Do I need a DSLR?

Mark M

Mark M

Mark M

Soldato
Joined
6 Jan 2006
Posts
3,391
Location
Newcastle upon Tyne
Ive done some research and there are varying opinions as to whether its worth taking the plunge with a DSLR or go for a bridge camera instead?

Basically I want to take some good quality shots of the family, particularly my 3 year old son who never stands still for more than a second hence thinking the speed of a DSLR might be worth it? Other than that its the typical holiday/day out type shots.

Im not too fussed about the size of a DSLR as we always have a bad with us so another camera bag wouldnt be an issue.

Budget wise Im looking at around £400 so it will be an entry level DSLR with the kit lense but is it worth making the plunge and seeing it as an investment for the future?

Anything else to consider?
 
It's a difficult one for sure. As a relative DSLR noob, I have a Nikon D3200, as I bought it wanting a decent camera for motor sport, but also to take nice portraits etc.

Realistically though looking back now I might have been better with a bridge camera, as I can't really justify the budget to get a really good telephoto lens, and there are other lenses that I would "like" e.g. wide angle, or macro lenses.

A bridge camera, whilst "master of none" at least is a jack of all trades. A DSLR without the correct lens may not even allow you to take the picture you want.

Personally if I was buying tomorrow with a reasonably limited budget, I would get something like the Nikon Coolpix B700 http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/digital-cameras/coolpix/bridge/coolpix-b700.


If you do go for the DSLR route which ultimately allows you more flexibility if budget allows, then I would look at getting a 35 or 50mm Prime lens fairly quickly, as it was probably the single best thing I did with regards to boosting my confidence in taking "better" or more "professional" looking photos.


Edit:
As a parent myself, I find the "best" photos of my Kids, are ones I have taken when I never have my "proper" camera around - they end up being on my Phone. So if you haven't already, it may be worth upgrading your phone, as some of the higher end phones have cameras that easily match ~£150 point and shoot cameras.
 
Honestly, I've never seen the attraction with bridge cameras. Yes they have super zoom lenses but the quality at max zoom is dodgy at best and it's very prone to camera shake.

I've a 4 year old and a 17 month old, most of mine are done on my phone (Samsung S7), before that, an S5. They take great photos, are lightweight, cloud backup and you always have it you.

On the flip side, I have a D700 DLSR, it's full frame, it's big, it's heavy but it can produce gorgeous photos. However, it cost 3 times what my new phone cost, £1700 when i had it new.

The DSLR produces photos that we put on the wall, but we plan to take it out, "lets go X and take the camera" purely because it's a pain to carry around.

It really depends on what you want, if you want something that's cheap and easy enough to zoom in go for a bridge. If you want something that is going to take good shots that you may want to hang, go the DSLR route, but be aware, there is a learning curve and you'll take more shots that are pants than good ones. Even know, I can take 20 photos and I'd class only one as being worth printing.

I'll ask one question though, why entry level? Yes you have a limited budget, but entry means a new camera. A quick google shows that D700's second hand are going for £450 for a body only, find a second hand 50mm 1.8 lens as well and that's a great setup.

Don't feel you have to go new, older dslrs are still great cameras and older lenses still produce excellent photos. One of the best purchases I made was a very old 50mm f1.8, it was on an Nikon D60, it didn't autofocus, it didn't even tell the camera if it was exposing properly. I had to guess everything :D

If you insist on a new entry level, if it's a crop sensor which most are, look at the 35mm 1.8.

My D700 produced this:

28705214844_e3bb3f56fe_b.jpg


My S7:

f%20sleep.jpg
 
Last edited:
If you're going to see it as an investment for future use, allocate a larger portion of your budget to the lens(es).

You can get a perfectly decent older DSLR body for £100 if you're canny. I got a perfectly good Sony a33 from WEX with their 12 month warranty for £93 a while ago.

I'd advise you to think properly about what you actually want to do with the photos though. If it's just for sharing on social media or with friends etc, then a good camera phone, compact, or bridge is the way to go. You don't need a DSLR or MILC for that.

If you want to start getting some prints done, albums, etc. then a DSLR or MILC makes sense and that opens up a whole other avenue of decisions.

Whilst what AHarvey says is good advice, I wouldn't suggest getting a old, big, heavy full frame DSLR that you can barely afford, with a single lens that may or may not be suitable, for a person in your position. Firstly because you're spending the money in the wrong place, and secondly, because it's totally unnecessary even for printing.
 
Alternatively consider a compact, something you will take everywhere with you might get more use / value for money. The Sony RX100 series is very well regarded, it's my weapon of choice when the DSLR stays at home, and the IQ is good. This is on framed on my wall:


Rome at Night by Andrew Young, on Flickr
 
Genoma said:
Alternatively consider a compact, something you will take everywhere with you might get more use / value for money. The Sony RX100 series is very well regarded, it's my weapon of choice when the DSLR stays at home, and the IQ is good. This is on framed on my wall:


Rome at Night by Andrew Young, on Flickr
Click to expand...

That's where I'd start if I had my time again. Then add a mirrorless or DSLR.
 
Genoma said:
Alternatively consider a compact, something you will take everywhere with you might get more use / value for money. The Sony RX100 series is very well regarded, it's my weapon of choice when the DSLR stays at home, and the IQ is good. This is on framed on my wall:


Rome at Night by Andrew Young, on Flickr
Click to expand...

That's lovely, what settings/kit did you use for that please?
 
Genoma said:
Alternatively consider a compact, something you will take everywhere with you might get more use / value for money. The Sony RX100 series is very well regarded, it's my weapon of choice when the DSLR stays at home, and the IQ is good. This is on framed on my wall:


Rome at Night by Andrew Young, on Flickr
Click to expand...


But what really does a point and shoot offer over a good phone cam?


http://www.androidguys.com/2015/08/...y-rx100-how-good-is-todays-smartphone-camera/

Seems to think not much.
 
MichaelAwkward said:
Whilst what AHarvey says is good advice, I wouldn't suggest getting a old, big, heavy full frame DSLR that you can barely afford, with a single lens that may or may not be suitable, for a person in your position. Firstly because you're spending the money in the wrong place, and secondly, because it's totally unnecessary even for printing.
Click to expand...

I wasn't actually advising that he get a D700, just as an example that second hand can result in a good camera / lenses at a fraction of the cost :)
 
AHarvey said:
I wasn't actually advising that he get a D700, just as an example that second hand can result in a good camera / lenses at a fraction of the cost :)
Click to expand...

Ah, okay. I just read this as suggesting he do the same.

AHarvey said:
I'll ask one question though, why entry level? Yes you have a limited budget, but entry means a new camera. A quick google shows that D700's second hand are going for £450 for a body only, find a second hand 50mm 1.8 lens as well and that's a great setup.
Click to expand...
 
As a father and photographer I do admit to using my phone a fair bit simply because the phone is with me all day everyday and you just never know when an opportunity arises.
However, I use a DSLR the majority of the time otherwise and don't think the weight or size is such an issue. A lot of the time out and about you have a pram and even a D800 and 24-70mm f/2.8 fits nicely underneath, or if shorter strolls to the park then the camera on a good shoulder strap is barely noticeable. I've gone on 15mile, 5000ft+ hikes with an 18 month old on backpack and carrying a D800 + 300mm f/4.0 + 24-70 with the usual food/water/clothes/nappies etc. It is worth it to get the photos you want and to have the children with you.
I do have an Olympus EPM-2 14-42 + 40-150mm kit when I want soemthign more than my phone but without the DSLR. Personally I don't really see the point in any of the compacts like RX100 when a small M43 camera gives you so much better results and the actual practical difference is minimal. An EPM-2 + 14-42mm fits in my trouser pocket just fine. That gives me APS-C DSLR quality in a small light package.
 
I don't think m4/3 performance is hugely better than the Sony 1" sensor based cameras in terms of sensor quality. The m4/3 sensor tech is pretty behind the curve even on the latest 20mp sensor. There's a significant difference in size too an RX100 fits in a trouser pocket where as even the smallest m4/3 with a pancake won't come close.
 
Last edited:
I love the rx100 but i only have the mk1 so no viewfinder or tilting screen which I would like so if I was to upgrade it would either be a mk3 or the a6000
 
I've just done this. I have a Samsung S7 Edge which is considered pretty much at the top of the tree phone camera wise. So I wanted to make sure that If I was going for a camera it needed to be worth carrying the thing around. I ended up with a Fuji X-A2 mirror-less camera and even though I haven't got a clue how to use the thing the images it produced while we were away last week were far better than my phone.

I looked at DSLR's but after reading up loads on the differences I couldn't see any advantages past high speed moving stuff. (I have a 3 year old who moves quick but not quick enough to trouble my camera)
The portability of the Fuji means I am more likely to take it places than a larger DSLR
 
Second hand Fuji x100s is what I bought and use for family events. Absolutely love the camera, so good in low light and much more compact than a DSLR. It has a fixed 35mm f2.0 lens so you are stuck with that...but what a lens. For kids around the house and capturing those magic moments it is flawless.

I took all the evening shots at a friends wedding with it and it was so much fun and so discreet.
 
Thanks for all of the replies. Im going to have a look through the cameras people have recommended and see what I think of each one.

I currently have an iphone 6 (I think!) which takes decent shots but theyre just not sharp enough and are terrible in the dark. Ive taken some reasonable ones at the park or recently at the fair but just feel they are lacking. Ive got a Cannon compact which can take a great photo but its about 7 year old now so just feels a bit slow and sluggish. Again its not great for low light shots.

Edit - would a better memory card be worth considering for the Cannon compact? I dont have the camera to hand but I think I will have just bought the cheapest one available from Amazon at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom