First SLR

Johnmcl7

Zola. wrote: »

Random thought, the moon tonight looks incredible. Whats sort of camera setup / lens would be needed to get cool pics of that for example?

Where I live often has some great star displays, another thing I would like to photograph well.

For a good shot of the moon you'd want as long a focal length as possible which is expensive on a DSLR/mirrorless. A 50-200mm lens would give you around 350mm focal length for a couple of hundred pounds although that's still not very long for something like the moon.

John

Johnmcl7

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Are SLRs with mirrors still really noisy? My old Panasonic L10 SLR was a real nuisance with its loud shutter/mirror noise.

Yes, although some have a slightly dampened noise there's no escaping the distinctive thunk as the mirror opens and closes. Mirrorless cameras are not that quiet either as they have a large shutter mechanism (since it's across the sensor rather than in the lens where it can be smaller) although some now do have a silent shutter mode using an electronic shutter.

John

Zola.

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

Sort of...the answer is complicated, the issue is the autofocus on the DSLR lenses can be slow on the mirrorless cameras due to the lenses being designed for a different autofocus type. Also SLR lenses with the adapter make for quite a bulky solution, I think it's fine as a stopgap if you have existing lenses but if you're going with a new system I'd recommend sticking with native lenses.

It's definitely a good idea to be thinking about lenses though and it's worth looking at possible lens options and pricing them up.


Just to be clear, I'm not 100% pushing you to a mirrorless camera just that I think it's worth considering. I'd definitely try and look at some of the cameras in the flesh to see what you think - it may be you find a mirrorless camera too small and fiddly or you might find an DSLR overly bulky.

With regards to your choices, Canon's mirrorless systems haven't been received well and Canon are in the awkward spot of still supporting their entry level DSLR range whereas Panasonic, Olympus and Sony abandoned their DSLRs and put all their focus into mirrorless cameras (Sony mostly, I know they're still producing the odd DSLT).

The Sony is definitely worth considering, I have the model that came before it and I think it's a good balance. The EVF works well, the body is compact and while reviewers are very harsh on the 16-50mm lens I don't think it's as bad as made out and it's handy to have such a small lens.

DPR have a roundup of cameras in the price range you're looking at:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2016-roundup-interchangeable-lens-cameras-500-900

I think they're a bit clinical with cameras and focus too much on IQ without considering the camera as a whole but I think it's a good starting point.

John

Cheers again John, I reckon I will go with the Sony A6000 and will get it in January sales, unless something else comes along that looks a better deal!

The lens it comes with, what would be a good different lens to add in a kit, you seem to be able to get deals if you bundle together. Once I get sorted I'll be joining the local camera club.

Johnmcl7

Zola. wrote: »

Cheers again John, I reckon I will go with the Sony A6000 and will get it in January sales, unless something else comes along that looks a better deal!

The lens it comes with, what would be a good different lens to add in a kit, you seem to be able to get deals if you bundle together. Once I get sorted I'll be joining the local camera club.

It depends what capability you want - something like the 55-210mm is a popular choice as a second lens as that gives you longer range:

https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/camera-lenses/sel55210

Another choice is something like a 35mm F1.8 prime lens, Sony offer one although the Nikon equivalent is cheaper. This type of lens gives a field of view similar to a 50mm lens which is quite practical and the very wide aperture gives the camera better low light capability and better depth of field control to more easily give the blurred background effect.

DSLRs are a poor all in one solution as you mostly need to change the lens to suit each shooting setup and with lenses not being that cheap you do need to think about it carefully.

John

Zola.

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

It depends what capability you want - something like the 55-210mm is a popular choice as a second lens as that gives you longer range:

https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/camera-lenses/sel55210

Another choice is something like a 35mm F1.8 prime lens, Sony offer one although the Nikon equivalent is cheaper. This type of lens gives a field of view similar to a 50mm lens which is quite practical and the very wide aperture gives the camera better low light capability and better depth of field control to more easily give the blurred background effect.

DSLRs are a poor all in one solution as you mostly need to change the lens to suit each shooting setup and with lenses not being that cheap you do need to think about it carefully.

John

Cheers John

As a cheaper alternative, would this compatible lens be worth it?

https://www.lcegroup.co.uk/New/Sigma-70-300mm-f%2F4-5.6-DG-Macro---Sony-Alpha-Mount_5508.html?gclid=CPuF8cD49dACFU2x7QodrlMJAA

nearlyrich

I have a range of cameras for different types of shooting, Canon 60D for studio and portrait work with a variety of lenses. I use a Panasonic G series for travel with just a couple of lens options ( the lenses are interchangeable with a number of brands)
I also have a compact for lightweight travel latest is a Panasonic SZ70 which is great for video and panoramics.


I echo the advice to go to a good camera shop ( Not PC World) and handle a few ask questions take an SD card and take some shots and then go away and think about what would be best for you. I know this is a money saving site and sometimes on line is cheaper but a good relationship with a camera shop is a good thing and they often have deals which help them to compete with the on liners I have had 5 year warranties free lenses etc to name but a couple..

Zola.

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

You can shoot using a viewfinder on a mirrorless camera as they have an electronic viewfinder (EVF). Older generation EVF's were poor substitutes for the Optical Viewfinders but there's been big advances in display technology giving better resolution and refresh rates mean they're viable alternatives to OVF's. EVF's also offer various advantages, you can shoot video using them (you can't with an OVF), you can get more detailed information overlays, you can switch camera modes/preview images etc. without taking the camera from eye level and also you see the scene as the camera sees it. The human eye does a great job visually which can be misleading when shooting with a camera as it's easy to underestimate how dark the scene is, how harsh the contrast is, whether the WB is out etc. which an EVF will show but an OVF won't. Also the EVF 100% frames the image whereas only top end DSLRs have 100% viewfinders so the mirrorless cameras are significantly more accurate.

If you want to buy more lenses, then there's plenty of choice in the mirrorless market and all the main lenses are now covered. If you do decide long term you want to take photography much more seriously then you're not any worse off starting with a mirrorless camera, if you start with a Canon or Nikon APS-C camera and lenses then you'd need to get rid of the camera and lenses to switch to a high end setup. I realise you can buy FF lenses for APS-C but they're also a compromise.

Also it's worth bearing in mind that one of the very best cameras at the moment for image quality is actually a mirrorless camera with the Sony A7RII but even for FF it's pricey at around £3,000 RRP.

I'm not saying you must buy a mirrorless camera, just that you should seriously consider one as it fits your use well and nothing you've said is any worse on a mirrorless camera. I've seen a lot of people who buy an entry level DSLR because they might want to change to a higher level Nikon/Canon later then never do and end up not using the camera due to the bulk. I think you're better buying the best setup that suits you right now and then in a while if your needs change, you can switch to whatever system suits your needs best then. When I changed from a cropped DSLR to full frame, my budget was around 5K and that was only enough to get a camera and a pair of lenses (around £2000 for a Nikon D700, £1100 for the 24-70mm and £1900 for the 70-200mm) so it's not a cheap change and a massive amount more than what you're budgeting at the moment.

John

John,

thought I would give an update to you and the rest. I went for the Sony A6000, absolutely love it! Thank you very much for your advice, and everyone else who suggested going Mirrorless. :beer::beer:

lemontart

do you mean a dslr which is digital camera or slr which is film.

I started off with a nikon 5200 - and now also have a d7200 from nikon