First SLR

Zola.

By that I mean I am prepared to spend 500/600 on something that is deemed to be a good quality SLR. Bells and whistles if you like.

I would feel silly for buying just an 'ok entry level' camera, only to get more into it and then have to replace down the road. I understand lenses can be much more expensive than the camera body itself, but a good starter kit for experimenting would be ideal.

If I spend the money I will work hard to make it good value.

bingo_bango

I got one of these Canon twin lens kits a few months ago for £320. Worth waiting to see if the price drops again after Xmas.

This should give you a good feel for SLR photography, without breaking the bank. I can tell you now that DSLRs have come quite a way since I last looked at them, and I'm not sure I'll ever use all the functions this has.

It also has wifi connectivity (Canon have developed an Android app, but it's basic to say the least) although be prepared to have to reconnect every time you use it to do anything!

Have a look at the guide neimcl linked to before doing anything, and anywhere else you find on the net. If I hadn't wanted mine for a specific purpose (astrophotography) then I probably would have gone for a bridge camera based on reviews around the place. Still happy with my DSLR choice, but not necessarily the best course of action for everyone.

Zola.

Bingo - thank you sir! This looks like the sort of thing I am after.

I am also a bit of a star gazer, so would be interested in taking shots of that too!!

neilmcl

So you'll be looking at something like the Canon EOS 750D or Nikon 5500 then.

The only thing I'd say about going for an "enthusiast" camera rather than an entry-level model as a beginner is you could be spending a big chunk of change on something you could get bored with in a few months. You might be better off looking for cheaper 2nd-hand deals instead.

Although that Canon EOS 1300D kit linked above is a pretty good deal by all accounts.

Zola.

Perhaps, but if it lasts me for many years it would be a good investment for family photos, holidays etc

It would also maybe be a game changer for my Instagram account ! :rotfl::beer:

I_have_spoken

Don't forget the all important selfie-stick!

But to be serious, I wonder if the world has moved on now mobi cameras are (mostly) very good inc. RAW format.

A lot of folks are now using their mobile, but using the DJI Osmo Mobile to give them semi-pro video shooting plus stills.

bluesnake

How about using a reliable 'ok' camera to get you by that just cost a few £100's? and you may not be that afraid to get it dirty or bang it.

Many of the electronic top end ones have menus within menus, and you can spend half you life adjusting stuff.

Secondly how about going on a photography course, which will show you what kind of a photographer you are, and want to be, and what your camera needs are, rather than buying something expensive that has features you will never use, is obsolete in 2 years and you have lost a whole chunk of change and the lens system may be different too. Nothing bleeds money like technology.

It may last years, so far all my mechanical cameras are still working and one is over 50 years old. My electronic ones do not have such a great success rate as 2 out of 3 have died. Before you post anything, you will probably have to cut the size and resolution down, so it possibly will not be and instant Instagram game changer.

For holidays, that heavy lump of metal around your throat for general point and shoot, may be able to be replaced with a pocket compact, that you no not have to leave on restaurant tables to be snatched.

Had an acquaintance a number of years ago whos lenses were not bayonette, but were screw type... and he cross threaded a new lense. No idea how he sorted that one out



Quizzical Squirrel, what camera did you buy then? - just a nosey bluesnake

To be honest it sounds like someone is buying you a camera for Xmas and you are trying to justify it, rather than your own money

ballyblack

Otherwise, how would you get the data without sticking it in a computer?

no need for computer. just put an app on a smart phone/tablet and have it in range of the camera. Transfers via WiFi

This is what I use;

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Toshiba-FlashAir-Wireless-Flash-Memory/dp/B00UV8V00K/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1481574580&sr=8-5&keywords=memory+card+wifi

Johnmcl7

I'd very much echo the recommendations to consider mirrorless cameras like Sony's E-mount system or the Panasonic/Olympus micro 4/3 system. The mirrorless cameras use the same size of sensor as the DSLR (Sony use an APS-C sensor the same as Canon/Nikon, Pansonic/Olympus use the slightly smaller 4/3 sensor same as their old DSLRs did) but remove the SLR mirror which allows them to reduce the size and weight of the camera/lens plus make them easier to use particularly for video.

DSLRs are designed to work with an optical viewfinder but if you want a live preview on the rear screen or to use video the mirror has to be moved out of the way which disables the camera's optical viewfinder and its high speed autofocus system. Since mirrorless cameras were designed to work without a mirror, they work entirely as normal in video and liveview modes plus electronic viewfinders have improved hugely and bring the advantage that you see what the camera sees which makes it easier to get the settings right.

Some argue that an entry level DSLR is a good stepping stone to a better DSLR system but in reality, if you decided you wanted to change up to a Nikon or Canon full frame system you'd need to dump pretty much everything and invest in new lenses and accessories.

I have a Sony mirrorless setup and a Nikon full frame setup, the Nikon system is absolutely superb - the dynamic range and high iso noise from the sensor is staggering, the focus speed is blisteringly quick and the handling of the camera is spot on. However it's a big, heavy and very unsubtle setup so I still often use a Sony NEX-6 with the little 16-50mm lens, it's not as good as the Nikon but it's still capable of great image quality and a noticeable setup from the Sony RX100m4 I use as a pocket camera.

I'd definitely recommend trying a camera out in person and be aware of the limitations. The large sensors bring significant image quality advantages but also bit compromises in size and weight, zoom lenses are normally only around 3x (10x superzooms exist but they're big) which can be a surprise when compact travel zooms offer huge zoom ranges. Also large sensor cameras often need some more work to get the best out of them, out of the camera images can look poor compared to top end mobile phones which have small sensors but their processing is extremely well optimised so they get fantastic results straight out of the camera.

John

Zola.

Thank you all!

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

I'd very much echo the recommendations to consider mirrorless cameras like Sony's E-mount system or the Panasonic/Olympus micro 4/3 system. The mirrorless cameras use the same size of sensor as the DSLR (Sony use an APS-C sensor the same as Canon/Nikon, Pansonic/Olympus use the slightly smaller 4/3 sensor same as their old DSLRs did) but remove the SLR mirror which allows them to reduce the size and weight of the camera/lens plus make them easier to use particularly for video.

DSLRs are designed to work with an optical viewfinder but if you want a live preview on the rear screen or to use video the mirror has to be moved out of the way which disables the camera's optical viewfinder and its high speed autofocus system. Since mirrorless cameras were designed to work without a mirror, they work entirely as normal in video and liveview modes plus electronic viewfinders have improved hugely and bring the advantage that you see what the camera sees which makes it easier to get the settings right.

Some argue that an entry level DSLR is a good stepping stone to a better DSLR system but in reality, if you decided you wanted to change up to a Nikon or Canon full frame system you'd need to dump pretty much everything and invest in new lenses and accessories.

I have a Sony mirrorless setup and a Nikon full frame setup, the Nikon system is absolutely superb - the dynamic range and high iso noise from the sensor is staggering, the focus speed is blisteringly quick and the handling of the camera is spot on. However it's a big, heavy and very unsubtle setup so I still often use a Sony NEX-6 with the little 16-50mm lens, it's not as good as the Nikon but it's still capable of great image quality and a noticeable setup from the Sony RX100m4 I use as a pocket camera.

I'd definitely recommend trying a camera out in person and be aware of the limitations. The large sensors bring significant image quality advantages but also bit compromises in size and weight, zoom lenses are normally only around 3x (10x superzooms exist but they're big) which can be a surprise when compact travel zooms offer huge zoom ranges. Also large sensor cameras often need some more work to get the best out of them, out of the camera images can look poor compared to top end mobile phones which have small sensors but their processing is extremely well optimised so they get fantastic results straight out of the camera.

John

Cheers John,

I will need to do more research.

I read this guide, do you agree with it?
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/dslr-vs-mirrorless-cameras,news-17736.html

I like the compactness of the mirrorless camera, a lot. I have had compact digital cameras in the past, but never an SLR. I am leaning towards the SLR if I am being honest, even though they are a lot bulkier, heavier and awkward. I just think I will maybe get more out of it, if I start getting properly into photography and want to buy more / switch out lenses etc. I also like shooting photos through the viewfinder, just feels more accurate.


Things i'd be wanting to photograph

- Holidays - beaches, cities, architecture
- Sky - Sunrises, Sunsets, Stars at night
- Landscapes
- Wildlife (possibly)