.
 
An Exception said:
That's a misnomer. It depends on the camera body, and it depends on the lens.
Allot of people like to make this assertion yet 9 times out of 10 they don't fully understand the technical intricacies.

Lenses are however a better investment in terms of depreciation and sometimes appreciation.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree with you, but the OP is referring to just starting out & asking for advice. Most newbs think if they buy a D800 for example & put a cheaper kit-lens on it, they'll get fantastic photo's.
THE most important thing is ....the photographer! ;) but in general terms, spend 1/3rd of your money on the body & 2/3rds on the lens to start with.
 
PhotoPixels said:
Yes I agree with you, but the OP is referring to just starting out & asking for advice. Most newbs think if they buy a D800 for example & put a cheaper kit-lens on it, they'll get fantastic photo's.
THE most important thing is ....the photographer! ;) but in general terms, spend 1/3rd of your money on the body & 2/3rds on the lens to start with.
Click to expand...

Which is the only thing putting me off right now. Im terrible when it comes to buying tech. i usually spend far too much money on whatever im interested in, then it just sits and collects dust.

going by that dxOMark website, the D3200 sensor gets the same overall score as the 5DIII. I know these a totally different cameras and the mk3 being FF. But looking at the scores, would i be right in saying the D3200 would be better at landscape photos than the mk3 if they were using identical lenses? or am i being a cotton headed ninny muggins and saying "Hey, this has a higher number, it must be better!"

D3200 a better option maybe? would mean i can spend more on a lens or 3 :p
 
The sensor on the D3200 performs well. And yes, in areas like dynamic range the D3200 can outperform the 5Diii. However in other areas like ISO (lowlight) the 5Diii easily beats the D3200, so you have to weigh up which is most important for you.

Here's the thing, most lenses perform better of FF, they appear sharper and lens faults like CA also appear reduced. The only time lenses don't perform better on FF, is when the centre of the lens performs extremely well relative to the corners.

Also there is more to a camera than just the sensor, the D3200 is a very basic body compared to the 5Diii, and thus more cumbersome for certain types of photography. I would still recommend the D7K for a crop sensor camera. If you get a little crazy budget wise, then a D600 would likely be great for you usage. AF point positioning is a little gimped though.

Also you don't have to spend allot on glass. The Nikon F1.8 prime lenses are just as good (better even) optically as the F1.4 versions, and you only lose 2/3's of a stop.
 
Kobi said:
Thats a lovely pic, exactly what im wanting to do! Looks like the d7000 is the winner then. guess i better get saving then!
Click to expand...

The Nikon 5100 has the exact same sensor but in a smaller, cheaper body that is missing a few of the more advanced controls. I definitely think the D7000 is better, and urge most people to stretch to that, but the D5100 is an utter bargain at the moment and for a beginner is just as good, saving money for lenses or allowing an upgrade at an earlier date.

Don't get me wrong, the D7000 is probably the best crop camera money can buy at the moment and its build quality, functionality and image quality at such a price probably makes it one of the best crop cameras ever released. It combines so man nice features and really nothing feels that it is crippled, limiting or disappointing relative to the rest of the features. Everything is well balanced in design. For high speed sports here are better, otherwise it is amazing. my wife has one and everything I pick it up I'm amazed, so much better than my older D90 in every way.

To note is that a replacement is due soon. The replacement probably wont add anything too new and exciting and will be more expensive.
 
PhotoPixels said:
Yes I agree with you, but the OP is referring to just starting out & asking for advice. Most newbs think if they buy a D800 for example & put a cheaper kit-lens on it, they'll get fantastic photo's.
THE most important thing is ....the photographer! ;) but in general terms, spend 1/3rd of your money on the body & 2/3rds on the lens to start with.
Click to expand...

I also suggest that beginners aim to spend twice the amount on lenses as their camera to get a balanced kit. But I typically tell them that the cameras will be a bout 1/5th of the system cost, lenses around 2/5ths (perhaps 3/5ths), but about 2/5hs of the system cost goes towards things like:
spare batteries
memory cards and reader
lens cleaning cloth
sensor cleaning kits
external hard disk for backups if they don't already have one.
photography books
an external flash
circular polariser and a couple of ND filters.
Some kind of square filter holder and some ND-grads, if they are into landscapes.
Usable tripod and head
backpack + extra camera + lens cases
insurance
Adobe lightroom

Probably missing some things. E.g., once someone start properly editing photos they will want to buy a colorimiter + IPS screen. For indoor work more than 1 flash will be needed, studio light might be desired.


So you definitely don't want to blow all the cash on a camera and be unable t afford many of the extras. All of these extras can be slowly dded once the initial purchase is done though.
 
Kobi said:
Which is the only thing putting me off right now. Im terrible when it comes to buying tech. i usually spend far too much money on whatever im interested in, then it just sits and collects dust.

going by that dxOMark website, the D3200 sensor gets the same overall score as the 5DIII. I know these a totally different cameras and the mk3 being FF. But looking at the scores, would i be right in saying the D3200 would be better at landscape photos than the mk3 if they were using identical lenses? or am i being a cotton headed ninny muggins and saying "Hey, this has a higher number, it must be better!"

D3200 a better option maybe? would mean i can spend more on a lens or 3 :p
Click to expand...


it isn't so simple, but if you used one of the sharpest Nikon lenses around at the sharpest aperture you could find that the D3200 outperforms the 5DMKIII for landscapes. The Dynamic range advantage is very apparent, and that is a big help in landscape work. However, with regards to resolution it is very hard for the D32000 to out-resolve the 5DMKIII, despite the d3200 having a higher resolution sensor.

Where the D3200 would actually do really well against the 5DMKIII is wildlife due to the pixel density, given the same lens you could recover far more detail- however you would have to contend with poor AF, shutter lag, handling issues, speed, worse ISO etc. So in real-world cases the 5DMKIII would typically be better but under some optimal conditions the D3200 will indeed outperform the 5DMKIII, Nikon/Sony sensors are simply well ahead of Canon at this moment (some years back Canon were better).
 
D.P. said:
I also suggest that beginners aim to spend twice the amount on lenses as their camera to get a balanced kit. But I typically tell them that the cameras will be a bout 1/5th of the system cost, lenses around 2/5ths (perhaps 3/5ths), but about 2/5hs of the system cost goes towards things like:
spare batteries
memory cards and reader
lens cleaning cloth
sensor cleaning kits
external hard disk for backups if they don't already have one.
photography books
an external flash
circular polariser and a couple of ND filters.
Some kind of square filter holder and some ND-grads, if they are into landscapes.
Usable tripod and head
backpack + extra camera + lens cases
insurance
Adobe lightroom

Probably missing some things. E.g., once someone start properly editing photos they will want to buy a colorimiter + IPS screen. For indoor work more than 1 flash will be needed, studio light might be desired.


So you definitely don't want to blow all the cash on a camera and be unable t afford many of the extras. All of these extras can be slowly dded once the initial purchase is done though.
Click to expand...

Haha yeah. It can certainly become an expensive hobby/obsession. :D

Always TRY to idetify your needs & buy the best you can afford. It saves having to buy twice if you choose wrongly. ;)
 
Hah yeah it does seem an expensive hobby. I think I'll see about a d7000 and a 35mm lens( Nikon AF-S 35mm f1.8 G DX Lens?) just going off the jessops website hah. They have the body only at a pretty good price new.
 
Well whatever you decide to buy, make sure you start saving for a nice macro lens afterwards as you can get some great shots for flowers using a proper macro lens.
 
Logsi said:
2.7ev is MASSIVE and 1.8 bits is not to be sniffed at also.
Click to expand...

Apart from most LCD displays are 12 bits max from what I remember.

The astro camera I have is 16bit for each lum, red,green and blue - so that's 64bit colour ;) :p 3362x2537 (*4 channels each of 2 bytes) = 68,235,152 bytes per image.

The difference of noise for astro photography between two cameras (One Kodak quoted at an optimistic 7eV and the other being a Sony at sub 5eV) is noticable for short exposures with the sony sensor that has a reputation of giving almost noise free images. The Kodak requires additional noise processing (subtracting 'darks') - even on 10-20 minute exposures.

Seriously - the AP cameras kick the D600's butt and probably the 1DX too.. however the D600 seems a bit easier to use as the interface is little slicker. Perhaps Nikon have fixed that.. and for a beginner it's likely not to be final camera..

My view is that if you're going to take good photos.. then good glassware gives you the chance to capture it.. the body will add additional nuances to that (lower noise, more pixels etc, more manual control etc). Not much point in looking through a murky window.. with a super expensive body..
 
Last edited:
^^^
That particular DXO metric measures the level of chroma noise at low ISO's. Chroma noise is usually found more in shadow areas, and of course affects colour reproduction (red blobs can turn blacks to brown etc.).
 
I would get the D7000 which is just a bit more than £500 because it is compatible with far more lenses, it will autofocus with AF lenses and meter with non cpu lenses. Nikons AF-S lenses are often far far more expensive than their AF ones, compare their 80-200mm AF to their 70-200 AF-S, double the price!
 
Those lenses ARE pretty expensive. But it'll be worth it in the long run! Will get the 35mm to start off with, then get saving for a proper macro. With the price of 2nd hand d7000's, I might as well go new. £630 new from jessops. Even ebay struggles to beat that.
 
£544? Great price! never heard of this company, any good? Plus, might not be a good idea gettin it from jessops, seeing as they have gone into admin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom