500 euro budget for a dslr

workaccount

Hi,
As per title I want to get myself a dslr quite soon - I'm in abit of a rush now as I want it for my hols in the summer and I also need plenty of time for practice.

I have understanding exposure at home and spent abit of time over xmas studying it.

Anyways the budget is 500 euro and I would like two lenses - once macro type lens for portraits and everything and a wide one as well. I'm going to buy used if possible to maximize the euros.

I would really like a 30D but I doubt my budget will allow me. I would prefer the strong build quality of the 30D.

Can somebody recommend me something - I would prefer canon but I don't like the 350D. I have no idea really about lenses.

I might be willing to stretch the budget abit.

af_thefragile

The Canon EOS 1000D is a really decent slr.
Or if you wanna stretch you can get the EOS 450D with has a slightly higher resolution, 9-point AF (compared to the 7-point AF of the 1000D), the option of Spot Metering and a bigger LCD screen. Which is not that much of a difference from the 1000D, you can take equally good pics with the 1000D imo.

I don't think you can get a new dslr with two new lenses for under €500. But the 18-55 kit lens is quite good for wide angled shots and is decent for portraits as well.
And maybe you could look at getting the Sigma 70-300 macro lens for the macro and portrait stuff. Its not the best lens and the image quality is reasonable but its a very cheap lens and the next step up from this lens costs about 3 times as much so this one is a good to start out on when you're on a tight budget. The Canon 50mm f1.8 is another very handy lens you could get. Its very cheap again but is a good fast lens which you could use for many things like low light, night time, action photography and even good portraits.

And then you can always look into Nikons. They've got the D40 (which is a very basic slr imo) and the D60 (which is a really good slr). Though they lack live view feature which could be very handy while taking some tricky shots but then you rarely use live view and can do quite well without it...

TJM

I'm biased (on my 3rd Pentax SLR), but you should be able to get a Pentax K200d, 18-55 & 50-200 for €500. Here's a package for slightly over but with a battery grip & carry case included:
http://tinyurl.com/akamfb

Build quality / feel is very good - more so than the smaller Canons IMHO (feels more like the 40D than say the 450D). The new kit 18-55 (mkII) is a superb little lens. Get it before the end of January and there's a €60 cashback as well (though you'll have to check if Pixmania fall within the scheme).

bmcgrath

1000D or if you can find one, a second hand 400D. But if you can come up with the extra money get a new 450D.

1000D really is a bog standard DSLR with a horrible autofocus system IMHO.

Also 30D's prob are cheap enough these days on ebay. Maybe even a 20D would suit your needs? Pretty much the same camera as the 30D with a few small things missing. Nothing you wouldn't miss I don't think....

jaqian

Does it have to be new? Have you checked out Adverts.ie (Boards.ie's for sale site) plenty for under 500. I bought a Sony A100 two weeks ago for 200. Check out the photography section... http://www.adverts.ie/showcat.php?cat=51

Duchovny

Well if you want the stronger body of the 30D get a 2nd hand one, i saw a few about 400€ so you should be getting a nice deal, if you go to the xxxD get a 450D don't get the 1000D the 100€ difference i think its not worth it.

ps3man

I last year bought a nikon d100 which I used I'm south Africa with some amazing results, I bought it second hand and have no thoughts of replacing it anytime soon, I spent 600 total which also got me a nice sigma wide angle lens, very highly recommended

workaccount

Hi again,
Yes I'm thinking of going used for both the body and lenses. I have my eye on the for sale section on adverts. I'm not sure if I'd get any decent lens if I went with a used 30D.

I'll have to check over some reviews of the 400d or 450D vs. 30D and decide.

jaqian

There was a EOS 1D for sale for around €500, I presume thats without a lens but that would be a cool camera to start off with there was alos a Fuji S2 Pro which uses Nikon lens' and some Sony Alphas as well. I don't think you can realy go wrong no matter what brand you buy, its just what appeals to you.

junebug_457

May I suggest heading North if possible. I bought a Dslr in Newry in a shop that opperates on both sides of the border. Euro 470 in Dublin. GBP 299 up there. Saved myself 110 Euro by going up there.

Covey

Spend the money on glass much more important. Second hand, you could get.

Canon 10D - 150 (old model but cracking camera still)
Canon 50mm 1.8 - 70
Canon 18-55mm - 50
Canon 100mm Macro - 300 (proper Macro + good portrait lens)

Total 570 or leave out the 50mm to hit budget.

bmcgrath

workaccount wrote: »

Hi again,
Yes I'm thinking of going used for both the body and lenses. I have my eye on the for sale section on adverts. I'm not sure if I'd get any decent lens if I went with a used 30D.

I'll have to check over some reviews of the 400d or 450D vs. 30D and decide.

I can tell you that even if both the 400D and 450D are newer cameras, the 30D blows them out of the water tbh. It's a far better camera overall. It may lack the larger screen and dust cleaning but to hell with that

Mycroft H

You can get a konica minolta 7d in one of the camera shops - i think it was camera exchange for 250 with a 28 to 135mm. That leaves 250 for glass - plenty for some good second hand minolta glass.

Or an a200 new but you will have less for glass!!

Though if you feel compelled to get a nikon my vote goes to the d60.

Thepost

Powercity are doing the Sony A200 with 18-70mm Lens for €375.95 you can pick up a good Minolta 75-300mm for about €100 or Sigma 75-200mm about €80

workaccount

Covey wrote: »

Spend the money on glass much more important. Second hand, you could get.

Canon 10D - 150 (old model but cracking camera still)
Canon 50mm 1.8 - 70
Canon 18-55mm - 50
Canon 100mm Macro - 300 (proper Macro + good portrait lens)

Total 570 or leave out the 50mm to hit budget.

Good reply. Thanks very much. I've been checking out the 10D as recommended but I think it's a problem for me that it's slow to start up and that the autofocus is slow. This is something that causes problems with my current camera. I think the 20D would do the job though.

One of my concerns would be the lack of automatic cleaning of the sensor. Will this cause me problems? I wonder is it easy to clean it yourself?

Covey

If you can afford the extra 70-100 Euro, I'd go with the 20D as well.

Your always going to have to compromise with a budget and wish list like that. If it's 500 I'd give the 10D a go, it's a fine camera and ideal start up camera.

The advantage with the above is that you'll probably want to change after a year and you'll get nearly all back on the 10D and the 18-55. the other two are "keep for Life" lenses.

The 10D is slow to start up. No one I know of had autofocus problems though. Sometimes these things take on a life of their own on the net.

tbh, I wouldn't be concerned with self clean if you get what you want for around the 500 mark.

workaccount

Covey wrote: »

If you can afford the extra 70-100 Euro, I'd go with the 20D as well.

Your always going to have to compromise with a budget and wish list like that. If it's 500 I'd give the 10D a go, it's a fine camera and ideal start up camera.

The advantage with the above is that you'll probably want to change after a year and you'll get nearly all back on the 10D and the 18-55. the other two are "keep for Life" lenses.

The 10D is slow to start up. No one I know of had autofocus problems though. Sometimes these things take on a life of their own on the net.

tbh, I wouldn't be concerned with self clean if you get what you want for around the 500 mark.

Ya I'm looking at the 10D now. What you say about the resale value is a good idea. The 10D seems to be up on 200 euro on ebay and the 20D is near 300 - there expensive - I'm going to keep my eyes peeled to get one for 150 if possible.

Can you explain the main difference between the 50mm 1.8 and the 18-55mm. Is the 50mm for wide angle shots only? What would you use the 18-55mm for?

Thanks.

Covey

The 50mm is not a wide angle and on a crop camera, as both the 10D and 20D are, it's effectively an 80mm. Ideal portrait lens and very good in low light also..

The 18-55 I only added as you originally stated you wanted something wide angle, which this would be at or near the 18mm mark. Tbh it's not the best lens some think, but would get you started fine. Having said that, the one I had was excellent for the cost involved, better than a lot of other lenses purchased since.

Hope that helps.

workaccount

Covey wrote: »

The 50mm is not a wide angle and on a crop camera, as both the 10D and 20D are, it's effectively an 80mm. Ideal portrait lens and very good in low light also..

The 18-55 I only added as you originally stated you wanted something wide angle, which this would be at or near the 18mm mark. Tbh it's not the best lens some think, but would get you started fine. Having said that, the one I had was excellent for the cost involved, better than a lot of other lenses purchased since.

Hope that helps.

That helps yes. I've just been looking into that Macro lens actually and that's not zoom is it. I think I would prefer to get a better zoom lens rather than a good macro. So maybe leave out the cheap 18-55mm and the 100mm macro and get a good zoom. Something from here maybe http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_p_1_13?url=search-alias%3Dphoto&field-keywords=canon+zoom+lenses&x=0&y=0&sprefix=canon+zoom+le

I suppose then if I was to get a zoom I wouln't really need that 50mm either??

Covey

The 50 1.8 is probably the best value on the market. Fab lens for that price.

Ok, complete change of tack then, no Wide angle and no macro

This is fairly priced and is an "L" lens, i.e. Canon's best glass. Very sharp, excellent lens. You find though that you probably need something wider as well.

http://www.photographyireland.net/viewtopic.php?t=25692

BTW , it is possible to zoom with your feet.

workaccount

Covey wrote: »

The 50 1.8 is probably the best value on the market. Fab lens for that price.

Ok, complete change of tack then, no Wide angle and no macro

This is fairly priced and is an "L" lens, i.e. Canon's best glass. Very sharp, excellent lens. You find though that you probably need something wider as well.

http://www.photographyireland.net/viewtopic.php?t=25692

BTW , it is possible to zoom with your feet.

I see that lens you have linked to is not IS. How are all the images not blurry?

Covey

workaccount wrote: »

I see that lens you have linked to is not IS. How are all the images not blurry?

What did photographers ever do before IS was invented?

You choose a shutter speed to avoid blur, simple as.

If you've got a budget of €500 and look for so much out of it, then some of the "bells and Whistles" will have to fall away.

workaccount

Covey wrote: »

What did photographers ever do before IS was invented?

You choose a shutter speed to avoid blur, simple as.

If you've got a budget of €500 and look for so much out of it, then some of the "bells and Whistles" will have to fall away.

Sorry I'm beginning to ask stupid questions now. I have a shaky hand though so I think I will stick with an IS lens this time! I'll look up reviews of some of those amazon lenses this evening.

Ricky91t

30D on adverts €300
http://www.adverts.ie/showproduct.php?product=91636&cat=51

af_thefragile

Covey wrote: »

What did photographers ever do before IS was invented?

You choose a shutter speed to avoid blur, simple as.

If you've got a budget of €500 and look for so much out of it, then some of the "bells and Whistles" will have to fall away.

That is quite true. I've just started out too myself and i don't expect too much out of the cheap equipment i've got. Right now i've got the 18-55 kit lens which many people don't like but i think its more than enough for my wide-angled to general needs for now. I'm not gonna be selling any of the photographs i'll be taking at this moment so i really don't need to shell out over €500 on an expensive "L" lens. I know they're amazing lenses but at the stage i'm at right now, i can tell little difference between the 18-55 kit lens and a Luxury (L) lens. I also don't have a good enough camera and enough skill to tap into the full potential of such expensive lenses. Hence i'll be better off working up my skills on cheap lenses than using the expensive lenses at less than 10% of their potential.

Also i believe its good to start out on cheap equipment. Just like Covey here said what did people do before things like "Image Stabilisation" and "Auto Focus" were invented. They learnt things the hard way and that makes you a better photographer.
When you're working on a very basic lens without fancy features like IS, AF, USM, then you learn to do it all yourself. You learn to develop a steady hand to make sure you get sharp pictures, you learn to focus images the way you want them to be (not let the camera decide that for you) and stuff like that.
Once you've developed those skills and you feel you're using all your inferior equipment at 100% of its potential, then thats the time to step up to the more superior stuff.

Covey

workaccount wrote: »

so I think I will stick with an IS lens

Then I take it you won't be sticking to €500 including a couple of lenses then

workaccount

So the question for me now is IS or not. Even though I have a little bit of a shaky hand alot of the time should I be able to master taking shots without IS?

Will the lack of IS limit my opportunity to use slower shutter speeds - thus not allowing me to take the shots I want sometimes unless I have a tripod.

I can see how it would be a good idea to learn to shoot without IS but is it really worthwhile?


Maybe I should just get a non-L lens with IS as it would be the same price as a L without IS.

Covey

What Do you want to shoot? IS is only helpful in some situations?

workaccount

Covey wrote: »

What Do you want to shoot? IS is only helpful in some situations?

People, some landscapes, buildings, streets, planes, radio control cars, rc helis and rc planes.

TJM

The Pentax I linked to earlier has in body IS, making every lens stabilised...

Covey

TJM wrote: »

The Pentax I linked to earlier has in body IS, making every lens stabilised...

Now there's a good solution.

I wouldn't really get hung up on IS or self lens cleaning, AF Points or whatever. Get your self a decent piece of kit, good glass and get out there Taking Photos

elven

If you're shooting stuff that's moving, IS isn't the be all and end all - yes there are panning modes and all tha, but if you're shooting in daylight, it really shouldn't be too much of an issue to use a fast enough shutter speed to stop the blur rather than relying on technology to do it for you.

The reason so many people reccommend the 50mm f1.8 is because of that second number there. The f number is the aperture, and the smaller that number is, the more blurry you can make the background. You'll find that most of the 18-55mm lenses only go to something like f3.5 - at the wide end - which doesn't give you the blurry background. That's why they aren't the equivalent to that lens even though they cover the same focal length.

By the sounds of what you're after you'd want to stick to a basic wide zoom like an 18-55 and a telephoto zoom like a 70-200. My first telephoto zoom was a canon 70-200 f3.5-5.6 and is plasticky crap but it turned out that i never actually needed it all that much so i'm glad i never forked out on an expensive one right at the start.

(Just in case you misunderstood the term zoom - it means a lens that can change focal length, as opposed to one that makes stuff look closer. Telephoto is the name of the ones that make stuff look closer like 200mm. It's a common misunderstanding when you're starting out...)

workaccount

elven wrote: »

If you're shooting stuff that's moving, IS isn't the be all and end all - yes there are panning modes and all tha, but if you're shooting in daylight, it really shouldn't be too much of an issue to use a fast enough shutter speed to stop the blur rather than relying on technology to do it for you.

The reason so many people reccommend the 50mm f1.8 is because of that second number there. The f number is the aperture, and the smaller that number is, the more blurry you can make the background. You'll find that most of the 18-55mm lenses only go to something like f3.5 - at the wide end - which doesn't give you the blurry background. That's why they aren't the equivalent to that lens even though they cover the same focal length.

By the sounds of what you're after you'd want to stick to a basic wide zoom like an 18-55 and a telephoto zoom like a 70-200. My first telephoto zoom was a canon 70-200 f3.5-5.6 and is plasticky crap but it turned out that i never actually needed it all that much so i'm glad i never forked out on an expensive one right at the start.

(Just in case you misunderstood the term zoom - it means a lens that can change focal length, as opposed to one that makes stuff look closer. Telephoto is the name of the ones that make stuff look closer like 200mm. It's a common misunderstanding when you're starting out...)

Will f3.5 and anything above not give you any blur at all?

The 100mm macro is f2.8 - would that not give alot of blur then?

af_thefragile

workaccount wrote: »

So the question for me now is IS or not. Even though I have a little bit of a shaky hand alot of the time should I be able to master taking shots without IS?

Will the lack of IS limit my opportunity to use slower shutter speeds - thus not allowing me to take the shots I want sometimes unless I have a tripod.

I can see how it would be a good idea to learn to shoot without IS but is it really worthwhile?


Maybe I should just get a non-L lens with IS as it would be the same price as a L without IS.

I say to start out get the 18-55mm kit lens with IS.
Its a really good lens to start out on.
Once you've got a decent camera and that lens, just go out there and start taking pictures. Don't worry too much about the numbers and specifications. You'll learn all of that with time. And you'll learn it all by taking photos.

After you've got the camera and that lens, then you can worry about what lens to get next (or if you'll really feel the need for another lens in the first place!). But first just get those two pieces of lenses and you'll be set good on your path to photography!

IS is only really significant at large focal lengths (like over 100mm) where little camera shake will cause a significant blur in the photo. So it could be good to have telephoto lenses with IS. Though my telephoto zoon lens doesn't have IS, but i can sorta get around that with a steady hand, fast ISO and fast shutter speed. Though it'ld be better to have a tripod, but you can't always carry a tripod around! Apart from that IS will make little difference in wide-angled and action photography. And IS could actually cause motion blur when using a tripod and remote shutter operation. So don't get too bogged down on whether your lens has IS or not until its a high focal length telephoto lens. Even then if its a too large focal length lens like over 200-300mm, you'ld be using a tripod anyway and you wouldn't need the IS.

Covey

workaccount wrote: »

Will f3.5 and anything above not give you any blur at all?

The 100mm macro is f2.8 - would that not give alot of blur then?

I thought your first post said you had read "understanding Exposure" backwards

You can get Background blur way above F3.5, but thats another days work.

You sound, like you'd like the "in depth Photography Course" first and then decide on what to buy tbh.

Any of the options here will offer a good start and you can build on that later.

elven

The 100mm macro gives lovely background blur at f2.8. It happens to be my favourite lens

the difference is, a wide angle (say even 30mm) at 3.5 won't give you the same blur - the area that is in focus is deeper from front to back than the longer focal length. With fisheye lenses, they are so wide that you barely even have to focus because the depth of field is so much greater than telephoto lenses.

I'm sure someone who is better at explaining the technicalities will come along and make it all make sense.

workaccount

af_thefragile wrote: »

I say to start out get the 18-55mm kit lens with IS.
Its a really good lens to start out on.
Once you've got a decent camera and that lens, just go out there and start taking pictures. Don't worry too much about the numbers and specifications. You'll learn all of that with time. And you'll learn it all by taking photos.

After you've got the camera and that lens, then you can worry about what lens to get next (or if you'll really feel the need for another lens in the first place!). But first just get those two pieces of lenses and you'll be set good on your path to photography!

IS is only really significant at large focal lengths (like over 100mm) where little camera shake will cause a significant blur in the photo. So it could be good to have telephoto lenses with IS. Though my telephoto zoon lens doesn't have IS, but i can sorta get around that with a steady hand, fast ISO and fast shutter speed. Though it'ld be better to have a tripod, but you can't always carry a tripod around! Apart from that IS will make little difference in wide-angled and action photography. And IS could actually cause motion blur when using a tripod and remote shutter operation. So don't get too bogged down on whether your lens has IS or not until its a high focal length telephoto lens. Even then if its a too large focal length lens like over 200-300mm, you'ld be using a tripod anyway and you wouldn't need the IS.

Thanks. I'll get that kit lens so I'd say and see how it goes.

iMax

Covey wrote: »

Spend the money on glass much more important. Second hand, you could get.

Canon 10D - 150 (old model but cracking camera still)

Jasus, that makes me weep. I paid close to €2k for my 10D when it first came out.

Excellent camera that I just don't use enough. I was considering selling it, but if that's the sort of price, it can sit in the press.

workaccount

iMax wrote: »

Jasus, that makes me weep. I paid close to €2k for my 10D when it first came out.

Excellent camera that I just don't use enough. I was considering selling it, but if that's the sort of price, it can sit in the press.

Well it's less money in the press than if you sell it. Let me know if you change your mind.

af_thefragile

There's a guy selling his EOD 40D and kit lens for €550 and a telephoto zoom lens for another €200 odd.
I believe its an excellent bargain as the 40D is an amazing camera. I think you should seriously consider this add.
http://www.adverts.ie/showproduct.php?product=89900&cat=51

elven

Holy shmoly. Take that 40d, and worry about a telephoto lens later...

Covey

And the kit lens has IS for those shaky paws :)

workaccount

af_thefragile wrote: »

There's a guy selling his EOD 40D and kit lens for €550 and a telephoto zoom lens for another €200 odd.
I believe its an excellent bargain as the 40D is an amazing camera. I think you should seriously consider this add.
http://www.adverts.ie/showproduct.php?product=89900&cat=51

Yeah it seems good but I would still be spending 550 as opposed to 280 for IS kit lens and 10D.

Covey

I've this strange feeling this thread will still be on the front page in a few months time and all the regular posters in the same ward of some looneybin screaming at their laptops "Spend the €500 f**/*king Euro" :pac::pac::pac::D

workaccount

Covey wrote: »

I've this strange feeling this thread will still be on the front page in a few months time and all the regular posters in the same ward of some looneybin screaming at their laptops "Spend the €500 f**/*king Euro" :pac::pac::pac::D

I want the 10D aswell because it won't lose it's value if I hold onto it for a year.

Covey

QUOTE=workaccount;58780010]I want the 10D aswell because it won't lose it's value if I hold onto it for a year.[/QUOTE]

If you get me Imax's contact details I'll buy it for you.:rolleyes:

I feel like Frank Kelly on the 11th day of Christmas.http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=_LwjoQ0own0[

elven

workaccount wrote: »

I want the 10D aswell because it won't lose it's value if I hold onto it for a year.

False economy I think. Fair enough the 10d was good in it's day and basic but that's a new frickin camera, beter than mine, and close enough within your budget.

I will have to try my hardest not to be screaming in that ward I think. I knew i shouldn't have wandered into a gear thread.

workaccount

Covey wrote: »

If you get me Imax's contact details I'll buy it for you.:rolleyes:

I fell like Frank Kelly on the 11th day of Christmas.

Thanks for your advice so far but the 40D is 220 more.

I'm going on hols in July and I want the camera for then. I also have other things to buy - other than photography I pay rent. I also eat food and then I have other hobbies. :D I need to buy parts for my rc airplane and car, do a welding course in April. I also want to invest some money this year.

So if I want that telephoto lens before my hols where do I get the money to get it if I've spent all my money on a 40D?
I didn't pull the 500 figure out of the sky.

workaccount

elven wrote: »

False economy I think.

Not if I sell it for the same price in a year.

Covey

workaccount wrote: »

I also eat food

I can just imagine evenings in the Workaccount" homestead.

What'll we have for dinner chaps, Spag Bol, or maybe Lasagne. What about a pork chop or we order a pizza ....

As twelve bells toll, little Johnny finally gets up and says quietly, "Could I have yesterdays dinner today please".

Nite Mary Ellen ..... :pac::pac::pac:

Covey

Double post, sorry