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:
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:
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:
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.
 
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:
What about buying a used Nikon D90 for ~£350 and then the 50mm AF lens? Possibly cheaper than buying a new D3100 and AFS lens. It's actually closer to £100 more expensive for the AFS lenses, not £50!
 
Last edited:
The 5100 is considerably more expensive though taking into account the Nikon lenses. From what I've seen on ebay now these are what I'd consider.

Refurbished 550D = £288
Refurbished 600D = £372
Used D90 = £368

The respective 50mm f1.8 lenses cost the same new (£80).

Overall I'm edging towards the 550D because it's what I was originally planning to spend, giving me more money to spend on lenses in the future.

Unless anyone can recommend any other second hand bodies? I don't have the time to get an average of what they are selling for in auction style.

The expense of the Nikon's af lenses makes the entry level Nikon bodies untenable for me.


Ksanti said:
It's not a very expensive component to put into a lens as they know exactly what the motor is moving, and has the advantages of speed, full time focus override and low noise when focusing..
Click to expand...

Then why are the lenses so much more expensive?
 
Last edited:
Ksanti said:
They're different lenses. The 50 1.8G, even before the inclusion of an AF motor, is much better lens than the 50 1.8D due to new optics and a better build, and I'm pretty sure the same goes for the 85 1.8G.
Click to expand...

Oh, seems strange though for Nikon to create such a barrier to their entry level market by only offering their more premium lenses with af, that's surely just going to make consumers like myself go with Canon?

Anyway, which body is going to offer better low light performance, the 550D, 600D or D90?
 
Last edited:
Thanks, that's simple to understand, since the D90's score is considerably better than Canons it sways me to it, but it's difficult deciding because it's video capabilities are poor (half the resolution, low frame rate, no af and massive video file size), in fact 24fps is probably going to be unacceptable, I'm not so bothered if it's only 720p if it's 60fps, and that's something that's important to me with these sports activities.
 
Last edited:
Yeah video as well, but the video isn't as important as the stills as me, most of the time it will be for more casual video and I could live with mf if I used a narrower aperture, which I probably could do often give the increased sensor size, resolution and better ISO performance than my current camera, but 24fps in the mjpeg format (when will that decrepit format die?) would not be acceptable I think. I'll check out the Sony's anyway to see if they offer anything to my liking too then.
 
Last edited:
Had a look at the Sony's, the a37 looks nice, but it works out considerably more expensive than the 550D, and as with the Nikon's the lenses are more expensive, comparison site has no information on low light performance either. IS is nice, but I will be using a tripod for anything that matters. Probably going to go with the 550D overall.
 
Last edited:
Can't believe the lack of lens stock on the high street. Couldn't find a single 50mm lens in town, no wonder the high street is dying, you can't make money if you don't stock anything!
 
The thing is though, they all had the lens as part of their product range, they just didn't have it in stock, inlcuding a specialist photography shop which had much more expensive lenses in!
 
I've got the camera now. :D Can anyone recommend an external Mic for the 550D, I just know I'll need one for shooting video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom