new dslr

catoutthebag

I've decided to plump up to £400 ish on my first dslr.
I have researched a bit, but more confused than other

I would like a nikon or canon, with the standard kit lens 18-55mm or a larger more versatile one, if within budget, whether bought separately or as a bundle.

From reading, at this level, both brands are similar.

From reading, I will be in the 'entrance level' market, and both bodies will feel cheap. This does not mean that I want to grow out of it quickly - I'd like the body to last many years to come (just as users have been using their old models for many years to come). I would prefer the body to be as high-quality and robust as possible.

I understand that lenses are the things you'll keep.

I would like a versatile camera...mainly holiday, landscape stuff, but also zooming in details, and some portraiture.

I have looked at the following models mainly

nikon d5100
canon 600d

I have read the d90 is a 'classic', and good to learn on too, but prices have gone up and the sensor isn't as good as the d5100 (which it inherits from the d7000)

I also understand the following aren't too far behind

nikon d3000, d3100, d3200, d5000
canon 350, 400, 450, 550, 1000, 1100

I know you can pick up d40, 50, 60, etc dead cheap


Problem is, I wanted 'cheap as possible', but now happy to buy the full budget. I wanted cheap because a) I'm a mse pope, b) incase I lost/damaged it, c) money to buy lenses, d) incase I felt it was not getting use

I feel, from reading, a newer model will have a better/larger sensor.

I'm keen for it to be as light and small as possible, but not too bothered as they're all about the same

I know nothing about lenses too. I guess the kit one isn't brill...so which one versatile lens that one should next buy for zooming and landscapes?

So: I'd like a good, reliable camera, good for beginners and intermediates, easy to use, and takes excellent photos overall

Please advise

:rotfl:

PollyOnAMission

I have the D5100 and think it's great, however you really need to hold and play with both some Canons and some Nikons to see which feels right for you.

The ergonomics of the Canons just didn't feel right in my hands, so for me it was the Nikon. Once you've decided on the brand then it's really down to budget.

I had a similar dilemma (second hand D90 or new D5100) but decided on the newer camera, as technology has moved on quite a lot since the D90. Have a look at some reviews to get an idea of the relative merits and features of the ones you are considering (I recommend http://www.dpreview.com/) to see if some stand out to you. I liked the fold out screen on the D5100, for example.

I decided to go D5100 rather than D3100 or D3200 because I figured one more "upper entry level" than "entry level" could potentially keep me going for longer.

As for lenses (I can only speak for Nikon), the 18-55 VR is surprisingly good, and the 55-200 VR is a great bargain (only around £125). I also have the 35mm f1.8 prime lens which is gives fabulous depth of field, and being fixed focal length means you learn a new way to take photos (moving your body to position the camera rather than turning the lens to zoom). The next lens I get will probably be a macro lens, then I'll have pretty much covered all bases to keep me going for a while

bcl999

Nikon cashback offer has just started and the D5100 is included
http://www.nikon.co.uk/sites/cashback/offer-uk-spring13.html

catoutthebag

With that CB over, I can buy from any retailer, and just stick the serial in to get £40 credited to my bank card?

Would bring the 5100 down to £380 - bit more palleatable. Wonder if I could find codes etc to use in conjunction.

Yes, I feel I need to handle both, but nikon is cheaper and swaying it, plus I read with canon changing their mount in the 80's, I wouuld need a mount to purchase legacy lenses (?)...if and when I did decide to go down that route

Mikebellows

Have you looked at Bridge camera's?
The sensors on these cameras are not as large as a full DSLR, but the picture quality is half decent.

The reason I suggest a bridge camera, is because they are very versatile and will save you a lot of money. You will be able to do all the things that you can do with a full DSLR, at a fraction of the cost. If you ar disappointed wit the results of a bridge camera, trade it in for a full DSLR.

There are a few websites out there that support Bridge camera's.

I would recommend that you look at the new Fuji HS50EXR or failing that any of the Fuji HS - EXR range....

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fujifilm-FinePix-HS50-Digital-Camera/dp/B00AX12ZJU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363257486&sr=8-1

I personally have a Fuji HS20 EXR and can honestly say I am not disappointed with any of the results I have so far.


Take a look at my gallery : - http://www.myfinepix.co.uk/gallery/851588

catoutthebag

I already have a bridge (canon s90) for the last 3 years, and a panny tz4(?) for 3 years prior to that.

I can't say I've learnt too much, but that's probably my part. I took excellent pictures with both (probably being too harsh on myself), but know they would have been a little better with a dslr sensor

I shot and played with semi automatic mode a little, and have an idea of what the different fuctions achieve

However, I feel I will learn more with a dslr, and especially with the viewfinder/hot shoe/changeable lenses for the same price as a good bridge, I felt it a no brainer.

My plan was to eventually upgrade to a dslr

I hoped I would learn a little more on my s90 and use it fully, But I fell I definitely will on a dslr

The s90 was highly regarded 'cameras pro's carry when no room for dslr'..fast f2 lens...quality pictures as high as dslr (unfortunately I wasn't good at achieving these)

I love the s90, and will most likely keep hold of it til it becomes a vintage piece :rotfl:

Having writen this piece, I have now thought if it's worth playing with my s90 a little longer to full use the full manual mode which it has...then again everyone and their dog are jumping from a point and shoot to a dslr nowadays and avoiding the bridge...

HappySeagull

catoutthebag wrote: »

...plus I read with canon changing their mount in the 80's, I wouuld need a mount to purchase legacy lenses (?)...if and when I did decide to go down that route

Why do you think you might need to buy "legacy lenses"?

kwikbreaks

You'll have no problem buying lenses for the Canon and certainly I don't find the body of mine cheap at all.

What is a drag with any DSLR is toting it and a lens or two around. I bought a Lumix GF2 to go with my Canon - there isn't a huge choice of lenses for that though.

What finds itself in my pocket most of the time is a Casio compact - the pictures are far inferior but the odds are without it there'd be no pictures at all a lot of the time.

wba31

I have a Canon 600D and I think it's incredible. A previous contributor to this thread mentions the ergonimics to hands, I have large hands and the 600 is great for me. it's also a really light body so carrying it around NY and Chicago last year was wonderful, I previously had an old Canon 10D that weighed so much compared to the new 600D.
The problem with kit lenses is that once you have bought a good lens you will realise that the kit lenses are a bit poor.
I have the Canon 50mm fixed focus lens and the Sigma 10-20mm lens which are incredible, my next lens will be something like a 18-135mm lens for more general use.
I think the best thing to do is find a camera shop, feel the cameras, check out the displays and user functions. Both Canon and Nikon make great cameras, and companies like Sigma and Tamron make the same lens for both fits. Another contributor to this thread mentioned a cashback deal, it could be worth checking.
when browsing what to buy next, i look at www.camerapricebuster.co.uk. someone pointed me in that direction on this site before, and i saved money on all bits by checking there.

catoutthebag

Thanks for that site - found it for 399, so 359 with cashback :beer:

I think I do need to handle both..having had the s90, I know canon is user friendly (read maybe a little moreso than nikon?)

I have small hands, so wouldn't naturally lean towards your canon

I think I need to compromise, as one might not have all that the other has, but for beginner and enthusiasts, I guess it's negligible.

I know nikon is meant to have better low light performance.

Hmm..as an adjunct, is there somewhere that explains lens in laymans? Don't really understabd 18-55, fast, f2, slow, telephoto, wideangle, etc...

kwikbreaks

catoutthebag wrote: »

Don't really understabd 18-55, fast, f2, slow, telephoto, wideangle, etc...

18-55 is the focal length in mm for a typical "kit" lens.
The lower number indicates wider angle end of the zoom and the higher the telephoto end but 55 is a lot less than anybody would call telephoto. That lens would be called a 3x zoom on a compact.

Wideangle gives a bigger span of landscape etc.
Telephoto is for picking out a small object a long way off.


Fast slow and Fn refer to the maximum aperature. The lower the number the faster the lens - ie the faster the shutter you can use for some given light level.

You'd do better finding more eloquent definitions of these terms on a photography website that you'll likely get here. Now Jessops have gone I'm not sure where you'd get decent High Street information on cameras.