Which DSLR would you recommend?
Posted by: Gareth on 28 June 2009
Hello
About to dip my toe into the DSLR arena and would like to hear some comments from your good selves regarding what would you recommend.
I have always been a keen photographer and owned a film SLR 20 years ago but have stuck with fairly decent non DSLRs recently.
I have a total budget of £1000 to cover camera, lenses, bags, memory, batteries etc and mostly take scenery, portrait and family shots. Video would be great bonus too.
I have searched the internet for reviews and comments and think I know what I want, but these forums have always given me good advice regarding hifi so I thought I would try here again.
Kind regards
Gareth
About to dip my toe into the DSLR arena and would like to hear some comments from your good selves regarding what would you recommend.
I have always been a keen photographer and owned a film SLR 20 years ago but have stuck with fairly decent non DSLRs recently.
I have a total budget of £1000 to cover camera, lenses, bags, memory, batteries etc and mostly take scenery, portrait and family shots. Video would be great bonus too.
I have searched the internet for reviews and comments and think I know what I want, but these forums have always given me good advice regarding hifi so I thought I would try here again.
Kind regards
Gareth
Posted on: 28 June 2009 by Harry
Like you Gareth, I used 35mm SLRs for 30 years. It was a Minolta kit and so when the time came I had maximum choice because I couldn’t bring any lenses over. It came down to Canon versus Nikon. I went with a Canon EOS 10D because it balanced and handled better in my hands. That was really the only tipping point, I would have been happy with either. I now have a 5D (full fame 35mm) and that’s me sorted. It’s essential to pick them up and play with them. Get a feel for how they handle. We also grabbed a 350D when they were discontinued for a knock down price. Somewhat bendy but nice and light, easy to use and a superb optical performer for the price. Again, we tried one first to make sure we could get on with it. If I was in the market for a new DSLR I would most likely go for a well reviewed run out model and save some money. Good luck with it.
Posted on: 28 June 2009 by fatcat
quote:Originally posted by Harry K:
If I was in the market for a new DSLR I would most likely go for a well reviewed run out model and save some money. Good luck with it.
A cannon 40D with 17-85mm USM zoom is excellent value for about £850.00.
Unless you need the flexibility a DSLR provides, you may be better sticking with a Non DSLR. Photos taken with a DSLR in good lighting conditions look no better when printed at 7” x 5”
Posted on: 28 June 2009 by Eloise
RE Lens compatibility with Nikons...
All Nikon lenses physically fit on all Nikon cameras, but not all functions work. I.e. With latest Entry-level DSLRs there is no motor in the body for focusing so AF only works with later generations of lenses.
On the other hand, ALL Canon EF fit (I.e. AF lenses since around mid-80s when the EOS was introduced) work on ALL DSLR bodies.
Having said that, if buying new my advice would be to try the Canon 500D and Nikon D5000 and see which feels best -final picture quality is very similar. With the Canon, if costs allow upgrade from the kit 17-55 to the 18-85 lens. I think there's smilar lens step up with the Nikon too. This is very worthwhile for quality (e.g. a 500D with the 18-85 will give better quality photos than the 50D with 17-55 lens, etc.)
Eloise
All Nikon lenses physically fit on all Nikon cameras, but not all functions work. I.e. With latest Entry-level DSLRs there is no motor in the body for focusing so AF only works with later generations of lenses.
On the other hand, ALL Canon EF fit (I.e. AF lenses since around mid-80s when the EOS was introduced) work on ALL DSLR bodies.
Having said that, if buying new my advice would be to try the Canon 500D and Nikon D5000 and see which feels best -final picture quality is very similar. With the Canon, if costs allow upgrade from the kit 17-55 to the 18-85 lens. I think there's smilar lens step up with the Nikon too. This is very worthwhile for quality (e.g. a 500D with the 18-85 will give better quality photos than the 50D with 17-55 lens, etc.)
Eloise
Posted on: 28 June 2009 by Julian H
Given your intended subject matter and that you have been using compacts recently, the new Olympus E-P1 might suit?
Posted on: 28 June 2009 by Eloise
I didn't say Canon DSLRs were compatible with Canon MF lenses. There are 3 Canon SLR lenses mounts - FD which are the original manual focus, the EF which were introduced with the first EOS AutoFocus camera in the late 80s and then EF-S which were introduced with the EOS 20D IIRC which are a varient of the EF lenses for the smaller sensor area of most (non-full frame) DSLR cameras.
IIRC all EF lenses are compatible with current cameras. So you are correct the manual focus lenses don't work, but then very few people won't to use them. On a Nikon all lenses fit, but in the case of many earlier MF lenses metering doesn't work at all, or is limited to center weighted metering. Also the newest (entry-level) DSLRs need lenses with unbuilt motors which precludes most before the late 90s.
This doesn't mean you should buy a Canon over a Nikon, just the backwards compatibility is only very minor thing when you start looking in detail. Both the Nikons and Canons at each level have a lot to recommend and performance level is very similar. Neither brand have (recently) made a bad camera though handling varies betwen them and is very much down to personal preference IMO. In the past I've had both Canons and Nikons.
Eloise
IIRC all EF lenses are compatible with current cameras. So you are correct the manual focus lenses don't work, but then very few people won't to use them. On a Nikon all lenses fit, but in the case of many earlier MF lenses metering doesn't work at all, or is limited to center weighted metering. Also the newest (entry-level) DSLRs need lenses with unbuilt motors which precludes most before the late 90s.
This doesn't mean you should buy a Canon over a Nikon, just the backwards compatibility is only very minor thing when you start looking in detail. Both the Nikons and Canons at each level have a lot to recommend and performance level is very similar. Neither brand have (recently) made a bad camera though handling varies betwen them and is very much down to personal preference IMO. In the past I've had both Canons and Nikons.
Eloise
Posted on: 28 June 2009 by JamieL
Following what was said above, the Nikon cameras are very good, and were my choice so that I could use the lenses I had, and also pick up the odd Ebay bargain, but a friend has a Cannon, and I must say I am very impressed with that.
I would say if you already have some good Nikon (compatible) lenses then go for a Nikon, if you are not worried about using old lenses, go for a Cannon. Very little difference but the Canon cameras feel nicer, more balanced.
As for video, as far as I know no Digital SLR cameras do video, as they use a shutter to open and close just as a film camera would. The exposure is a manual process, and so they do not allow for the shutter to be held open and the chip to scan frames as a video camera would.
The high resolution on DSLR cameras is much higher than even Hi-Def video/film cameras, which are either 2 or 4 thousand lines width, and scan up to 30 frames per second. The necessary buffers to process such a huge amount of data mean that video cameras are quite specialized in both passing data through, and how it is stored.
I do find with my Nikon camera, a few years old, D70s (I think) that it does take a little time to store each image after it is taken, noticeably slower than a film camera, although I suspect the top of the range cameras these days are much faster.
Domestic video cameras scan much smaller images, and the data is very compressed. To include a video function in a DSLR would require a second chip, and a second method of data transfer and storage, which basically would mean a separate camera.
I was surprised when I got my first DSLR that it did not have a video option, as for that money you would think they could just throw in something, but a DSLR is quite a specialized piece of equipment, and fine tuned to do just one thing, and when it was explained, it all made sense.
Just a quick related note. Photoshop CS4 can read Nikon NEF files on import without the need to covert to dng files. It does the same for Canon and other digital raw formats too, so with the memory size on flash chips, and the ease to load and process them, uncompressed images have an easier workflow now.
It also makes previewing shots at full computer screen rez much easier.
I would note that working professionally with Hi-Def video material, there is a huge amount of cheating going on, compression and cutting of corners, particularly with colour. It can be hard to key (green/blue screen) and is very difficult to colour correct.
I would say if you already have some good Nikon (compatible) lenses then go for a Nikon, if you are not worried about using old lenses, go for a Cannon. Very little difference but the Canon cameras feel nicer, more balanced.
As for video, as far as I know no Digital SLR cameras do video, as they use a shutter to open and close just as a film camera would. The exposure is a manual process, and so they do not allow for the shutter to be held open and the chip to scan frames as a video camera would.
The high resolution on DSLR cameras is much higher than even Hi-Def video/film cameras, which are either 2 or 4 thousand lines width, and scan up to 30 frames per second. The necessary buffers to process such a huge amount of data mean that video cameras are quite specialized in both passing data through, and how it is stored.
I do find with my Nikon camera, a few years old, D70s (I think) that it does take a little time to store each image after it is taken, noticeably slower than a film camera, although I suspect the top of the range cameras these days are much faster.
Domestic video cameras scan much smaller images, and the data is very compressed. To include a video function in a DSLR would require a second chip, and a second method of data transfer and storage, which basically would mean a separate camera.
I was surprised when I got my first DSLR that it did not have a video option, as for that money you would think they could just throw in something, but a DSLR is quite a specialized piece of equipment, and fine tuned to do just one thing, and when it was explained, it all made sense.
Just a quick related note. Photoshop CS4 can read Nikon NEF files on import without the need to covert to dng files. It does the same for Canon and other digital raw formats too, so with the memory size on flash chips, and the ease to load and process them, uncompressed images have an easier workflow now.
It also makes previewing shots at full computer screen rez much easier.
I would note that working professionally with Hi-Def video material, there is a huge amount of cheating going on, compression and cutting of corners, particularly with colour. It can be hard to key (green/blue screen) and is very difficult to colour correct.
Posted on: 28 June 2009 by Lontano
quote:Originally posted by JamieL:
As for video, as far as I know no Digital SLR cameras do video
A little out of budget here, but the new Canon 5D Mk2 does video. I do not follow the market so closely these days but I imagine, if it is not already there in some cheaper models, that it will not be long until the video trickles down through the ranges.
Posted on: 28 June 2009 by Derek Wright
You are very lucky - you do not have a range of legacy lenses pushing you into the Canikon range of cameras.
So get to a decent camera shop and have grope of the Olympus 4/3rds range of DSLRs - Olympus have a good and expanding range of lenses and the camera system is smaller and lighter than the "big" names. Do not get seduced in to the big names because they make some incredibly extreme and expensive lenses.
While groping the cameras determine which ones fit your hands, are easy to handle (this does not imply a lack of sophistication).
Imagine what combination of lenses you are likely to aspire to eg a medium telephoto zoom and the supplied lens and consider how easy or otherwise it would be to achieve this objective with other makes. And how heavy and bulky they are.
Enjoy your choice of camera.
So get to a decent camera shop and have grope of the Olympus 4/3rds range of DSLRs - Olympus have a good and expanding range of lenses and the camera system is smaller and lighter than the "big" names. Do not get seduced in to the big names because they make some incredibly extreme and expensive lenses.
While groping the cameras determine which ones fit your hands, are easy to handle (this does not imply a lack of sophistication).
Imagine what combination of lenses you are likely to aspire to eg a medium telephoto zoom and the supplied lens and consider how easy or otherwise it would be to achieve this objective with other makes. And how heavy and bulky they are.
Enjoy your choice of camera.
Posted on: 28 June 2009 by JamieL
quote:Originally posted by Lontano:quote:Originally posted by JamieL:
As for video, as far as I know no Digital SLR cameras do video
A little out of budget here, but the new Canon 5D Mk2 does video. I do not follow the market so closely these days but I imagine, if it is not already there in some cheaper models, that it will not be long until the video trickles down through the ranges.
I am not surprised that video is starting to being included on some cameras, but if video is something that is key to anyone looking at digital cameras, check what the resolution options are compared with the stills options.
There will be some compromise if the video is used in a SLR fashion, and the data rate will always be an issue, but over time these issues will be overcome.
Posted on: 28 June 2009 by Lontano
I see the Nikon D5000 priced at £700 does video as well.
Posted on: 29 June 2009 by Chris Kelly
Hi Gareth
I use Nikon mostly for paid work, but I also own and use an Olympus DSLR. Both systems are very good, but then so are the Canon range, The Sony range, the Pentax range.... I think all the major manufacturers are now producing good kit, even at the entry level. As Derek so wisely says, go to a good dealership, which stocks all of them, and see which one feels best in your hand.
Julian's E-P1 suggestion is very sound, but that camera does not have either an optical or an electronic viewfinder. Only you know whether you can live with using the rear lcd screen all the time.
If it was my money, I think I'd go for an Olympus E620 with the two kit lenses. Those, a Billingham bag, spare batteries, filters and memory cards will leave enough from your budget to buy a separate camcorder. I think the trend to put video into DSLRs, whilst potentially a good idea, has yet to be implemented really usefully by any manufacturer. The Zuiko lenses (Olympus) have always been extremely highly regarded and you get the added bonus that Image Stabilisation is built into the camera body, so every lens is IS.
Just remember though, just like hifi, it is hard to avoid upgraditis with camera systems, whichever one you choose!
The pixel-count race seems to have come to a halt (thank heavens) so now the manufacturers are vying to outdo each other with things like video capture. If you want a still camera, ignore the video red herring.
If you don't like the 620, the new Nikon D5000 and Can 500D seem to be decent machines. I know less about Pentax and Sony but they are getting good reviews too I think.
I use Nikon mostly for paid work, but I also own and use an Olympus DSLR. Both systems are very good, but then so are the Canon range, The Sony range, the Pentax range.... I think all the major manufacturers are now producing good kit, even at the entry level. As Derek so wisely says, go to a good dealership, which stocks all of them, and see which one feels best in your hand.
Julian's E-P1 suggestion is very sound, but that camera does not have either an optical or an electronic viewfinder. Only you know whether you can live with using the rear lcd screen all the time.
If it was my money, I think I'd go for an Olympus E620 with the two kit lenses. Those, a Billingham bag, spare batteries, filters and memory cards will leave enough from your budget to buy a separate camcorder. I think the trend to put video into DSLRs, whilst potentially a good idea, has yet to be implemented really usefully by any manufacturer. The Zuiko lenses (Olympus) have always been extremely highly regarded and you get the added bonus that Image Stabilisation is built into the camera body, so every lens is IS.
Just remember though, just like hifi, it is hard to avoid upgraditis with camera systems, whichever one you choose!
The pixel-count race seems to have come to a halt (thank heavens) so now the manufacturers are vying to outdo each other with things like video capture. If you want a still camera, ignore the video red herring.
If you don't like the 620, the new Nikon D5000 and Can 500D seem to be decent machines. I know less about Pentax and Sony but they are getting good reviews too I think.
Posted on: 29 June 2009 by Occean
My choice would be trying to get a Nikon D90 and a 18m-200mm lens
Together this would make a fantastic combo. Have a look at Ken Rockwells website for reviews of both.
Cheers
Together this would make a fantastic combo. Have a look at Ken Rockwells website for reviews of both.
Cheers
Posted on: 29 June 2009 by Rockingdoc
I think that digital "camera" buying is completely different from previous film camera purchasing decisions, in that modern camera bodies are like computers with regard to obsolescence. The latest and best bodies will be out of date and of limited value in only a few years. Only the lenses can have any lasting value. So I would choose a nice lens, and then buy a second-hand or last-year's model body to put on it.
However, as you have a film SLR past, don't you have some glass already?
However, as you have a film SLR past, don't you have some glass already?
Posted on: 29 June 2009 by Chris Kelly
quote:My choice would be trying to get a Nikon D90 and a 18m-200mm lens
He has started by saying his budget is £1k. Tell me where you can get a D90 and 18-200 for that, along with all the other stuff and I'll be there!
Posted on: 29 June 2009 by Derek Wright
Combining the advice I previously gave, Chris C's comment re Olympus and RD's comment re getting "last years" model but with a lens system that carry you forward should you get really involved in photography then I suggest you look out for a Olympus E510 type kit.
I also suggest that you look at the various 4/3rds web sites eg
E-System Talk Uk
You might well catch a used bargain from the For Sale web pages as well.
However make sure the camera fits well in your hands.
I also suggest that you look at the various 4/3rds web sites eg
E-System Talk Uk
You might well catch a used bargain from the For Sale web pages as well.
However make sure the camera fits well in your hands.
Posted on: 29 June 2009 by Chris Kelly
Or an E520.
Posted on: 29 June 2009 by Derek Wright
Agree
Posted on: 29 June 2009 by winkyincanada
quote:Originally posted by Chris Kelly:quote:My choice would be trying to get a Nikon D90 and a 18m-200mm lens
He has started by saying his budget is £1k. Tell me where you can get a D90 and 18-200 for that, along with all the other stuff and I'll be there!
That 18mm to 200mm lens is bettered by a cardboard tube with two coke-bottle bottoms. Get the new AFS 50mm f1.4 prime.
Posted on: 29 June 2009 by Casperdog
Hello chaps
I'm new to this forum but I do own an E620 with one of the sharpest lenses you can get (including Leica which I have owned in the past)the 50mm f2.0 macro and it's reasonably priced. I agree with a previous comment get the best lens you can afford as the bodies are always changing. I just sold my 12-60mm swd because I only ever use the 50mm. The E620 is very compact especially after having Nikons and Canons.
Cheers.
I'm new to this forum but I do own an E620 with one of the sharpest lenses you can get (including Leica which I have owned in the past)the 50mm f2.0 macro and it's reasonably priced. I agree with a previous comment get the best lens you can afford as the bodies are always changing. I just sold my 12-60mm swd because I only ever use the 50mm. The E620 is very compact especially after having Nikons and Canons.
Cheers.
Posted on: 29 June 2009 by Phil Cork
Hi Gareth,
My thoughts for what they're worth:
I too believe it boils down to Canon vs Nikon (I have a Nikon D200)
They're ostensibly very similar, so what you tend to find is that 'Nikon people' go for Nikon and 'Canon people' go for Canon.
It's said that Canon chose to move away from traditional controls and more towards 'novel' buttons and dials. Nikon only relatively recently did away with aperture rings (as an example) prefering more traditional controls.
Try both cameras and see what you prefer in terms of look and feel.
DSLR technology is now moving towards full frame sensors (35mm as opposed to the 25mm reduced size of the initial ones). Whilst the top end models have been 35mm for a while, this is creeping down the range and down in price. For this reason try not to opt for lenses (DX in the Nikon range I think) which are specifically for the 25mm sensors. Your lenses are arguably the most important part of your camera and should outlive the body. Try and aim for full frame lenses which you can keep if you ever upgrade to a full frame sensor.
Related to the above, you're likely to get a similar number of megapixels for your money whatever you buy (don't be tempted to get another 1-2MP with a cheaper brand!). What's important is that you get a good lens. This will have a greater bearing on the photograph quality than an extra 1MP.
I hope that's helpful, enjoy!
Phil
My thoughts for what they're worth:
I too believe it boils down to Canon vs Nikon (I have a Nikon D200)
They're ostensibly very similar, so what you tend to find is that 'Nikon people' go for Nikon and 'Canon people' go for Canon.
It's said that Canon chose to move away from traditional controls and more towards 'novel' buttons and dials. Nikon only relatively recently did away with aperture rings (as an example) prefering more traditional controls.
Try both cameras and see what you prefer in terms of look and feel.
DSLR technology is now moving towards full frame sensors (35mm as opposed to the 25mm reduced size of the initial ones). Whilst the top end models have been 35mm for a while, this is creeping down the range and down in price. For this reason try not to opt for lenses (DX in the Nikon range I think) which are specifically for the 25mm sensors. Your lenses are arguably the most important part of your camera and should outlive the body. Try and aim for full frame lenses which you can keep if you ever upgrade to a full frame sensor.
Related to the above, you're likely to get a similar number of megapixels for your money whatever you buy (don't be tempted to get another 1-2MP with a cheaper brand!). What's important is that you get a good lens. This will have a greater bearing on the photograph quality than an extra 1MP.
I hope that's helpful, enjoy!
Phil
Posted on: 29 June 2009 by Don Atkinson
quote:For this reason try not to opt for lenses (DX in the Nikon range I think) which are specifically for the 25mm sensors.
Does this mean that the existing (film) 35mm SLR lenses that I have had for 15 years or so should now perform at "normal" focal lengths with these new DSLR bodies - rather than 1.5 x the original focal length?
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 29 June 2009 by northpole
Don
For Nikon, the full frame sensor starts with the D700 model and with Canon it is the 5D which marks the point where a 50mm lens provides you with the same perspective you are used to with a 35mm film camera.
Peter
For Nikon, the full frame sensor starts with the D700 model and with Canon it is the 5D which marks the point where a 50mm lens provides you with the same perspective you are used to with a 35mm film camera.
Peter
Posted on: 29 June 2009 by Jay
quote:Originally posted by Chris Kelly:quote:My choice would be trying to get a Nikon D90 and a 18m-200mm lens
He has started by saying his budget is £1k. Tell me where you can get a D90 and 18-200 for that, along with all the other stuff and I'll be there!
You might be able to get a D80 and 18-200 for under £1k? That's what I have and although quite heavy it's very versatile and built to last.
Jay
Posted on: 29 June 2009 by Chris Kelly
quote:That 18mm to 200mm lens is bettered by a cardboard tube with two coke-bottle bottoms. Get the new AFS 50mm f1.4 prime.
That's a bit harsh, but I did sell mine a few months back, as the image quality just wasn't there. I recently bought the 50 1.4 G and it seems to be a belter. Standard focal length (as we old-timers call it) on D3 and the equivalent to a 75 1.4 on the D300, which is a great portrait length.
Posted on: 30 June 2009 by Ron Brinsdon
Hello guys,
I have been a Nikon user for many years, film and digital, and the BEST buy I have ever made is a Nikon D40 (not D40x) with a 28-200 VR Nikon lens. It will fall easily into your budget and for general (ie non-pro or too specialist) use will probably do everything you need.
I am comparing this to my D70s and apart from the body being much lighter in weight, the LCD is bigger and brighter.
I think it was Occean who said read Ken Rockwell's site, I can only agree. Considering Ken can have all the kit he wants to try for very little - and not just Nikon - I was a little sceptical but now agree fully.
Regards
Ron
I have been a Nikon user for many years, film and digital, and the BEST buy I have ever made is a Nikon D40 (not D40x) with a 28-200 VR Nikon lens. It will fall easily into your budget and for general (ie non-pro or too specialist) use will probably do everything you need.
I am comparing this to my D70s and apart from the body being much lighter in weight, the LCD is bigger and brighter.
I think it was Occean who said read Ken Rockwell's site, I can only agree. Considering Ken can have all the kit he wants to try for very little - and not just Nikon - I was a little sceptical but now agree fully.
Regards
Ron