To DSLR or not to DSLR

Berserker

Berserker

Berserker

Man of Honour
Joined
4 Nov 2002
Posts
15,513
Location
West Berkshire
Sorry, long, rambling post upcoming - I'm really in rather a mess here and would appreciate any help and advice you can give.


Normally, I'd have no interest in DSLR cameras at all. In fact, I want a bridge camera (Sony H5/H9, Canon S3 IS, Panasonic FZ7/FZ8 etc.). I've been pondering this for the last year, but thanks to PMA07 the model I'd finally settled on has been superceeded. I'm going on holiday soon, and the successor isn't out until a week after I get back (fat lot of use that'll be then).

So, I can either get the old model, switch manufacturers (and most likely still have the same problem as most of them announced new models at PMA) or go on holiday with my ageing F717 (good in it's day, noisy as hell now) or just the compact (less noise than the F717, but at a price). I don't like any of these options. I want the new model bridge, but it's just not going to be available in time.

My photography is what you'd probably call typical holiday shots (OK, so they're probably above average holiday shots, but still, holiday shots). I'm not expecting that to change. I entered a couple of rounds of photography competition here to guage my abilities, and I, as expected, came in the bottom third (though not right at the bottom which was a surprise).

But... (yes, there's always a but, isn't there)

Given all the above, I'm starting to wonder if I shouldn't just say ******** to it and go up a level to DSLR land. While it wasn't my original plan, there are a few valid points in it's favour.

The camera I came across today, Nikon D80 + 18-135mm, is about double what I'd have paid for the bridge camera. I'd sacrifice some zoom (7.5x vs 12-15x), and I'd lose the 'bells and whistles', but gain a much better sensor chip. I don't know if it's a good camera or not - my knowledge of DSLR cameras could probably be written on the bank of a postage stamp book. I'll rely on you, the experts in here, to be the judge of that. I know most of you lot are Canon fans, but still, it's what I found, and it's probably a bit more affordable than that Canon. :)

There's the thought that I've probably upgraded once every two years (alternating compacts and bigger cameras). So, there's the whole 'save today, spend tomorrow' philosophy nagging away in the back of my mind - if I can get a camera that'll last me about 5 years now, then it's paid for two upgrades. Unfortunately, as I'm sure you know, DSLR cameras easily turn into money pits, so that might prove to be a false economy. It is, after all, a lot of money.

So, having waded through that lot, the question is, is there a way out of this mess without falling for what could, in the long run, turn out to be a bad choice and wasted money?
 
D40 is the lower model, its aimed at first time DSLR buyers. Its extremely cheap at the moment, and fits what you need perfectly imo. Its very light compared to other DSLR's (especially the D80) so its good for walking around with. It has excellent point and shoot capabilities, right the way up to full manual control, and fuctions you would find on top range DSLR. Obviously has interchangeable lens, for future upgrades. Basically it offers you the same quality as the very top end compacts as well as most of the advantages of top end DSLR's.

The D80 is considerably better, but also a lot more expensive.
 
I've got used to 7MP now and I'm not sure I could bring myself to get a more expensive camera with a lower MP rating, which would be a problem for the D40.

The D40X, on the other hand, is a possibility if I can pair it with a lens with a decent zoom (one of the reasons for the upgrade was that I want a longer zoom range).
 
Berserker said:
I've got used to 7MP now and I'm not sure I could bring myself to get a more expensive camera with a lower MP rating, which would be a problem for the D40.

The D40X, on the other hand, is a possibility if I can pair it with a lens with a decent zoom (one of the reasons for the upgrade was that I want a longer zoom range).
Click to expand...

You wont go wrong with a 400D :D
 
Could I see that one coming. Yes I could. About an hour ago. :D

Convince Spie to give me £150 off one, and I'll consider it. :p :D
 
less megapixels but a bigger physical sensor means the quality is likely better overall, it's not all about the megapixels...

also, the D40 should be good for printing to at least A3 (likely A2 if you're not examining it with a magnifying glass) and if it's just holiday shots then thats easily good enough in my book...

in a casual camera the weight is important, I went from a D70 to a D200 and the D200 is a wonderful camera but god it's heavy with the battery grip and 17-55 f2.8 on it. It's not something you take with you on the off chance of seeing something to take photos of. The D70 was much more friendly for just throwing in my bag in case.

I've just bought a leica d-lux 3 to correct this little problem, and I'm itching for a chance to try it out this weekend!
 
I absolutely agree with you that megapixels aren't everything, but then again I still have that thing about not wanting to go backwards in my head.

One thing I've realised I will probably lose is image stabilisation. I am rather prone to not keeping the camera still (shaky hands), so it's a good idea. Then again, a bigger sensor will allow more use of lower ISO and somewhat reduce that problem.
 
Berserker said:
I absolutely agree with you that megapixels aren't everything, but then again I still have that thing about not wanting to go backwards in my head.

One thing I've realised I will probably lose is image stabilisation. I am rather prone to not keeping the camera still (shaky hands), so it's a good idea. Then again, a bigger sensor will allow more use of lower ISO and somewhat reduce that problem.
Click to expand...

Yes, you'll loose that unless you spend a fantastic amount of money on a VR lens, then again on a decent SLR it may not matter much, it's only really on long focal lengths or a night you'll need it in my experience. I have a 70-200 VR and I still can't use it in particularly low light and it's marginal hand held at 200mm (mainly because it's so bloody heavy). On my old D70 with the 18-70 lens I never missed or needed image stabiliasation, with a 300mm lens was a different story but then a tripod would fix that too.

If you can afford the 18-200 VR that would give you image stabilisation (not to mention being a very nice all round consumer lens) That and a D40 should be in your original price bracket I'd imagine and would be an excellent combo that would last you a good while...
 
Go for the D40 :)

Although the kit lens doesn't have that much reach it is a very good lens.

D40x isn't worth the extra money, and the D80 is a better camera but not 2x the camera as the price difference suggests.

Have a look at Ken Rockwells site, he does a big round-up.

The 18-200VR has a 3-4month lead time and costs £485 (best price I've found new from a UK shop). Very good lens though.
 
Last edited:
IIRC the Sony Alpha 100 has Image Stabilisation built into the camera so you get IS regardless of what lens you use. It's something to consider.

But, given your needs I think a well specced bridge camera would suit you better. An SLR is great but to get the same flexibility you will get from a bridge camera, you'll have to spend £££ on new lenses. That's fine if you want to spend the money but I get the impression you just want to spend a set amount and not have to worry about upgrading bits and pieces.

I don't really know my bridge cameras but I believe there are plenty out there with in built IS and decent glass to match. The Panasonic range springs to mind although someone who has experience with them will probably be able to better inform you.

If you're willing to spend a few extra £££ after getting the camera and want the best image quality and overall flexibility regardless of the cost then go for an SLR. If, however, you want to just spend a couple of hundred quid and forget about it from thereon in, get yourself a high specced bridge camera as it would appear to be better suited to your requirements. :)
 
paddy said:
Go for the D40 :)

Although the kit lens doesn't have that much reach it is a very good lens.

D40x isn't worth the extra money, and the D80 is a better camera but not 2x the camera as the price difference suggests.

Have a look at Ken Rockwells site, he does a big round-up.

The 18-200VR has a 3-4month lead time and costs £485 (best price I've found new from a UK shop). Very good lens though.
Click to expand...

rubbish, my friendly nikon shop took one from the pile they had on the shelf for me to play with on monday...can't remember how much they wanted though...

bridge camera wise, from initial playing I rather like my leica d-lux 3, it's got all the usual manual controls, decent image quality, IS and everything else it needs. it's also pretty much made by panasonic as i understand it. expensive but good if you can afford it and don't fancy an SLR...
 
Last edited:
Samsung GX10 (rebadged pentax k10d) has IS built in - cheaper than the Pentax k10d although its almost identical! 600 or thereabouts for body + 18-55 and 50-200 lens.

I still wouldn't ever get a d40... it just seems like a poor choice due to lens compatability for AF.
 
I was in the same position last October (although in slightly different circumstances). Here are a few things I recommend you consider:

o DSLRs are money pits, not because you NEED many extras, simply because you want them. Ebay has turned into my best friends, through buying batteries, filters, cloths, an air blower. Then there's the lenses, as you will more than likely want to upgrade from the kit lens eventually. I have been very conservative in my spending, and have already spent well over the cost of the camera again. I personally wouldn't buy a DSLR on the basis it will cost less in the long run, even without getting "the upgrade bug" it will easily cost more than buying a bridge every 2-3 years will.

o What do you want from a camera? I went down the DSLR route because I wanted more from a camera than taking it out with me on days out/holidays. I liked the idea of going out specifically looking for pictures to take. If I wanted a camera for holidays, I probably would have been tempted by a bridge due to its simplicity without sacrificing too much. I also plan to keep my camera for a good few years as it was a 21st birthday present.

Edit: for reference my route was:

o Canon 400D with kit lens, external flash, CF cards, bag, etc.
o Filters (few weeks after)
o Cheap stand x 2 (few weeks after)
o Sigma lens to replace the kit one (a few months later)
o Filters (because of new lens)
o Upgraded flash (last week)

Total spending is probably around £1k.
 
Last edited:
The DSLR route is I admit it is a (much) more expensive route.

You could buy a 2nd hand DLSR (maybe a 350D) from a GOA (Generic Online Auction), use it for a week or so (maybe take it on holiday) and see how you find it.

If you felt it was too restricting and didn't fullfill your photographic requirements sell it again and buy a bridge camera, if you get a good price in the first place it shouldn't cost you anything.
 
I went from a DSC-F717 to a D80 and am not going to look back but for your needs unless you are ready to get really stuck into your photography I'd steer away from a DSLR. As Scuzi and Abyss mentioned a DSLR is a money pit and to get the flixibility of a bridge camera you need to be prepared to spend significantly more money.

The D40 is a great camera but again, if you're going to spend lots of cash get a proper body like the D80 or a 400D that has a built in AF motor as it gives you significantly more flixbility with your lenses. Sometimes you can get a brilliant deal on second hand lenses and personally I'd rather not be restricted by the AF requirements that the D40 suffers from.

The really hard bit is that your moving on from a 717 which was a stunning camera in it's time, in fact I still rate it. The swivel barrel was something that I really miss from a creativity perspective.

I'd check out the DSC-H9 as it has a similar LCD viewfinder as the 717 and a stunning 3-inch LCD Screen not to mention the mental 15x optical zoom. It's again using the Carl Zeiss lens so the optics are going to be fairly reasonable.

The other I might look at is the Fuji Finepix s9500. 9MP with the zoom ring that we are used to on the 717, a really good iso range, top tilt LCD Screen. Again the LCD Viewfinder that we're used to. To be honest (without hands on experience) the DSC-H9 looks more attractive.

Look at your budget and realistically what you want to spend and then find out what cameras are in that price range then do the research. See what people have to say. I have never rushed into spending this sort of money and always advise people to do the same.
 
I have been in a similar position for a while. I start out looking at bridge cameras, move on to dSLRs, realise I can't afford one and start again.

If you can get past your megapixel fetish then the Pentax k100d with a third party 18-200 zoom would fit what you want. The 100d is quite small, has inbody IS. I don't think a tamron/sigma ultrazoom will be worse than a bridge lens.

You can get the k100 for 350 with kit lens so if you sell the kit lens and buy a cheap 18-200 you can probably get both for about 450.
 
The Pentax K100D is a good first DSLR, 6MP, 18-55mm kit lens, and has in body anti shake.

Only problem about getting into the DSLR system is you'll end up catching the Lens Buying Addiction bug! :eek: Now I have a Tamron 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di LD macro lens, and a Zenitar 16mm fish eye bought online all the way from Moscow! LBA! :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom