New Camera SLR

Regy53

Regy53

Regy53

Soldato
Joined
11 Jun 2011
Posts
3,880
Location
Northampton
Hi All,

Looking to invest in a SLR Camera. Had a point and click for a while but i just don't use it as I don't get on with them.

Really need to start taking pictures of my family more and enjoying the memory we share.

My question is does spending £500 - £1000 give much difference in the cameras and lenses for a newbie? I looked on a jessops style site and they had slrs for £500 odd quid but reading on here perhaps I should up it to 1k?

Any recommendations?


Cheers
Ross
 
Entry level cameras are all pretty good these days. Sees to be cracking offers on the Nikon d5100, that would be my pick
 
Grab a cheap 50mm prime as well would be my recommendation. Kit lenses are ok, but faster primes just set your pictures to stun with very little effort and cost and will be useful indoors especially around Christmas if that's your plan.
 
Would a d5100 plus 2 lenses be any good.

18-55mm vr lense and a 55-200mm vr lense

The total price is 554 delivered via the forest

Cheers for your comments so far I know these threads are ten a penny

Ross
 
Managed to get hold of a Canon 1100D for £323 from John Lewis, including the IS lens, not the regular DC lens. Pretty neat for what I'm concerned with, just on holidays and what not, but has done some great shots in comparison to a standard camera/iPhone.

By no means a professional, far from it, only had it a month but managed to take the following action shot with it at the ATP World tour Finals last week, resized for the forum, comments welcome for improvements, lens choice etc?:

nqo783.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think the d7000 is worth the extra tbh.
Wouldn't even bother with crappy 18-55 or 55-200mm lenses.

sure they cover a large focal range, but pictures will look like they have come from a point and shoot.

If you only going for low end lenses i'd opt for a decent p&s like an rx100.
 
An Exception said:
I think the d7000 is worth the extra tbh.
Wouldn't even bother with crappy 18-55 or 55-200mm lenses.

sure they cover a large focal range, but pictures will look like they have come from a point and shoot.

If you only going for low end lenses i'd opt for a decent p&s like an rx100.
Click to expand...

That is not really true, the 18-105mm is as sharp as most primes.
 
Im just referring to the lenses the op just mentioned. Sure the 18-105 might be ok for when you need something to cover a large focal range, and it might be nice and sharp but it's limited in terms of aperture, so it's not a lens i would choose to use if i didn't have to. But for general purpose snaps or landscapes etc, it makes sense, but it also makes sense to get a couple of primes for the aperture.
 
That is just the point, the 18-105 has a limited aperture but versatile focal range, prime lens have a fats aperture but highly limited focal range. That has long since been the choice in photography, except long ago zoom lenses had a cost in reduced IQ. That is not really a consideration with modern zoom lenses so aperture is the main deciding fracture, and that entirely depends on what photography you do. However, even the 18-105 when used towards the tele end wide open actually is possible to give a reasonably shallow DoF and the bokeh is pleasant if you avoid harsh backgrounds. Of course the combo of a 18-105, at least 1 fats prime like the 35mm and a a telephoto if you are into wildlife is a much more complete system. A combo of slower zooms and fats primes is really the way forward if you shoot a variety of scenes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom