Want to buy a digital SLR - which one?

Posted on
Page
of 5
/ 5
Last Next
  • I've been considering a dSLR for a while now, as I'm constantly amazed by how much more real the pictures look compared to compacts. I'm a bit of a beginner so I'm guessing that shelling out big money would be a bit silly, so which sort of models should I look at?

    I've found a place I can get a new Canon EOS 400D body from for ~£250ish (canon are doing some nice cashback deals atm) - would this be a good price, or does the apex of value lie elsewhere? Is it worth the extra £££ to move up to the 450D / 40D?

    And also... lenses. Whats a good lens to start me off on?

  • For that price and spec look no further..Canon.

  • Should I snap it up at that price? Or wait a month, seeing as I won't be using it until around May?

  • www.dpreview.com is the best camera review site. have a look there.

    gizmodo also covered entry-level DSLRs this week: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/04/new_ds­lr_battlemodo_canon_rebel_xsi_vs_sony_al­pha_a350_vs_nikon_d60_vs_olympus_e420-2.­html bear in mind Gizmodo is a gadget site, not a specialist camera review site.

    i have a nikon d40x and i really like it. there is a new d60 out now as well. it's nikon's equivalent entry-level DSLR to the 400D/450D. small, light, handles well, takes some nice shots. a few of my friends have bought them as well to get into photography.

    the canons are also great, though.

  • the 400d is not a bad starter model, but dont buy it bundled with a lens, altough you can get some dirt cheap lenses (the ones that usually come bundled) they are shit, you will have to pay as much as if not more than you pay for the body for a lens, but well worth shelling out as you can use them if and when you upgrade the body...

  • had the same problem a while ago:
    this forum is so so helpful:
    londonfgsslove

  • I was told by a mate that the 18-55 IS is a good all-rounder to start with - the lens that comes with the 400D kit is also an 18-55. Is the lack of IS what makes it shit, or are they both a bit sketchy?

  • cheaper optics = not as good images. the kit lenses are built to a price.

    18-55 is pretty standard for kit lenses and is reasonably versatile, unless you want a big zoom.

    still much better than on a compact camera, but you will want to upgrade a kit lens pretty quickly (and also get some extra lenses depending on what sort of photography you want to do).

    depends on your initial budget and cash flow, too. if you won't be able to afford a better lens immediately, the kit lenses are fine. if you can afford a better one, buy the body only and get the better lens.

  • the stock lenses you get with either nikon or canon if you buy it with its standard lens kit arent that wonderful, I still run a nikon d100, outdated now but still holds its own. I prefer Nikon for many reasons but, it can become a mac vs pc debate, both good brands. Camera bodies in most cases come second its the lenses that are extra important as they tend to hold their value. A good lense often exceeds the cost of the body. Get a decent speedlight as well.

  • i wouldn't worry about the suitability of kit lenses if you are only viewing your images on flickr or printing them smaller than a4

  • you really need to think how much you want to spend and what you going to use the dSLR for...

    I am a nikon man myself... if you want a start up camera... on the cheap get the D40x.. 6 million pix is more than enough for anyone... are you likely to print larger than A4?... I would use the money to buy better lens

    EOS 400d don't have spot metering so if you are taking photo with a light back ground... your subject will be all dark....if you want canon go for the 450D... but wait a few month as the 450D just came out....

    Check out www.camerapricebuster.com

  • i wouldn't worry about the suitability of kit lenses if you are only viewing your images on flickr or printing them smaller than a4

    true that. in the same sense that you don't need to put phil wood hubs on a fixed gear bike that you cruise around the streets on. but they are nice!

    if you want a start up camera... on the cheap get the D40x.. 6 million pix is more than enough for anyone...

    D40x is 10.2 megapixel (it's the upgrade to the D40 which is 6.2MP). it is a sweet camera.

  • my bad...sorry...
    if you go for the nikon get the 18-200 lens... it is sooooo sweet....just got mine

  • "EOS 400d don't have spot metering so if you are taking photo with a light back ground... your subject will be all dark"

    absence of spot metering is irrelevant unless you know how to use it, multi pattern or center weighted metering is fine for most situations.
    only when you understand that a meter is trying to expose the subject at 18% grey (the average reflective value of Caucasian skin) and that the exposure for a black cat is supposed to be the same as a white horse (under the same illumination) will it become of use.

    understanding a histogram and exposure compensation will be more useful than a spot meter.

  • what do I need to take a picture of a naked black woman on a white horse*?

    *or london langster

  • Many people I know who have bought a dslr after owning a compact seem to take far less pictures.
    Don"t leave it at home because its to big and heavy.
    Commit!

  • @fc9k: what do you want to DO with the camera - ie. what type of pics do you want to take?

    If you're looking for an all-round general purpose entry level SLR, you can pick up an new Nikon d40x on ebay for around £300 inc 18-55 lens. The equivalent canon is the 400d. Buy something with the lens included, it's just a complete hassle buying separate lenses at that level.

  • Is it worth the extra £££ to move up to the 450D / 40D?

    in short, no. You have diminishing return on your dorra on camera bodies. Plus, bodies depreciate, good lenses do not. Eg. I passed on an (almost) new 30d 2 weeks ago for £330 (body).

  • Another option which you might want to consider... You can get most of the functionality of an SLR in Ricoh's GR Digital - the new version GRD2 is about £350 but I'm sure you can pick up the older GRD version for about 200. Advantages over slr being that they're light and will fit in your pocket ...

  • Many people I know who have bought a dslr after owning a compact seem to take far less pictures.
    Don"t leave it at home because its to big and heavy.
    Commit!

    I bought a compact after owning an SLR for a while because I began to love having a camera with me but was never comfortable carrying my SLR riding on a bike - insurance doesn't include 'participating in sports' or some similar legal nonsense.

    It's great for candid street photography. But I still make a point of lugging the SLR around regularly, though I find I only do when I have assigned myself a specific photo project for the day...

    Back on topic - the Nikon vs Canon thing is a bit dull. I own a Nikon, love it, would probably have loved Canon if I'd bought one of them. Nikon just happened to be the brand I borrowed from a friend for a few days a few years back when I was thinking that I wanted to get back into taking photos. They're much of a muchness.

    Re lens quality. You won't notice at first, but you will eventually notice the difference between a cheap kit lens and a decent lens. Your wallet will also notice the difference if you buy a high quality zoom. I'd suggest buying a cheap decent prime lens to go with the normal zoom that comes as standard. Both Canon and Nikon do a great, fast 50mm lens for under £100. The optics are very good despite the low price - 50mm lenses are easy to make, apparently. A fast 35mm tends to cost a bit more, but may be better on a digital camera (lenses are about 1.5x 'longer' on a digital camera than they would be on a film camera, because the sensor is smaller than a negative 35mm is roughly approx. to a 50mm lens.) Having a fast prime will allow you to do more low-light work without a flash, which is often fun.

    On flashes - you're better off getting a mid-range one rather than the cheapest, if only because the cheapest ones tend only to point forward and up - which is a bugger if you want to bounce the flash off the ceiling while holding the camera sideways. Don't bother getting the same brand as the camera, it's not a lens - a compatible Sigma flash will work just fine and cost about 30-40% less. It's generally not a good idea to buy flashes second hand, though: if it's had heavy use the capacitors will be buggered and you'll end up having to replace it sooner rather than later.

  • Another option which you might want to consider... You can get most of the functionality of an SLR in Ricoh's GR Digital - the new version GRD2 is about £350 but I'm sure you can pick up the older GRD version for about 200. Advantages over slr being that they're light and will fit in your pocket ...

    Which is the compact I bought. Bear in mind that you can't zoom and you can't change lenses. If you're happy with that, then it's a wonderful camera.

  • My DSLR sits in the cupboard. My gf's little Canon and my mobile phone camera now get used much more.

  • fiddy dorrah?

  • It's about $7000AUD (£5) worth of kit.. so um.. no thanks I'll let it gather dust.
    :P

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

Want to buy a digital SLR - which one?

Posted by Avatar for fc9k @fc9k

Actions