Spec Me A Camera

GiraffePencils

GiraffePencils

GiraffePencils

Soldato
Joined
15 Feb 2013
Posts
3,089
Location
Edinburgh
Hey All,

I've got a Nikon coolpix camera I've had for years, 8 megapixel, it's done me well but I don't know if it's not up to scratch or I'm just useless with it but I can't get as good quality pictures as I'd like.

So I'm looking for a new camera, One that'd be good for taking nice pretty pictures of my PC with, But also one that's not over the top for taking out and about to take pics of the family on holiday etc.

I really don't know what to look for, loads of people seem to have dslr's I always viewed them as expensive 'real photographer' cameras, but they seem to be not that expensive these days and that makes me cautious that they're not as good quality. But then a work colleague says it's largely about the lens's then another suggested a dslr thing with a fixed lens and now I'm pretty confused.

My Budget is sub 300.
 
£300 gives you a lot of choice of cameras and sensor sizes, more so if you don't mind buying second hand. So much so that you'll need to make some choices. I'd say the first choice is- Do you want something slim, light and pocketable, or do you mind carrying a bigger system around?

Other choices are:
Will you want to photograph in low light?
Do you want to capture fast-moving subjects, particularly close up?
 
I don't like keeping much in my pockets, I'd take a bag anyway, even with my little camera (Kids make the bag a must have for outings) so bigger is not bad for me, something you get get a good grip on's nice.

I would want indoors photo's but probably not a whole lot of night time shots, if that's what you mean by low light?

I'd be taking shots of my 3 year old mostly, so chances are he'd not be that still, but not trying to photograph cars/planes etc
 
Just to avoid disappointment when you do get a new camera, it won't make your pictures better - the image quality might be better and the camera might give you the control you need but it's good to understand lighting too - there's a good book called "Understanding Exposure" which I have found useful and there's quite a few online tutorials on photographing PC cases too.

If it was me, I would go for an older DSLR such as a Canon 40D with a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which will stand you in at around £300. Yes it's 'only' 10MP but it'll give you much better image quality.
 
I understand it's not "Good camera=good picture" but with my little coolpix I've fiddled with every setting It has, which there are only 3, and pictures still come out lacking. I've read & been told that it's a lot about knowing what settings you need to adjust in what situations etc.
 
Right so browsing the second hand market, saw:
Canon EOS 400D/Digital Rebel XTi DSLR camera with 18-55 Lens: £200

Also a:
Nikon D100 with:
Nikon 50mm lenses
Tamron 70-300mm macro zoom lenses
Lowepro shoulder bag
Lense protector caps for both lenses
Grip and two batteries
Charger
Sandisk memory card
Manual
220

looks alright, If I was to buy a second hand camera what should I look for? i.e most likely places there might be damage etc?
 
Last edited:
I have just upgrade my sons camera so his Nikon D70 is now up for sale....
Very nice overall conditions but the sensor could do with a clean at some point.... Shutter Count is 23,000 and comes with a battery and charger and power cable..
Also included is a Nikon AFS 55-200mm VR kit lens and 18 to 70mm kit lens both in good condition but some small dust particles within the lens that do not show up in the photographs...

This is a great starter kit for someone

Looking for £165.00 plus delivery
Click to expand...

Talkphotography forums, if you have access.

I'd get over there and start posting if you can wait. Some guy had a D3100 with a 18-55mm for £180.
 
Last edited:
GiraffePencils said:
That sounds nice, Is it a decent body?
can it take like, nice lenses to improve it later etc?
Click to expand...

It uses a quality Canon APS-C sensor (DSLR sized) and using an adaptor can take all of Canon's DSLR lenses.

Autofocus is its weak point- accurate but slower than a DSLR, but then mirrorless cameras are generally inferior to DSLRs in autofocus to some extent anyway- there are exceptions, but not for £200.

I'm considering an EOS-M myself as I have several Canon lenses...
 
How much am I looking to for the adapter?
Is there an equivalent DSLR to the EOS-M i should look out for second hand? (if it saves me the adapter it might be worth it etc)

Also, I might sound silly hear,
But what's the difference between the
EOS M
and
EOS 1100D
it's 50 quid difference on argos, am I better with the Eos m?
 
Last edited:
GiraffePencils said:
How much am I looking to for the adapter?
Is there an equivalent DSLR to the EOS-M i should look out for second hand? (if it saves me the adapter it might be worth it etc)

Also, I might sound silly hear,
But what's the difference between the
EOS M
and
EOS 1100D
it's 50 quid difference on argos, am I better with the Eos m?
Click to expand...

Quite a few places are doing deals on the M body with an adapter (Wex has the body, adapter and a 22mm f2 lens for £349)

As for which is better- it depends. The 1100D will outperform the EOS-M in most areas, particularly autofocus, and it has a proper viewfinder, but it's going to be much bigger and heavier as a package.

If you're going to buy lots of lenses including telephotos, not worry about size, then I'd say unquestionably DSLR. Mounting a 70-200f2.8 to an EOS-M isn't going to be any easier than on an 1100D- quite the opposite, big lenses don't really handle well on compact cameras.

If you want something small and light, will use a lot of prime lenses, and don't mind taking pics from an LCD then I'd say the EOS-M is an option.

I started with a secondhand 1000D, took lit everywhere, upgraded to a secondhand 40D then 50D spent thousands on lenses, and now it's all sitting in a cupboard and I'm using my Fuji X-E2 and two prime lenses and loving it.

Starting out though, I'd say a DSLR is the best way to avoid disappointment and means you have all the tools at your disposal and the camera will give you as much help as possible. All the photographic technique and inspiration in the world is for nowt if the camera misses focus.

Can you get to a retailer and try them?
 
There's a fair few camera shops, jessops is a big one fairly close.
some more enthusiast looking shops are down the road.
I suppose the M looks like I'd use it more, I'd probably not chuck any massive lenses on it. I think Its the look of the camera that's putting me off :p
it doesn't 'look' like a proper camera, but It's got more megapixel, takes the lens's and i'm probably more likely to take it out places, I'm assuming these auto focus problems can be overcome by just getting better manually focusing? or do I have the wrong end of the stick here?
 
GiraffePencils said:
There's a fair few camera shops, jessops is a big one fairly close.
some more enthusiast looking shops are down the road.
I suppose the M looks like I'd use it more, I'd probably not chuck any massive lenses on it. I think Its the look of the camera that's putting me off :p
it doesn't 'look' like a proper camera, but It's got more megapixel, takes the lens's and i'm probably more likely to take it out places, I'm assuming these auto focus problems can be overcome by just getting better manually focusing? or do I have the wrong end of the stick here?
Click to expand...

Hmmm... Manual focus may not be the answer you're looking for. Taking pics of static stuff MF is fine. For taking pics of a kid jumping around in a room, potentially in low light, you'll need a lot of practice to nail it.

Megapixels are more a marketing tool at this end of the market- I wouldn't make the difference a big decision factor.

Have a look at the reviews here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Digital-SLR-Camera-Reviews.aspx
 
Damn that review site's making it hard :p
Ease of carrying it but no viewfinder or flash.
but the size of the bigger ones make it look a bit hard to take anywhere (I'm thinking if I got on a plane with only carry on the camera's a fair chunk of that)

A friend at work keeps pushing a 'bridge camera' which he says only has a fixed lens but he's had his for 5 years and never found it lacking. might that be a good 'middle ground' for me?
 
Bridges are OK for snaps. I've had a few, but I wouldn't go back- sensors are tiny, and lenses tend to be small aperture (and you can't change them). Their primary reason for existence is their usually spectacular zoom ranges, but there are all sorts of compromises made to achieve that. They're not even particularly compact.

To be honest if I want snaps, I use my phone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom