To Go DSLR Or Not?

Fireblade2K4

Fireblade2K4

Fireblade2K4

Associate
Joined
9 Nov 2004
Posts
1,691
Location
West Midlands
I currently have a Canon Powershot A95 camera which is my first digital camera and to be honest it is great but I feel somewhat limited with it and the fact that the optical zoom is only x3. When it comes to photographing nature and animals when you need to get up close and personal it is a bit of a problem.

I'm thinking about getting a DSLR, the Canon EOS 350D with the EF 18-55mm lens kit as I don't want to initially spend any more than £500 as I am a total photography novice just starting out.

Anyone think this is the wrong step to take and that I should master using the A95 first of all, even though it is in essence just a point and click camera before moving to DSLR.

Also are there any other DSLR's in this price range worth considering which rival the Canon in terms of picture quality?

Thanks.

Stu
 
for £500 you can get Nikon D50 with the 18-55 kit lens and also get a 50mm prime or get a tripod/bag etc etc.

I personally think the Canon 350D is too small and also the kit lens is nowhere near the D50 standard.

the 6mp vs 8mp isn't a huge difference because the resolution on 350D is only like 10% bigger.

Going from D50 > D70 the size of the camera isn't very big but boy it feels so much 50% better. I'm sure if you hold 350D and then try D50 you will feel so much better.

Don't be put off by the Nikon 6mp and also don't worry about D50's ISO @ 1600, infact it does better then Canon 300D/350D/D70/D70s but I wouldn't say this is why you should get Nikon.

If you looking for a camera under £500-700 I think the Nikon > Canon. £800-1000 Canon > Nikon.


If I had £800-1000, I would buy Canon. If I had £500-700 I would get Nikon.

Over £1000 don't know.

But also there are lens factors. So it gets all complicated :confused:
 
Last edited:
I'm afraid the D50 doesn't beat the 350D at high iso, not even the d70 does (having had both) but the d50 kit lens is very sharp (both 18-50 and 18-70) and are much nicer than canons kit lens, the body is a nicer feel than the 350D because it is bigger (but the 350D does feel extremely nice if you have medium sized hands and with the grip it's like a smaller 1d body minus the rock solid metal body frame of course) and it is a cheaper camera to buy. It takes very good shots on good lenses but the 350D is the better performing body with more features.
 
Last edited:
Fireblade2K4 said:
but I feel somewhat limited with it and the fact that the optical zoom is only x3. When it comes to photographing nature and animals when you need to get up close and personal it is a bit of a problem.
Click to expand...
To be honest then you're going to be even more limited with the 18-55 kit lens. From memory the A95 gives you a top end of about 120mm. The 350D and 18-55 is about 88mm taking the crop factor into account.

Realistically you're looking at another lens on top of your basic dSLR and kit lens. Just depends how much you want to spend really.
 
dod said:
To be honest then you're going to be even more limited with the 18-55 kit lens. From memory the A95 gives you a top end of about 120mm. The 350D and 18-55 is about 88mm taking the crop factor into account.

Realistically you're looking at another lens on top of your basic dSLR and kit lens. Just depends how much you want to spend really.
Click to expand...


The man speaks truth, just using the 18-55 kit you will be even more limited than you were before when it comes to zooming.
 
I know I will need another lens for distant shots something like a 70-200mm one would be ideal I think, but image quality wise how much better would shots be from a DSLR than my current A95?

I'm mainly interested in macro photography which I will again need another lens for, nature, wildlife, landscapes and architechtural if I'm in the right place.

Things I've found with the A95 which irritate me is the time it takes to focus on an object especially a moving one, usually the picture ends up just a blur or out of focus, it can only do ISO400 even on night mode the images are still not that good and lack seem to vibrant colour and detail, there are more but you get the general idea, I want all round better performance.

Stu
 
mrk said:
I'm afraid the D50 doesn't beat the 350D at high iso
Click to expand...

reading dpreview, suggested the D50 does perform better at high ISO.

even a friend with 350D and D70 says the high iso is better on D70. I've only owned d50 and d70 and d50 does have better Iso then D70.

maybe everyone has mix results. :confused:


anways this isn't a big problem and shouldn't be considered when buying camera.
 
It could be, when I had the 350D with various lenses I used to always shoot at iso800 indoors and got 8x6 print quality results but with the d70 I tend to find noise at 640iso to be too much to use without a fair amount of noise reduction in software, these were with much higher quality nikkor lenses too.

The 350 is the clear winner for noise though
 
I have both a Canon A95 and a Canon EOS 300D.

The A95 takes a great point & shoot photo but, with the right lens, the 300D hammers it every time.

Admittedly, the 300D is taking a lot longer to get to grips with but I absolutely love it.

I took a lot of different types of shot with the A95 and that got me to the stage of 'needing' the DSLR that I have now. The 70-300mm IS USM has really made it a fantastic piece of kit.

I have never regreted buying the 300D and never regreted keeping the A95. Both are great at what they do.

Not much help but just my experience.

regards

ATHRoss
 
Everyone is talking techy, noise this, ISO that. One point I have noticed people get disappointed with when buying a DSLR is that they expect the images to be as punchy as their point and shoot.

When you buy a DSLR, you have to realise that you need to invest a lot more time in the processing of images and making them great. If you don't really need the advanced features of a DSLR but just want a longer zoom, have a look at some of the DSLR-a-likes like the Panasonic Lumix range:
DPReview Specification

Just my opinion of course!

Matt
 
O_O are you joking about the D50 being better than the 350D at high iso? If anything this is the absolute biggest difference between them O_O


With such exquisit taste as yourself fireblade (having an st200 and all) i feel only a canon will be classy enough for you ;) try picking up a 2nd hand 10D. For this price range, it is by far the best option imo :)

Tom.
 
feenster99 said:
Everyone is talking techy, noise this, ISO that. One point I have noticed people get disappointed with when buying a DSLR is that they expect the images to be as punchy as their point and shoot.

When you buy a DSLR, you have to realise that you need to invest a lot more time in the processing of images and making them great.
Click to expand...


you can get punchy images from a dSLR straight from the off too, dial up the contrast and saturation in camera, but post processing is the best way for it :)

Tom.
 
rG-tom said:
O_O are you joking about the D50 being better than the 350D at high iso? If anything this is the absolute biggest difference between them O_O
Click to expand...

these lot seem to think so
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page24.asp

also the conclusion suggest the same
We were probably the most surprised by the D50's noise levels, Nikon has clearly spent time since the creation of the D70 on design changes to keep noise down. The D50 has the lowest noise levels of any of the affordable digital SLR's we've tested (although they're all fairly clean, we're talking fractions here).

The nicest thing about the D50 however is that it just feels right, build wise it's a step above the Canon EOS 350D and Pentax *ist DS, it's also not too small, I'm all for making cameras lighter but there's a limit as to how small you can make an SLR before the hand grip feels cramped and controls begin to get in the way.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I love the canon camera's I owned 3 Digital P&S canon and 3 Film P&S canon camera's and they all have produced good quality.

I'm sure the 350D is cracking camera, but since most people love to diss the nikon because of little noise, so I pointed out that D50 is equal if not better at higher noise level. Also the D50 with 18-55 or 18-70 fits his budget perfectly.


If you have small hands choose canon, if u have bigger (mans hand) chose nikon :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Ok so all in all my best bet is to get the Nikon D50 as first choice or the Canon 350D secondly, the size probably will be a factor, being 6'5" I haven't got small hands, lol....think I'll go and have a look as some tomorrow in town, get a feel etc....then look for some good kits online.

I noticed that the Canon has ISO of 100, 200, 300 and so on but the Nikon seems to jump through them, 200, 400, 600, 800 etc...is this the case and will that have an impact when taking photos?

Stu
 
Fireblade2K4 said:
Ok so all in all my best bet is to get the Nikon D50 as first choice or the Canon 350D secondly
Click to expand...

Um no. I would say your best bet is to buy a compact with a long zoom lens built in if you don't really want to spend out on various lenses all the time. You have to buy the DSLR for say £500 and then say a Sigma 70-300 for another £150. Thats twice the price of a half decent compact with a zoom. Sure the quality is better if you buy decent lenses which is again more expense. If you are willing to throw money at cameras then get a DSLR. If not then get a nice compact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom