Entry level SLR?

Energize

Energize

Energize

Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,954
Location
England
After finding out that m4/3 lenses cost 3x as much as an SLR equivalent, I've decided that ditching my E-PL1 and getting an SLR would be a more economical choice.

Main problem I suffered with was indoor sports photography, I could not get a good enough shutter speed in the arena at maximum ISO and largest aperture size. The noise also ruined any 100% crops of people.

Eg.
P7130916.JPG


I was considering a 90mm equivalent f1.8 lens for my previous camera, but realised that selling my camera and buying an SLR with an equivalent lens would cost less.

The Canon EOS 1100D is ~£280, and 80mm equivalent f1.8 lens ~£80. Based on my experience this focal length is perfect for my needs, so I can avoid spending loads on the convenience of a zoom.

This sensor and lens combo should give around 8x more light right? And the better ISO performance would allow me to use a higher ISO without ruining the image?

Can anyone recommend me any other comparably prices SLRs', perhaps the Nikon D3100?

I'm willing to go second hand if it's worth it.
 
Last edited:
D5100 with 50mm 1.8G if you can stretch your budget a little. It is worth the premium for arguably the best crop sensor, and best 50mm 1.8 lens (apart from the aperture, it's better than the Nikon 50 1.4G).
 
Last edited:
The D3100 is undoubtedly a nicer camera than the 1100D. It is slightly more expensive and has a lower maximum ISO, but it is better in almost every other way, as well as feeling significantly more premium. The 1100D is a horrible feeling camera imo; the plastic finish is just awful.
 
D3100 is good up to ISO 1600 with some noise reduction (my GF has one and i use it regularly for family events alongside my D90 ).

Re: 5100, I have seen reviews that say the 3200 is better in almost every way (including visible noise - but only if viewed at the same size ie: no pixel peeping!) which might be an option, depending if the AF on the 5100 is better or worse.
 
A m4/3s 90mm is a LOT longer (narrower field of view) than an APS-C 50mm (which I assume is what you think is the 80mm equivalent).

The 90mm on a m4/3s camera has an equivalent FoV to a 180mm lens on a full frame camera.
The 50mm on an APS-C camera has an equivalent FoV to about 80mm (75 on nikon) on a full frame camera you'd need to be at around 120mm lenses to be getting the same sort of shots on an APS-C camera, and there are no decent cheap primes in that sort of range.
 
85 1.8G will be a good but more expensive option. Should be long enough, but if it isn't, just get a little closer, or crop a little.
Of course if you can get closer, the 50 will be just as good.
 
D3100 it is then, comes to £380 with the 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor lens. Are there cheaper prices anywhere or is that as good as I'm going to get?

Ksanti said:
A m4/3s 90mm is a LOT longer (narrower field of view) than an APS-C 50mm (which I assume is what you think is the 80mm equivalent).
Click to expand...

Sorry, to clarify I meant equivalent to 90mm, ie 45mm. The kit lens I have is equiv to 84mm at the long end. The 90mm equiv is an absurd £230 and the 150mm a mind blowing £800. An f1.8 136mm equiv SLR lens is only £300! What were Olympus thinking?

An Exception said:
85 1.8G will be a good but more expensive option. Should be long enough, but if it isn't, just get a little closer, or crop a little.
Of course if you can get closer, the 50 will be just as good.
Click to expand...

For most events I can get in the arena and get closer to my subject, which is why I think that 50 is good, I may consider the 85 in the future if I find a need a little more reach, but I tend to find that at event evenings what happens at one end of the 50m arena happens at the other, so being able to get the rider in the full frame at half the arena distance is good enough for now.
 
Last edited:
Energize said:
Sorry, to clarify I meant equivalent to 90mm, ie 45mm. The kit lens I have is equiv to 84mm at the long end. The 90mm equiv is an absurd £230 and the 150mm a mind blowing £800. An f1.8 136mm equiv SLR lens is only £300! What were Olympus thinking?
Click to expand...

Ah okay, fair enough. Bear in mind lenses go far beyond just what aperture they have and what focal length they are - a lot of the cost of the 75mm lenses and that sort of thing comes down to the build quality of the lenses, and the Zuiko name is a sign of the sort of user the 75 targets.. The main hurdle for m4/3s systems was getting 'proper' photographers using them, and to do that they had to have the expensive good lenses which meant really high precision optics and good build quality; as otherwise everyone just dismissed them as amateur cameras and toys. For example, the 75 1.8 has far better build quality than either of the Nikon and Canon 85 1.8 lenses and I'd imagine (haven't checked the shots but I'd be surprised if this wasn't true) that the Zuiko is a substantially sharper lens - it has to be, if it's going to produce decent images on such a comparatively tiny sensor.
 
Thought as much, disappointing.

None of the main electrical shops sell the body for a reasonable price, in fact they are ~£10 more expensive than the one with the lens kit! Wtf?

I might look at the one specialist shop we have left in the city before ordering online. I'll want an extra battery and a tripod, maybe I can get some sort of discount if I buy all that.

Ksanti said:
Ah okay, fair enough. Bear in mind lenses go far beyond just what aperture they have and what focal length they are - a lot of the cost of the 75mm lenses and that sort of thing comes down to the build quality of the lenses, and the Zuiko name is a sign of the sort of user the 75 targets.. The main hurdle for m4/3s systems was getting 'proper' photographers using them, and to do that they had to have the expensive good lenses which meant really high precision optics and good build quality; as otherwise everyone just dismissed them as amateur cameras and toys. For example, the 75 1.8 has far better build quality than either of the Nikon and Canon 85 1.8 lenses and I'd imagine (haven't checked the shots but I'd be surprised if this wasn't true) that the Zuiko is a substantially sharper lens - it has to be, if it's going to produce decent images on such a comparatively tiny sensor.
Click to expand...

Really? I'd read in reviews that the Zuiko m4/3 prime lens bodies were mostly made of plastic with just a metal mount.
 
Last edited:
No point buying brick and mortar as they're always hideously uncompetitive on price. Digitalrev has it at £280 body only as a reference point.
 
You can grab a second hand or refurbished DSLR from Cameraworld, LCE, MBP or Canon's Ebay outlet. They'll come with some warranty.
 
Ksanti said:
No point buying brick and mortar as they're always hideously uncompetitive on price. Digitalrev has it at £280 body only as a reference point.
Click to expand...

Thanks I'll check them out. The high street prices aren't actually that bad, with the kit lens its only 20 quid more than amazon in comet iirc.
 
surprised no one mentioned it, but if you go the nikon /50 1.8 route make sure you get the G AF-S not D AF version lens as the D will not autofocus on the 3100/5100 cameras
 
Hardly, the 50 1.8D has been around for ages and cameras like the D3200 and D51000 dropped the AF motor because the newer lenses all came with built in focus motors, so it saved money to drop it from the bodies.
 
You mean the 3100 right?

Surely removing the af motor greatly increases costs because instead of paying a bit mote for the body you're now paying 50 quid more for every lens you buy? I'd rather buy a body with the motor if it will save hundreds of pounds in lenses.
 
Last edited:
Depending on where you are there is a brick and morter shop that will match online prices from reputable companies... I work there so won't mention names but Nikon discounts the stuff we buy in so we can compete with online companies and we're happy to split kits so you can buy body only.

I have to say though, the D3100 and D5100 are better in terms of build quality than the 1100D and 550D. The D3100 is a cracking camera but the D5100 has better low light which might sway it for you; it uses the same sensor as the D7000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom