DSLR recommendations for a relatrively low budget.

[BuffetSlayer]

After a recent holiday and some very disappointing results with a relatively cheap point and shoot compact camera I have decided I want a DSLR.

I am looking to get on the first rung as an uber noob photographer.

As such I am looking for something that will give great photos with AF point and shoot, but crucially also have the added features that I can utilise and grow into as I learn more and get better.

I have had a somewhat latent eye for photography for a while but never had the time to get into it.

After seeing what I can achieve with DSLR cameras belonging to friends I feel it is the correct route. Initially I will be looking for a good all round package with everything I need - body, lens(s), spare batteries, tripod, memory and so on. My plan is to add to it as I develop but what I want to try and avoid is having to buy a new body in a years time because I didn't buy wise at the start.

That is where you guys come in!

So far I have a list of cameras with varying specs and prices:

Nikon D3300
Nikon D7100 (or D7200)
Canon EOS 1200D
Canon 750D (Or 760D)

I would also consider other manufacturers, but Nikon and Canon seem to be the front runners.

Budget wise I guess I am looking at a maximum of £1000 all in, and for that I would prefer to have a choice of lenses if possible. Probably a bit ambitious to get an all round lens, telephoto and macro for that budget but you never know!

So - hit me up OCUK, what say you?

 

[squerble]

In most cases, spending more money on the lenses will yield greater results than ponying up the cash for a "better" body (I'm discounting the jump to full-frame on this budget).

The first question that will decide a lot is - are you only going to buy in the UK for this, or are you willing to go "grey"?

 

[BuffetSlayer]

Was planning on buying in UK but not sure what the implications of buying grey are (IE warranties/returns etc). I'm assuming it would be limited?

 

[danoliver1]

I wouldn't buy a dslr in this day and age they are just too bulky and the lenses even more so. For £1000 I would be looking at sony a7 with 28-70 lens £899. A lot of people are dumping dslr's for fujis so may be look there, also micro 4/3rds is a great system lots of great lenses and bodies available.
Lots of people buy "grey" with no problems for instance some places offer a 3 year warranty (search talkphotography forum for the best places to buy grey).
I have a sony a57 with a 16-50 f2.8 lens and its brill apart from the weight (I usually have a toddler hanging round my neck as well) took a olympus epl2 on holiday instead and the size/weight difference was night and day better no sore neck for me.
If you go second hand you can get a really good body for £300ish which leaves enough for a couple of lenses and a bounce flash.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

Thanks for the advice. The Sony A7 looks like a nice bit of kit. I can definitely see the benefit of having a smaller/lighter body and smaller lenses too.

Will keep on looking around. The CSC route makes sense, so I am looking at the other cameras in that category. Trying to weigh up whether they offer similar capabilities to a full DSLR.

 

[D.P.]

I wouldn't buy a dslr in this day and age they are just too bulky and the lenses even more so. For £1000 I would be looking at sony a7 with 28-70 lens £899. A lot of people are dumping dslr's for fujis so may be look there, also micro 4/3rds is a great system lots of great lenses and bodies available.
Lots of people buy "grey" with no problems for instance some places offer a 3 year warranty (search talkphotography forum for the best places to buy grey).
I have a sony a57 with a 16-50 f2.8 lens and its brill apart from the weight (I usually have a toddler hanging round my neck as well) took a olympus epl2 on holiday instead and the size/weight difference was night and day better no sore neck for me.
If you go second hand you can get a really good body for £300ish which leaves enough for a couple of lenses and a bounce flash.

If weight is a concern the last thing you want is a Sony A7!

 

[BuffetSlayer]

Weight isn't really a major concern for me to be honest as it is only going to be a hobby for me and the wife (something we have both wanted to do for a while). That said, a lighter body with smaller lens that gives comparative results to a DSLR seems to make sense.

 

[D.P.]

Thanks for the advice. The Sony A7 looks like a nice bit of kit. I can definitely see the benefit of having a smaller/lighter body and smaller lenses too.

Will keep on looking around. The CSC route makes sense, so I am looking at the other cameras in that category. Trying to weigh up whether they offer similar capabilities to a full DSLR.

You have to choose if you want soemthign smaller and lighter, in which case a CSC only makes sense if you go for a camera with a smaller sensor which will allow smaller lenses. You are then trading off sensor quality for weight.

If low weight is your priority then have a look at the M43 system, e.g. Olympus EPL-5 and the likes.

 

[D.P.]

Weight isn't really a major concern for me to be honest as it is only going to be a hobby for me and the wife (something we have both wanted to do for a while). That said, a lighter body with smaller lens that gives comparative results to a DSLR seems to make sense.

An M43 camera will give comparable images to a Canon or Nikon DSLR. The Nikon cameras in particular though will be a little better, higher dynamic range, lower noise. You will also get better auofocus performance from a Nikon or Canon DSLr, even entry level, compared to pretty much all CSCs.


I have an Olympus epm2with small kit lenses and a big FF Nikon D800 with many pro lenses. Th epm2 does great for its size, despite giving it a big handicap with worse lenses, however, it simply isn't comparable to my big Nikon. They are different cameras for different things. I don't think making a choice between the 2 makes sense, they work well together and are complimentary, not alternatives. It is like owning a Fiesta and a Range Rover. The fiesta is fin for a quick nip into town or dropping off the kids, the range rover will get you farm tracks in deep mud and provide a comfortable cruise on long road trips.

my younger sister got into photography and started with an olympus EPL-5 on my advice. She liked it but quickly outgrew it and upgraded a year later to a Nikon D7100. There wasn't a big issue with the Oly, but she wanted better autofocus, better low light capability, access to a full sized flashes, and something which is more comfortable to hold with big lenses.

Best bet is to head to a camera shop and play with the different system.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

For me my, priority is image quality. Handling is 2nd really.

Been offered a 2nd hand Canon EOS 5D MK II today. Just in the process of finding out more about it.

I have done some shooting with a few DSLR's, mainy Nikon and Canon. I like both of them to be honest. Was using a Nikon D3100 last week that belongs to a family friend. Felt OK. Have also done some shooting at a wedding using a D5 MKIII with battery grip and a bounce flash. That felt a bit cumbersome to be honest, but the results were pretty good.

I completely understand the context of CSC vs DSLR as you have put it - but the problem is I can only afford one system really.

Canon is a good choice as my brother has quite a few lenses I can borrow

But if I am honest I tend to prefer the handling of Nikon. Never really tried any of the other brands though to be fair.

With my limited budget I think I need to find a sweet spot between body and lens quality. Ideally I would like a couple of lenses for my money. Been looking a bit closer at the EOS 760D today.

Also trying to educate myself on the various lens types. In at the deep end!

EDIT - the D7100 is also on my short list along with the 7200.

 

[D.P.]

If you think the Canon 5DMKIII is a little cumbersome you will find the MKII similar worse even. You also have to understand that these a full frame camera, so a bigger sensor that requires bigger lenses but can capture more light.


My advice would be to put most of the money into lenses. Cameras are like any other digital device and they age fairly badly, new tech and new sensors come along and it gets very tempting to update every few years. Lenses progress slower and hold their value much better.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

If you think the Canon 5DMKIII is a little cumbersome you will find the MKII similar worse even. You also have to understand that these a full frame camera, so a bigger sensor that requires bigger lenses but can capture more light.


My advice would be to put most of the money into lenses. Cameras are like any other digital device and they age fairly badly, new tech and new sensors come along and it gets very tempting to update every few years. Lenses progress slower and hold their value much better.

This has been my thinking too. No point getting a top of the range body if I don't have the lenses.

I seem to be angling towards something like the Nikon D7100 (maybe D7200 if I can stretch).

That said, I am not really sure if the extra cost would be worth it over something like a Nikon D3300 coupled with some higher quality glass.

 

[D.P.]

This has been my thinking too. No point getting a top of the range body if I don't have the lenses.

I seem to be angling towards something like the Nikon D7100 (maybe D7200 if I can stretch).

That said, I am not really sure if the extra cost would be worth it over something like a Nikon D3300 coupled with some higher quality glass.

I have tended to go for more entry level cameras and out money into glass.

It also depends what kind of stuff you like to photograph. Landscapes work helps to have a good sensor but the rest of the camera doesn't matter. Sports helps to be high speed and good autofocus, wildlife is similar but less extreme.

 

[squerble]

This has been my thinking too. No point getting a top of the range body if I don't have the lenses.

I seem to be angling towards something like the Nikon D7100 (maybe D7200 if I can stretch).

That said, I am not really sure if the extra cost would be worth it over something like a Nikon D3300 coupled with some higher quality glass.

I've just upgraded from a D3200 to the D7200. The D3200 is a nice, compact camera and I got some lovely results with it. When coupled with the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX lens, the results were SHARP. You'll probably see pictures even sharper with the D3300 as it has it's AA and OLP Filter removed.

I think you could easily get a D3300 with 18-55 kit lens, add in a 35mm f/1.8 plus tripod, memory card, battery, carry bag etc for much less than £1000. I daresay you'd have enough left over to have a nice little pot ready for new lenses, be they faster "standard" lenses or a bigger telephoto like the 70-300mm.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

Well, had a discussion with the wife last night and we decided that a hobby for two of us would be better served with 2 cameras.

So I am looking at buying two of the D3300 with kit lenses packages and possibly getting a telephoto separately (something like a 55-300).

However I have happened on a place called SLR Hut and their prices seem too good to be true.

For example this: http://slrhut.co.uk/product/ID1774C5/view

A D5200 body, 2 Nikon lenses and a load of accessories (SD card, tripod, flash, UV filters, lens hood, carry case etc) for £449.00?

What is the catch? Jessops do the D5200 body with a basic 18-55mm kit lense for £400, Wex do it for the same.

Any good recommendations for online shopping for DSLR's? Jessops is a waste of time - most of their stuff is out of stock or store collection only. Wex is similar.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

Jeez how hard can it be to buy some camera stuff? Every model I choose and every place I go is out of stock Starting to get frustrated now.

 

[squerble]

If prices are too good to be true, it's probably a "grey" import, even if the retailer is in the UK. Also bear in mind that the D5200 is two generations old for that range (D5300 and D5500 have followed).

The D5200 pack linked is probably the old versions of both lenses too - the 18-55 is now usually supplied as the VR II model, which collapses compactly when not in use and seems to offer better quality optics; the 55-200 is almost certainly the older model with plastic lens mount (a bit nasty). While there's nothing wrong with the lenses really, especially if you're just starting out, you should probably try to aim for the newer versions if you can keep in budget.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

If prices are too good to be true, it's probably a "grey" import, even if the retailer is in the UK. Also bear in mind that the D5200 is two generations old for that range (D5300 and D5500 have followed).

The D5200 pack linked is probably the old versions of both lenses too - the 18-55 is now usually supplied as the VR II model, which collapses compactly when not in use and seems to offer better quality optics; the 55-200 is almost certainly the older model with plastic lens mount (a bit nasty). While there's nothing wrong with the lenses really, especially if you're just starting out, you should probably try to aim for the newer versions if you can keep in budget.

Curry's are doing the D5200 with the VR II lens + remote control + spare battery for £399.

Looking at getting 2 of those bundles and a "NIKON AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300 mm f/4.5-5.6G SWM ED VR Telephoto Zoom Lens" (£262)

Could perhaps then sell one of the kit 18-55's to put towards maybe a 35mm fast prime or a wide angle or something.

What do you think?

 

[wingman]

Thought I'd chime in being relatively new to photography myself, I bought my first DSLR 5 months ago.

It was a hobby my girlfriend wanted to get into and subsequently she's not taken that great an interest, however off the back of that I decided to pick it up and have a play myself (having no real interest previously).

The first thing to note is that it's all about the lenses at this stage, lenses lenses lenses. I bought a Canon 700d with the kit lens (18-55mm). Since then I have purchased Canon's 40mm pancake STM, 50mm 1.8 STM and a wide angle 10-18mm.

I've also bought an extra battery, two bags (since the first I quickly grew out of) and a Black Rapid strap, and I've currently spent about £1,000 (all bought within the UK, Amazon mainly).

I'm glad I went with the DSLR route - we almost bought a Sony RX-100 M3 but I think I'd have been really disappointed with the lack of adjustibility (despite it being an awesome camera).

My only regret so far is not buying a new 70d or perhaps a second hand 7d or similar, however having the warranty on new kit is helpful.

My plans for the future are an external flash, a telephoto lens and a decent walk around to replace the kit lens. There's easily another £1,000 for me to spend and this is a hobby that 5 months ago I had no interest in whatsoever.

That's the biggest advice, be careful getting into it, it's a slippery slope. Are any of your family/friends keen photographers, it would help following the makes that they are with (my family are Canon goers, which influenced my decision).

Went off on a bit of a tangent there. I'd be looking at the 760d body and then a couple of lenses to get you started.

 

[Spacedeck]

That's the biggest advice, be careful getting into it, it's a slippery slope.

The same can be said for a lot of these hobbies. It just comes down to common sense and knowing what you have to spend. If it takes you longer to upgrade than some, it doesn't matter

Good write up, the lens definitely seem important. I haven't started just yet but I too am soon in the market to join the ranks.