[fatneck]

So I like taking photos and have a decent eye for good shots (according to various uncertified sources) and reckon I'd take even better shots using something better than my phone. Particularly where any kind of zoom is required. It's my 40th in January and I'm thinking of asking for a Digi SLR, thing is, I haven't the foggiest where to start. There are a number of not half bad photo bods in the parish and would highly value your advice... Probably not looking to spend more than £300 and would consider second hand if advisable!

Thanks...

[Lund]

I would pick canon or nikon, depending on which one you feel more affinity with.  Once you've picked a family, that's your family.  Barring divorce level ructions.

I'd pick them rather than the others - pentax, sony, etc. - as they are better at the top end, have more accessories/lenses, and are just, as a family, better even though you could argue for hours about specific models.

Once you've picked your family... pick the most up-market one you can afford, stick a kit lens on, and proceed until you have experience and know what you want.

This site is quite good for reviews and tech specs and things:

http://www.dpreview.com/

Ignore "ken rockwell", IMHO.

Lastly... you might note the canon EOS 100D.  It's very light, which might appeal to you as a smartphone user.  Bit pricey though perhaps, but only by 25 quid.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EOS-100D-Digital-Camera/dp/B00BYOY9EO/ref=sr_1_1/277-5278358-0310049?ie=UTF8&qid=1439217202&sr=8-1&keywords=canon+eos+100d+dslr

[dave]

Assuming you also want a decent lens too you'd be looking at something a few years/generations old with a 300-sheet budget. You might be able to pick up a Nikon D90 and kit zoom for about 300 bananas. Might be worth buying from a dealer with guarantee, or someone you know, as some of these cameras will have seen a hell of a lot of traffic by now.

Be sure you want to carry something as big as an SLR around. Mirrorless systems like the Fuji X, Olympus/Panasonic m43rds etc are a very worthy (for most folk better), option these days.

General points - if you have the option then money is always better spent on lens than camera. Kit lenses can often be the limiting factor, no point putting a top notch body behind a shit lens. Consider a decent prime lens, contrary to they want to sell you, you don't actually need a lens that goes from ultra-wide to long tele straight away.

Dunno if its the case now still but Nikon's cheap kit lenses always had a much better reputation than Canon kit lenses.

Consider extra crap you need to budget for, memory cards, card reader, camera case/bag, batteries etc, especially if second hand cameras don't come with the original charger/leads etc.

Also, try to have a look at some shit in a shop first, try them out. The bigger the viewfinder view the better. The less often you have to delve into a menu to do anything the better.

[cheque]

I just wrote a long reply then found Dave had written everything I was going to say (and more). 

You can search Flickr by camera model and quite often look in the "exif data" for each image that comes up to see what lens was used. This is a great way to reassure yourself that a camera is capable of taking pictures as good as you hope to create. You'll find it confirms what dave says about lens> body too.

Ignore "ken rockwell", IMHO.

[Paul B]

For your budget I'd be looking at buying a micro 4/3rds camera kit (prime and zoom) used.

Buy used.

Join talk photography and make 30 posts and last for more than one month and you've got good access to a buyers market for used camera gear (all dealing is to be done in post etc.)

A quick look on Harrison's used has thrown up a GF3 (admittedly not the best) body for £70!!!

http://www.harrisoncameras.co.uk/Used/Used-Cameras.htm

[nic mullin]

Lots of good advice so far. As above - if you're after an SLR, go Canon or Nikon - more cheap secondhand lenses/accessories to be had, more chance you'll be able to borrow/swap things with your mates, more chance of tracking down a charger when you forget yours on holiday. Also neither Canon or Nikon have made a bad SLR for years - whatever you get, it'll blow you away compared to your phone.

Are you bothered about video? If you are, you'll want to go lower spec and get something newer. If not, just get the best specced body you can, unless weight is a consideration - cheaper SLRs are usually smaller and lighter, but slower in use, have smaller, dimmer viewfinders and are more fiddly to get at the settings. I'm sure you've been told already, but don't worry about how many megapixels it's got. Canon make it easy to work out where in the product line you are - the more digits before the "D" the further down it is. Nikon make it confusing - "D" then one digit is top-end, next down is 3 digits, then two, then four. Something like a second hand Nikon D90 or Canon 50D should be in your price range with a kit lens.

Second hand is very worthwhile for digital cameras because they go obselete so quickly, but as mentioned above, it might well be worth buying from somewhere that'll give you a guarantee if you're buying something high-mileage. London Camera Exchange, Ffordes, Mifsuds and Harrisons are good places to look.

As to whether you want an SLR or mirrorless/micro 4/3 - what are you going to be using it for? If you want to to take it out running/walking/biking and still have something you can tweak about with mirrorless is a good option. If you want to take pictures of things that move fast or in low light, or would like to do more tweaking with your settings more quickly, an SLR is probably a better choice. While mirrorless cameras are quite small and quite light, they are definitely not pocketable - you'll still have to carry it as a separate item. Unless weight matters, I wouldn't choose mirrorless on the basis of thinking it'll be massively more convenient to take out and about than an SLR.

For gear reviews, Ken Rockwell and DPReview have already been mentioned - DPreview tend to obsess over technical details which may or may not be important, KR is more opinionated and but a livlier read. Both are worth a look, as is Thom Hogan for Nikon and some mirrorless stuff. Take them all with a pinch of salt though, only you know what you want from your camera, and if that reviewer doesn't care about the things that you do the review is of limited use.

Unless you already have something specific in mind (like birdwatching) I'd get a kit zoom (18-55mm is pretty normal and covers moderate wide angle to short tele on a crop sensor SLR) first and work out what you want after using it for a while.

If you like taking landscapes, a tripod (even a cheapo one) is a cheaper way to get sharp pictures than a good lens, so worth thinking about.  Software is worth thinking about too - lightroom is fantastic and much easier if you use it from the start.

Hope that's of some help.

[bigtuboflard]

A quick look on Harrison's used has thrown up a GF3 (admittedly not the best) body for £70!!!

http://www.harrisoncameras.co.uk/Used/Used-Cameras.htm

If you're Sheffield based Fatneck, definitely pay Harrison's a visit, by far the best shop around IMO and given that my old man still shops there (he's a retired photography lecturer from Sheffield poly days) I guess that means it's not too bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fatneck]

Thanks all...

I'm going to digest the info and have a look around and will probably pop back with more questions soon! 

[tomtom]

Thanks all...

I'm going to digest the info and have a look around and will probably pop back with more questions soon! 

I can probably lend you one (a Nikon) for a month or so if you like Fatneck - mine never makes it out of the cupboard nowadays...

[fatneck]

Hi Tom, a very generous offer! And one I will happily take you up on... Not sure when I'm out next (very busy at the mo) but will keep you posted... Cheers man!

[sxrxg]

I also have a micro 4/3 mirrorless that I haven't got around to selling (after upgrading to a new body) if you would like to try that as well? It is only a bottom of the range Olympus epm1 with kit lens however you will get a feel for just how compact mirrorless can be compared to a DSLR.

[fatneck]

Appreciated Ste! Give me a shout next time you're around...

[fatneck]

So I'm resurrecting this thread as I've outgrown the Olympus micro 3/4 and after getting the insurance through for my lost wedding ring I have a budget of £4-500. The above advice is great and I feel I have a better grasp on what I need and what I don't need. Also, the zoom is buggered on my current camera which has forced me to really think about compsure - this has definitely helped my photography.

I need a good zoom for bird helmery, not so bothered about video as I have no time to edit footage anyway. I'm used to carrying binoculars and camera in a seperate bag when climbing, walking and general family days out etc so not particulalry bothered about compactness.

One thing I would like to be able to do is blow up some of my better shots.

I like the look of this Canon EOS 100D

Opinions (and minions) welcomed...

[SA Chris]

for bird based zoomery you will probably need to spend as much again on a lens. Need at least a 300mm I reckon.

[Johnny Brown]

Hmm. Bird helmery is the reason I've been thinking of picking up an Olympus m4/3 rig. It's currently the cheapest and lightest way to get a serious telephoto. AF for flight shots will not be as good as a pro DSLR but won't be any worse than a 100D.

I'd look at a something like a second hand EM1 plus a Panasonic 100-300.

Any DSLR or 4/3 body made in the last five years will have a decent sensor for big blow-ups.

Second Thom Hogan's site for good unbiased reviews.

[SA Chris]

Do a swopsy

[cheque]

Panasonic 100-300.

I had one of these.

[fatneck]

Any opinions on this lense?

http://amzn.eu/1h6g7EM

[fatneck]

Hello learned photography helms...

Progressing with my photography apprenticeship and very pleased with the photos I am currently taking, getting a handle on the manual controls on my camera and relying on auto less and less. I have some budget (£300-400) for a new lens and looking at something with a bit more length (fnarr fnarr) - maybe 500mm for better photos of birds mainly.

Any advice or links to specific lenses appreciated - happy to go refurbed or second hand...

Also, I've come across the concept of lens extenders - any thoughts?

[SA Chris]

What Camera did you go for in the end? And what weight are you prepared to carry. I've got a 12 - 400 crop sensor which i am using with my full frame sensor lens, and find it just about adequate for LBJs, so reckon you need about 500, but could probably cope with  a bit of copping if you got something shorter. A prime will be lighter than a zoom too.

I'd avoid a teleconverter unless i had the shorter lens already. Lose at least a stop or two, and some quality.

[fatneck]

Cheers Chris, ended up with a Canon EOS 100D and standard kit lenses EFS 18-55mm and EFS 55-250mm.

Have actually been really impressed with the photos I've been able to take but am a total luddite and don't think I've got geeky enough about the whole thing Maybe I should do some reading around the subject rather than just take lots of photos! Blog recommendations etc appreciated...

Don't think there are any extenders that will work with the lenses I've currently got in any case...

[SA Chris]

That should be 120-400 in my last post btw. It's quite a heavy lens, but well made (I drove over my camera bag once, and dragged mine across the tar in the process and it seems to be OK). The "Bigma" 50-500 is meant to be good, but they keep their value and are sought after. Maybe something like that?

[Paul B]

Also, I've come across the concept of lens extenders - any thoughts?

As with anything in photography they come with a trade off; it's going to depend on what you're sticking on the end of the teleconverter (you do mean a 1.4 or 2x?). Some refuse to AF once you go beyond f/8 (from memory). I seem to remember looking at a cheaper brand (perhaps Cokin) where there were good reports of taping over the contact that allowed the lens to know the aperture with AF then 'working'.

I bought a 400mm f/5.6 prime specifically for taking some shots of the Verdon vultures. I couldn't afford to keep it long term so had insured it and sold it soon after the trip (I didn't lose much, perhaps £20). I nearly dropped it (and the rest of my camera equipment) into the gorge jugging with the zips on my bag closed at the top (always put them to one side instead).

What I learnt from this lens is that f/5.6 is fine in the S. of France but when I took it back to Sheffield and tried chasing a Kingfisher around the gloomy River Don I realised it was pretty slow and I really struggled without IS.

[andy popp]

Very similar question - 13 year old has been asking for a "proper" camera for ages but I'm a complete ignoramus when it comes to these things. We're hoping to leverage the grandparents into buying and they're in the US, so not sure what to say about budget. She is, to put it politely, not the most careful child so robustness would be quite important.

[Johnny Brown]

I'd suggest something second hand as you get a lot more for your money. Micro 4/3 would be good for small hands, or a quality bridge camera like a Sony RX10. I'm not sure any of them are particularly robust.

[teestub]

Very happy with my Om-D EM-5 I got second hand following asking a similar question. Good selection of lenses available across Olympus and the Panasonic with the same fit. I mainly use a 25mm which would be the same as a 50mm on a ‘normal’ camera.

[Fultonius]

One dropped my olympus em5 a few times, once straight on to the brand new 12-100 lens I bought for Chile...

Seems fairly weather sealed, and tough. That said, it's in for a pcb replacement for £160 which is a bit annoying as it's only 6 years old. Maybe dropped it one too many times... 

Sony have a new small interchangeable lens camera that's meant to be great. A7c. Probably outwith the budget though.

[cheque]

Sony have a new small interchangeable lens camera that's meant to be great. A7c. Probably outwith the budget though.

Yeah, £1900 body-only is quite a lot to spend on a camera for a careless 13-year-old.

Hard to make specific recommendations without a budget but echo the M43 recommendations.

[jwi]

All I want from a camera is a viewfinder, an aperture-priority mode, a decent wide angle, a sharp short tele and decent low-light capabilities. I haven't looked at cameras the last five-six years, but I don't imagine that the lenses has gotten much better, but the sensors must be a lot better than six years ago?

Two lenses with focus lengths equivalent to 35 mm and 105mm on a small-format camera and with apertures around f/2.5 on a body with a sensor that can be pushed to 1600 ISO would be enough for 90% of all snaps I take.

Sorry, very abstract answer.

[nic mullin]

Very similar question - 13 year old has been asking for a "proper" camera for ages but I'm a complete ignoramus when it comes to these things. We're hoping to leverage the grandparents into buying and they're in the US, so not sure what to say about budget. She is, to put it politely, not the most careful child so robustness would be quite important.

What does she want to use it for?

As JB says, pretty much all “proper” cameras are delicate to some extent, but it’s surprising how robust they can be. There are some “tough” compact cameras around, but I think they’re mostly crap.

My current requirements are similar to what jwi describes, plus a long lens for wildlife, but it took me quite a while to work out what I enjoyed taking pictures of and what worked for me, which was (and still is) part of the fun. If you think this could be a long term interest, it’ll be worth starting with that in mind, which probably means an SLR or mirrorless camera from Sony, Canon or Nikon. Which camera and lens to start with will depend on budget and what she wants to do with it.

[lagerstarfish]

The other factors that stand out for me in my experience of 13 year olds...

How and when do they expect to share/publish/print the pictures?

How much effort do they want to put into processing their images?

Are they technically minded/motivated?

Are they artistically minded/experienced/skilled/trained?

The big thing - what do they want that they can't get from their phone camera?

Oh, yeah, do they want to be making video as well?

[lagerstarfish]

I let a teenager loose with a canon sx220 hs.

These cameras don't cost a lot second hand.

Ok wide angle and zoom. Ok automatic functions.

They can be modified with CDHK which gives a whole lot of control for not much money.

The teenager discovered that they wanted to be able to quickly share pictures to social media (not easy from the camera, but others are easier).

The teenager discovered that they liked seeing their good pictures on a big screen and this is different to sharing on social media.

The teenager discovered aperture control.

This led me to hand over the DSLR

When I let the teenager use a DSLR, they chose not to take it out and reverted to phones camera use

[lagerstarfish]

Anyway Andy,
good luck.

[Anti]

I let a teenager loose with a canon sx220 hs.

These cameras don't cost a lot second hand.

Ok wide angle and zoom. Ok automatic functions.

They can be modified with CDHK which gives a whole lot of control for not much money.

The teenager discovered that they wanted to be able to quickly share pictures to social media (not easy from the camera, but others are easier).

The teenager discovered that they liked seeing their good pictures on a big screen and this is different to sharing on social media.

The teenager discovered aperture control.

This led me to hand over the DSLR

When I let the teenager use a DSLR, they chose not to take it out and reverted to phones camera use

Haha this is such a good series of events and encapsulates some of the problems facing dslr. I have a Sony mirrorless that is compact and fun to use but cheap and robust. Good for filming myself falling off shit boulders, taking for walks with toddler for snaps etc.

[tomtom]

Andy - I’ve a 8-10 Year old DSLR that I’ve not used for at least two years. It won’t have a super pixel sensor - but it does have a large sensor so takes good pics and has full manual control etc... she’s welcome to borrow that on a semi permanent basis and see what happens (eg is she hooked and wants her own etc.. or uses if for a couple of weeks then forgets about it...). 

[Johnny Brown]

All I want from a camera is a viewfinder, an aperture-priority mode, a decent wide angle, a sharp short tele and decent low-light capabilities. I haven't looked at cameras the last five-six years, but I don't imagine that the lenses has gotten much better, but the sensors must be a lot better than six years ago?

Two lenses with focus lengths equivalent to 35 mm and 105mm on a small-format camera and with apertures around f/2.5 on a body with a sensor that can be pushed to 1600 ISO would be enough for 90% of all snaps I take.

Sorry, very abstract answer.

Completely agree with this (although I'd want 28mm and 65mm). A Sony A7 is the answer for most people I think, the sensor might not be cutting edge but is more than good enough (i.e. wonderful), and you can adapt pretty much any SLR lens ever made with a cheap adapter, and upgrade to fancy lenses over time. Plus more than competent video, and it's not much bigger than an OM-1.

(Actually lenses do keep getting better, but its only relevant on the most modern sensors which have little practical use for most except to fill your hard drive with oversampled microblur).

The teenager discovered that they wanted to be able to quickly share pictures to social media (not easy from the camera, but others are easier).

This. The camera companies have been absolutely asleep at the wheel on this, I haven't seen a camera yet where it is well implemented. My wife periodically wants to borrow a 'proper camera' only to start an argument when she can't get it off the thing. Now that Instagram is the prime image-sharing platform things are even worse - it only accepts uploads from a phone. So even if you shoot RAW and use Lightroom etc you're still left having to get the jpeg back to your phone where Insta tells you 'could not load photo'. Fuck em.

[teestub]

...So even if you shoot RAW and use Lightroom etc you're still left having to get the jpeg back to your phone where Insta tells you 'could not load photo'. Fuck em.

Ah so that’s why you haven’t posted anything 😄

[Johnny Brown]

Pretty much! I've been hoping to avoid it but as it seems to be where the social media CoG is nowadays I might have to.

[tomtom]

#nofilter there JB

[andy popp]

Thanks everyone, I've learnt a lot - mainly that a DSLR is probably not what we need. Seriously, the answers have really helped me clarify things (I did warn you that I am completely clueless about all this).

[lagerstarfish]

The big thing that you get from a camera that you cannot get from a phone is optical zoom, but I'm sure this will be changing at some point

[tomtom]

The big thing that you get from a camera that you cannot get from a phone is optical zoom, but I'm sure this will be changing at some point

And depth of field effects (that come from manual aperture control)...

[lagerstarfish]

The big thing that you get from a camera that you cannot get from a phone is optical zoom, but I'm sure this will be changing at some point

And depth of field effects (that come from manual aperture control)...

I guess depth of field effects will increasingly come from "filters" within phone apps

[jwi]

is there any phone camera that has a convincing depth of field simulation? The examples I have seen have been nauseating...

My feeling is that current phones take about as good raws as ten year old mid-prize compacts, but that they have quite good software to automatically touch up the photos. I have stopped carrying compacts on long routes, but my brand new phone is still slightly worse than my old cheapo compact (that stopped working).


I agree with Johnny B and larger. Whenever I plug in my ridiculously expensive (8 yo) camera in my computer with a cable(!) I feel like I belong to some form of bisarre Amish sect that is not allowed to use modern tech like bluetooth from the mid-late 90s or wifi from the late 80s.

[Johnny Brown]

And depth of field effects (that come from manual aperture control)...

You can manually control the aperture of most phones although you typically need a third party app. What that doesn't give you is any dof effects because the sensors and focal lengths used are too small. This is one reason pros use medium format, the combination of shallow dof with a broad fov is very hard to emulate, although my A7 + 65mm f/2 gets quite close to my old Mamiya 645 & 80mm f/1.9.

[galpinos]

This. The camera companies have been absolutely asleep at the wheel on this, I haven't seen a camera yet where it is well implemented. My wife periodically wants to borrow a 'proper camera' only to start an argument when she can't get it off the thing. Now that Instagram is the prime image-sharing platform things are even worse - it only accepts uploads from a phone. So even if you shoot RAW and use Lightroom etc you're still left having to get the jpeg back to your phone where Insta tells you 'could not load photo'. Fuck em.

I shoot in "RAW and JPEG" mode on my X-T1 then wirelessly transfer the jpegs to my phone. They can then be added to social media. The app is a bit clunky but it still only takes a couple of mins. I'd assumed other manufacturers had better apps?

Even just the jpegs pulled across are better than my iPhone 11 photos imho, especially, as noted above, if I have used a shallow depth of field. The main advantage of my phone is that it's always there.

[Johnny Brown]

Yeah I think that's the case with any camera <5 years old, but none I've seen are user friendly to the extent that the average teenage instagrammer looking to upgrade is likely to embrace them.