DSLR - Which one should I buy?

sNarah

Hi everyone,

After a few years playing around with a Cybershot, it's time to upgrade my camera and I would be buying a DSRL and take my photo's to the next level.

However, there are so many choices and I can't seem to figure which one would be the best one for me!

Obviously, I'm a Sony adept, but before the digital era I had a manual reflex camera from Nikon, a very old eighties model that brought me much pleasure!

So basicly, I'm looking for a "friendly beginner" one, and I love taking very detailled photo's (close ups)(which is one of the reasons why a little digital camera doens't satisfy me enough anymore) and nature shots.

So, any recommendations?

Mycroft H

If you wanna stick with sony yer best bet is the sony a200. Exc beginners slr. Also pretty cheap these days too. Iv always been a minolta/sony user and in my opinion ther just as good or better then the canon or nikon - most reviews of the a200 vs canikon will agree wit me. However if ya want a non sony alternative the olympus e420 - also a savage camera bout the same specs as the sony except dearer. There both good cameras and in my opinion better then the canikon alternatives.

AnCatDubh

Hi sNarah,

I think the issue actually has a very recent discussion over here which I think has been maybe one of the most impartial discussions of "what brand should i get" that i've come across.

In general terms, if buying a Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Sony, Pentax, then you aren't going to go far wrong. The Nikon's and Canon's will probably bring you further in the long run should you end up being completely serious and into career level territory.

I don't think it will really matter that you are a Sony Cybershot user or previously a Nikon user unless you have lenses which will work with a new Nikon (i'm not a Nikon user so I couldn't tell). Being a male, I have this mad sense of "all things SONY are damnnnnn goood" but i've only help a Sony DSLR once and taken about 3 pictures on auto so I can't objectively compare it but i still think it has to be bloody good (being SONY)

Have a read of that other thread referenced though - it was quite comprehensive.

When you do get going - don't forget about these parts! We're a pretty ok bunch to hang out with online.

sNarah

Thanks guys!

After reading the other tread I've got a good idea of what's out there, thanks for the advice! Will let you know which one falls into my stocking in a couple of weeks time :-)

Is any here a member of the drogheda photographic club that you know of?

Misa-san

I'm in the EXACT same situation (so similar it's scary!)

Like you been using a Nikon, my Dad's - from the 80's. Now moving to Digital. Dad being an avid Sony enthusiast brought me to look at the Sony a200. A good camera, it's a "good beginner" camera; as in it doesn't do too much for you but, as a digital - has some fun extras.

Sony bought out Milolta, so underneath it all it's a solid Minolta with Sony technology on top - like anti-shake (although they're actually late coming in with it)
Sony Centres are also doing a deal that you get two lenses when you buy the camera.

Thing is though, it's not the only DSLR out there with a deal to do with lenses. I've heard some people say the lenses aren't anything special. Canon have a nice digital (the model eludes me right now) also has a deal for two lenses - with much more variety. And cashback

Shop around - DSLRs are considerably better now than before.

We gotta compare after X-mas!!!

Placebo

i think everyone should start off on film,
olympus om10

Mycroft H

Placebo wrote: »

i think everyone should start off on film,
olympus om10

Dont live in the stone ages - digital is the way to go

Misa-san

landyman wrote: »

Dont live in the stone ages - digital is the way to go

Both have advantages. Nothing can compare to film, and the artistry that comes into using it.

But digital opens opportunities that film can't do.

All depends on the person and what needs to be done!

AnCatDubh

Funny - I started digital SLR (after an early days digital bridge) and then bought a film SLR (cheap as chips too). Only problem is I haven't used the film one as yet Keep promising myself I will though

RichyX

Best way is to decide is to read the reviews on sites like dpreview.com.

I'm a Pentax user so I'll steer you in that direction, most here are Nikon and Canon so they'll most likely suggest their brand.
All have their good and bad points, ultimately there's little to choose between Pentax, Nikon, Sony and Canon.
Personally I'd avoid Olympus due to their lower image quality.

If we had any decent shops in this country I'd say go try 'em all and see what suits you.

AnCatDubh

RichyX wrote: »

Personally I'd avoid Olympus due to their lower image quality.

Some class work has been posted by some dedicated and passionate Olympus users from around these parts and i'm guessing that they might disagree

I did have a go of one of the Olympus E-systems that a brother in law had (i think if memory serves me it was an E-something or other) and it wasn't bad at all. A little light weight but that's coming from someone used to luggin around my sturdy tank (Pentax) so maybe light is good.

Crispin

landyman wrote: »

If you wanna stick with sony yer best bet is the sony a200. Exc beginners slr. Also pretty cheap these days too. Iv always been a minolta/sony user and in my opinion ther just as good or better then the canon or nikon - most reviews of the a200 vs canikon will agree wit me. However if ya want a non sony alternative the olympus e420 - also a savage camera bout the same specs as the sony except dearer. There both good cameras and in my opinion better then the canikon alternatives.

A200 is a great camera, esp if you don't have any existing lenses for canon or nikon. If you shop around on the net you can get them for around €350 euro (with kit lens). Nikon d40 is good too.

Mycroft H

Misa-san wrote: »

Both have advantages. Nothing can compare to film, and the artistry that comes into using it.

But digital opens opportunities that film can't do.

All depends on the person and what needs to be done!

Majority of my shots are of birds - i sometimes taken over 500 shots in a day and lucky to get twenty really good ones!! Imagine how many rolls of film id use on a days trip!!

Placebo

you wouldnt take random shots with film, youd think about each shot,
out of those 500 how many do you actually use ? some say its a learning process, personally it puts me off photography when i have 20 shots off the same thing and only 1 is decent.

ANYWAY i do believe basics are best developed from film. I would really go for a canon 400D or something if its just a fad, other than that 40D.

Mycroft H

Crispin wrote: »

A200 is a great camera, esp if you don't have any existing lenses for canon or nikon. If you shop around on the net you can get them for around €350 euro (with kit lens). Nikon d40 is good too.

D60 is the closest thing to the a200 - the d40 has no af motor, and no I.S and the a200 is 10mp wile d40 is only 6...... Also the sensor in the d40x, the d60 and i think the d80 are the exact same as in the sony a200 (sony supply a lot of sensors to nikon)

AnCatDubh

different horses for different courses i guess ( or maybe thats different birds for different aviaries )

Was just thinking about this and while we will all be very brand loyal - our gear tends to be something that we all get emotionally attached to and we become passionate about - so I wondered what would differentiate. Then I thought of the boards.ie book and thought really you can't tell whether a Sony, Olympus, Canon, Nikon, Pentax or Fuji actually took any one of the images. In fact cropping issues aside and I would contend that the differences are that of composition and light and technical controls not Sony or Nikon or Canon or Olympus or Pentax.

I'm open to being corrected if people feel that they can discern the difference in brand looking at the images alone. Better eyes than mine methinks (mightn't be hard ). The boards book is a good example as it has many boards users pictures from all kinds of camera brands without specifying what.

So, to the OP - the purpose of this post to get back on topic. I think the quality of even entry level kit these days regardless of brand will be very, very, very, good.

So, you may be down to an examination of the technical specs and ascertain what may be important to you. Larger prints or ability to crop down to small detail = more mega pixels required, fast shooting = high frame rates and continuous shooting, etc.., shakey hands = image stabilisation (do you want that in body or in lens), etc.., etc.., etc..,

Mycroft H

Placebo wrote: »

you wouldnt take random shots with film, youd think about each shot,
out of those 500 how many do you actually use ? some say its a learning process, personally it puts me off photography when i have 20 shots off the same thing and only 1 is decent.

Have you ever tried to take a good picture a swallow in flight or a tiny goldcrest on a twig?? Or a gannet divin headlong into the sea to pluck out an unforseeing makrel?? These tings move so fast you snap as fast as you can and you hope you get a good shot.


Other things like a blue tit at a feeder may stay long enough on it to compose the shot!

Placebo

landyman wrote: »

Have you ever tried to take a good picture a swallow in flight or a tiny goldcrest on a twig?? Or a gannet divin headlong into the sea to pluck out an unforseeing makrel?? These tings move so fast you snap as fast as you can and you hope you get a good shot.


Other things like a blue tit at a feeder may stay long enough on it to compose the shot!

im sure people buying their first SLR are not into capturing high speed action shots, obviously for gigs etc a DSLR would suit but theres still some medium format cameras out there that would stun people by the quality off results they produce. I'm just suggesting that if one is starting off then it might be an alternative solution to shelling out 500 euros.

murpho999

Placebo wrote: »

im sure people buying their first SLR are not into capturing high speed action shots, obviously for gigs etc a DSLR would suit but theres still some medium format cameras out there that would stun people by the quality off results they produce. I'm just suggesting that if one is starting off then it might be an alternative solution to shelling out 500 euros.

Sorry...but I think you are talking rubbish.
If you're a beginner and you get your first SLR, digital or film, the first thing you will do is mess around with all the different possibilities that the camera has and see what your old P&S couldn't do, and one of the most exciting things to do as an absolute beginner is to fire off the shutter real fast for multiple action shots.

At this stage most people would not know what genre of photography they are drawn to so a Digital SLR would be ideal.

Use of Medium formats is a skill in itself and I don't think it would suit a beginner.

Also, I think film will turn a beginner off as they will take shots, then have a delay and costs of getting them developed. Then look at photos and have no idea how the shots look like they do as they do not know what settings they used unless they took notes.

If they really want to learn then they will easily spend more than €500 on film and processing costs so I really think spending €500 on a DSLR is more economical.
With digital a beginner can experiment with different settings and instantly see what effect adjusting shutter speed and aperture etc has, and have a record of what they did.

Don't see the harm in taking lots of shots to get ony 1 or 2 good ones. Bad ones can be quickly deleted and as skills improve the hit ratio will get better.

Digital really is the way to go......only "purists" now claim that film gives better results than digital, and I really think that starting off with film will turn a beginner off photography rather than enhance it the way digital can.

nilhg

RichyX wrote: »

Best way is to decide is to read the reviews on sites like dpreview.com.

But have you Ricky?

RichyX wrote: »

Personally I'd avoid Olympus due to their lower image quality.

I can't accept that Ricky, and I don't for the life of me know where you picked it up from, if you check the DP reviews you will find that all the OLY's get highly recommended ( though I accept that its overused) and if you care to do a search on flickr I'm sure you'll find that the ratio of high quality shots matches Pentax or Nikon or Canon or any of the others.

All brands and models have their strengths and weaknesses, and its the job of anybody buying to choose one which suits their needs best.

I'm sure you've seen loads of folk spout mindless rubbish about Pentax, and smile to yourself at their ignorance, it would be a pity to fall into that trap yourself.

eirlink

sNarah wrote: »

Hi everyone,

After a few years playing around with a Cybershot, it's time to upgrade my camera and I would be buying a DSRL and take my photo's to the next level.

However, there are so many choices and I can't seem to figure which one would be the best one for me!

Obviously, I'm a Sony adept, but before the digital era I had a manual reflex camera from Nikon, a very old eighties model that brought me much pleasure!

So basicly, I'm looking for a "friendly beginner" one, and I love taking very detailled photo's (close ups)(which is one of the reasons why a little digital camera doens't satisfy me enough anymore) and nature shots.

So, any recommendations?

this might interest you...but you need to be quick.
normally 700 euros
on offer for 349
https://www.ibood.com/site/eu/iboodSpecs.php

Mycroft H

murpho999 wrote: »

Sorry...but I think you are talking rubbish.
If you're a beginner and you get your first SLR, digital or film, the first thing you will do is mess around with all the different possibilities that the camera has and see what your old P&S couldn't do, and one of the most exciting things to do as an absolute beginner is to fire off the shutter real fast for multiple action shots.

At this stage most people would not know what genre of photography they are drawn to so a Digital SLR would be ideal.

Use of Medium formats is a skill in itself and I don't think it would suit a beginner.

Also, I think film will turn a beginner off as they will take shots, then have a delay and costs of getting them developed. Then look at photos and have no idea how the shots look like they do as they do not know what settings they used unless they took notes.

If they really want to learn then they will easily spend more than €500 on film and processing costs so I really think spending €500 on a DSLR is more economical.
With digital a beginner can experiment with different settings and instantly see what effect adjusting shutter speed and aperture etc has, and have a record of what they did.

Don't see the harm in taking lots of shots to get ony 1 or 2 good ones. Bad ones can be quickly deleted and as skills improve the hit ratio will get better.

Digital really is the way to go......only "purists" now claim that film gives better results than digital, and I really think that starting off with film will turn a beginner off photography rather than enhance it the way digital can.

Your right, while i loved my maxxum 7000 film (i spent a small fourtune on devolping photos maybe ten years ago) slr there is no better place then on a dslr to learn on - you can spend a couple of weeks on full auto modes then learn how to use shutter speed and arpeture modes and maybe to full manual...... I then got my maxxum 7d five years ago and i have to say it improved my photography imencly, simply because i could mess wit it and explore all the features without costly bills from the printer

Placebo

murpho999 wrote: »

Sorry...but I think you are talking rubbish.
If you're a beginner and you get your first SLR, digital or film, the first thing you will do is mess around with all the different possibilities that the camera has and see what your old P&S couldn't do, and one of the most exciting things to do as an absolute beginner is to fire off the shutter real fast for multiple action shots...........

Never said medium format is for beginners, suggested that there are film alternatives that produce 'as good' shots. As for talking rubbish, i disagree, even compact cameras have different settings, photography is not really about settings. Besides logic of aperture and shutter speed is hardly rocket science. Im just giving my view here, how i grew as a 'photographer' [if you can even call me that]
With film i appreciated my shots more and refrained from taking random rubbish shots. I Rather one decent shot than 30 retouched ones in my Lightroom which i'm in 10 minds about which to upload. Anyway i really hate getting into these big/huge discussions, giving my opinion, accept it
FILM4LIFFE

shrapnel222

an important part for choosing my first DSLR was the tactile sense of the cameras. i went into a shop and played around with a few different ones. it has to "feel" right in the hand and the buttons and functions easily accessible for the size and shape of your hand. To be fair, what sold it for me in part was the sound of the nikon shutter. It is, for me anyway, so much nicer than the canon, minolta,etc...it sounds like a real film camera and not like a piece of flapping plastic. to each their own obviously, but whatever your choice,make sure you are happy with it.

Teferi

murpho999 wrote: »

Sorry...but I think you are talking rubbish.
If you're a beginner and you get your first SLR, digital or film, the first thing you will do is mess around with all the different possibilities that the camera has and see what your old P&S couldn't do, and one of the most exciting things to do as an absolute beginner is to fire off the shutter real fast for multiple action shots.

At this stage most people would not know what genre of photography they are drawn to so a Digital SLR would be ideal.

Use of Medium formats is a skill in itself and I don't think it would suit a beginner.

Also, I think film will turn a beginner off as they will take shots, then have a delay and costs of getting them developed. Then look at photos and have no idea how the shots look like they do as they do not know what settings they used unless they took notes.

If they really want to learn then they will easily spend more than €500 on film and processing costs so I really think spending €500 on a DSLR is more economical.
With digital a beginner can experiment with different settings and instantly see what effect adjusting shutter speed and aperture etc has, and have a record of what they did.

Just a slight deviation from the original topic - are the entry level DSLR's any use for shots at gigs/general night time busy crowd type thing?

shrapnel222

Teferi wrote: »

Just a slight deviation from the original topic - are the entry level DSLR's any use for shots at gigs/general night time busy crowd type thing?

if you buy a fast enough lens then yes.

AnCatDubh

You are referring to low light shooting for gigs and night time. There are probably 2 major considerations (maybe more); the max aperture of the lens. Typically the lens which you wil get with your entry level dslr will be more appropriate to a well lit environment going to a max of maybe f3.5 or f4.5. This is where you become a financialy unstable individual because you go on a quest to purchase better lenses. But unless you go for a specific bundle which has a better quality lens you will normally get the same lens whether entry level or mid range dslr.

The second point is the sensitivity range of the camera (iso). Higher iso ability of a camera means it is beter capable of handling low light situations at a trade off on quality. The larger the iso, the more noise that will be on the resultant image. So usually it is a trade off between the two.

At entry level, you'll have to accept that there will be better but in general, any entry dslr worth its salt will be better than the vast majority of p&s or bridge type cameras. There always will be exceptions to this but in general that is what you'll find.

One final issue is whether there is image stabilisation / shake reduction. This may be on the camera itself or on the lens depending on the make of camera. Certainly if its an option on your entry level dslr then it will help.

JesterWX

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Funny - I started digital SLR (after an early days digital bridge) and then bought a film SLR (cheap as chips too). Only problem is I haven't used the film one as yet Keep promising myself I will though

LOL. I done that too...

I got my Olympus E410 earlier in the year. Then I got the adaptor ring to use my old 'film' manual lenses so I dug out the old camera bag with the OM10s and the few lenses I had which had been put away since a trip to Prague a cople of years back. Next thing I know I'm trawling eBay for cheap OM lenses and soon after the 'proud' owner of three more film cameras, an OM1, an OM2 and an OM20 as well as more than half a dozen 'new' lenses.

RichyX

nilhg wrote: »

But have you Ricky?

I can't accept that Ricky, and I don't for the life of me know where you picked it up from, if you check the DP reviews you will find that all the OLY's get highly recommended ( though I accept that its overused) and if you care to do a search on flickr I'm sure you'll find that the ratio of high quality shots matches Pentax or Nikon or Canon or any of the others.

I had a good look at 4/3 slr's before I went with my current K100D.

It's a personal thing, But I consider the 4/3 system as a whole to be a bit of a failure. It was supposed to lead to smaller bodies and lenses but there just isn't enough of a difference.

The sensors in 4/3 slr's are smaller, which leads to a lot more noise at most ISO settings. If you want to shoot above ISO 400 the 4/3 cameras are clearly outgunned, it can't be denied.
Living the country that we do high ISO capability can be very useful on a daily basis.

I'm not saying they aren't good cameras, I just don't think they're quite a match for the other brands.

duffarama

JesterWX wrote: »

LOL. I done that too...

I got my Olympus E410 earlier in the year. Then I got the adaptor ring to use my old 'film' manual lenses so I dug out the old camera bag with the OM10s and the few lenses I had which had been put away since a trip to Prague a cople of years back. Next thing I know I'm trawling eBay for cheap OM lenses and soon after the 'proud' owner of three more film cameras, an OM1, an OM2 and an OM20 as well as more than half a dozen 'new' lenses.

I'm similar, bought an E410 and decided to get an OM10 to learn the basics on and have since bought an enormous amount of OM lenses, the OM adaptor and OM4Ti and a Contax G2!!!

I have fallen for film in a big way, love my Olympus though.

RichyX, there is a lot more to the E-system than lighter bodies and a marginally smaller sensor. The cameras are generally dust free, the lenses are superb optically and are all new designs. Also the lenses are classed in a way that is very simple to understand.

No system is perfect but you're being unreasonably harsh.

RichyX

duffarama wrote: »

No system is perfect but you're being unreasonably harsh.

It would have been unreasonably harsh if I'd said they were a load of useless old sh*te