im said id get a DSLR

don ramo

hey lads, ive been taking phots for a while and have always had a passing interest in photgraphy, now im think of getting a camera i can do something with and have decided to get a DSLR, while reading reviews and what have ya,

im trying to figure out if i should bite the bullet and get a top of the range SLR, or go for the entry level SLR, im looking at a sony alpha A-200 camera with a 18-70mm F3.5-5.6 lense, and a 75-300mm F4.5-5.6 lense, i priced it on amazon uk and done the conversion, and it works out at 520 EURO, and thats with a 4GB memory card with it,

this is the camera with the 18-70 lense included

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0011U9U9A/ref=ord_cart_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE

and this is the 75-300 lense

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000GT11H6/ref=ord_cart_shr?_encoding=UTF8&m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE

would ye say this is a good camera for my first SLR, or should i be looking in a differnt direction, i figure this is a bit cheap therefore it could possibly become obsulete for me in a short period if i get more into photography

also im more interested in landscape, so i dunno if the 300mm lense would be needed, though it would leave the door open to expand, or if i got caught to do something that would require it,

what would ye say,

nilhg

I'd think you should go for the entry level model, there is a big learning curve to get the most out of any DSLR, and you'll easily get the value out of an entry level model while you are doing it. Mike Johnson has a good article on the issues here.

Probably a good time to buy the A200, there is a new updated model on the way, shop around for the best value, there is loads of info in the stickies.

Stephen P

I bought the Sony A-200 recently and it's an excellent DSLR. It's my first DSLR. It''s easy to use for a beginner, feels nice to hold, looks nice, the menu is easy to navigate through, plenty of options on the menu, button positions are good. The standard kit lens it came with (18-70mm) is good. I bought another lens yesterday 75-300mm which is very good and well worth getting. Best of luck with whatever you buy!

don ramo

done about 6 or 7 hours research, and have narrowed it down to 4

Sony A200 (no live viewfinder puts me off, but cheap at 300 Euro)

Olympus E420 (great value, you get 2 lense, a 14-42mm lense and a 40-150mm lense, and priced at 460 Euro seems a bargain)

Nikon D60 (little over my price range at 550 Euro)

Canon EOS 1000D (seems the best and at 50 Euro less than the Nikon may win)


i dunno which to buy, the Olympus seems a great deal, id say the Sony A200 is out, anything anyone here would know to put me off buying the Olympus, i can get the Nikon D60 in the shop, but the rest would be on-line,

sineadw

Purely for growth factor I'd go with the Canon or the Nikon - if you get really into it it's easier to scale up the models as you go rather than starting with a whole new kit. You never see a pro shooting with anthing else. That's just an opinion though as they're all fine cameras.

Ricky91t

sineadw wrote: »

Purely for growth factor I'd go with the Canon or the Nikon - if you get really into it it's easier to scale up the models as you go rather than starting with a whole new kit. You never see a pro shooting with anthing else. That's just an opinion though as they're all fine cameras.

+1 to this,Would go for canon,As they've be in the market far longer than sony and olympus which means if you want a quick camera you can buy an old pro 1 series canon for 500 or so if you go into sports,Or a 1DS if you like portraiture of wedding stuff,Or just upgrade to a 30D/40D/50D for a more pro camera

Nikon would be the same as canon mostly,But olympus and sony don't have this as they've only a few bodies on the market which are all fairly modern

dakar

All good cameras, pretty much any entry level DSLR these days will produce fantastic images.

If I can offer one piece of advice, don't rule out the Sony on the basis of the lack of live view. I know it seems counter intuitive coming from a P&S, but live view just isn't that useful on an SLR (I've switched it on on my camera twice, once to see if it worked and once to line up a shot when the camera was on the ground pointing up a bit and I physically couldn't see through the viewfinder!).

Actually one more piece of advice:), go into a shop, get your hands on the various options and see what feels best, they all feel different, and you're going to be more likely to get out and use one that 'feels' right.

Good luck with your choice and enjoy!



EDIT: I'd be letting the side down if I didn't say : Buy the Nikon!:p

don ramo

cheers for the advice lads, ricky91t has a point alright with Sony and Olympus being relatively new to the market,

both the Canon and Nikon appeal to me, at the moment im leaning towards the Nikon, purely on the basis i can get in cork for 550 Euro (not a whole lot cheaper on-line), and the shop is local if anything happens, thats is worth the 50 Euro extra that i would save by buying the canon on-line,

ill have to get my hands on each camera alright, ive seen the Sony and Nikon but not the Olympus and Canon,

ill be reading more over the next week, im going on holidays at the end of next week, so hopeing to buy it by then,

ozzirt

If you want a good and not overpriced all round entry level DSLR, I say you'd be wise not to overlook the Superzoom cameras, (although they are not strictly speaking DSLRs), of which i am particularly taken with the Canon S5IS.

They have the advantage of not needing extra lenses. Macro down to 1 cm and zoom to 12X optical with 4X digital.

Normal (1X)

Zoom(12X)
Very handy to have if you are planning more than studio shots without the need to swap lenses.

Zillah

ozzirt wrote: »

They have the disadvantage of not having changeable lenses.

Fixed it for you.

melekalikimaka

theyre arent slrs really... they are bridge.... and suffer from numerous pitfalls slrs avoid

ozzirt

Zillah wrote: »

Fixed it for you.

Yeah like dust getting on and behind the pentaprism, (expensive fix) having to carry several other lenses wherever you go.

Yeah, I've been there and done that.

DSLRs can be great studio cameras, but are generally overpriced, over complicated and overpixeled, for casual and first time SLR users. Especially those who rarely ever have a shot printed larger than 8 x 10.

My Nikon is a great camera, but it rarely gets taken anywhere because 95% of the time I can do as well with the Canon without needing to go out loaded like a mule. While you are fiddling, getting your tele/macro lens out of its case and checking the lenses for dust etc., I've taken five shots and moved on.

I see a lot of camera snobbery at various outings I go to, so the Nikon does come out occasionally.;)

melekalikimaka wrote: »

theyre arent slrs really... they are bridge.... and suffer from numerous pitfalls slrs avoid

Like,...????

Mycroft H

melekalikimaka wrote: »

theyre arent slrs really... they are bridge.... and suffer from numerous pitfalls slrs avoid

Like shutter lag, far better autofocus system, faster auto focus, better viewfinder, better high iso.

ozzirt

landyman wrote: »

Like shutter lag, far better autofocus system, faster auto focus, better viewfinder, better high iso.

The Nikon D40, D60 at twice the price has a far worse view finder than the Canon S5 series. A lot of SLRs lack a good sensor shift IS. My S5 has negligible shutter lag except under the most trying circumstances. Like taking night sky shots when it is advisable to just set the manual focus to infinity, problem solved.

There are points for and against, and for a first SLR type camera the S5 is far better value for money than many of the DSLRs The way I read it this is what the OP is asking about, not a professional unit.

charybdis

ozzirt wrote: »

The Nikon D40, D60 at twice the price has a far worse view finder than the Canon S5 series. A lot of SLRs lack a good sensor shift IS. My S5 has negligible shutter lag except under the most trying circumstances. Like taking night sky shots when it is advisable to just set the manual focus to infinity, problem solved.

There are points for and against, and for a first SLR type camera the S5 is far better value for money than many of the DSLRs The way I read it this is what the OP is asking about, not a professional unit.

The S5 looks like an excellent choice for taking photographs of brightly lit windmills against a flat blue sky.

The biggest problem with bridge cameras is sensor size. The S5 has a much smaller sensor than the Sony (or any DSLR). Even though the Sony sensor is slightly higher in resolution, the dot pitch is likely far lower; meaning less sensor noise and need for noise reduction. For this reason, I'm surprised you would opt to use your S5 for night sky photography as it would most likely introduce noise and/or muddy your image through noise reduction.

I really don't see the rationale or appeal of bridge cameras as they combine the worst aspects of SLRs (size & weight) with the worst aspects of digital compact cameras (small sensor, mediocre slow zoom lens of excessive focal length range, high pixel density, electronic viewfinder, poor manual control) without any real benefit. I guess they made more sense a few years ago when DSLRs were prohibitively expensive, but the price difference between a bridge camera and an inexpensive DSLR is negligible now, and the difference in value is immense.

charybdis

charybdis wrote: »

The S5 looks like an excellent choice for taking photographs of brightly lit windmills against a flat blue sky.

The biggest problem with bridge cameras is sensor size. The S5 has a much smaller sensor than the Sony (or any DSLR). Even though the Sony sensor is slightly higher in resolution, the dot pitch is likely far lower; meaning less sensor noise and need for noise reduction. For this reason, I'm surprised you would opt to use your S5 for night sky photography as it would most likely introduce noise and/or muddy your image through noise reduction.

I really don't see the rationale or appeal of bridge cameras as they combine the worst aspects of SLRs (size & weight) with the worst aspects of digital compact cameras (small sensor, mediocre slow zoom lens of excessive focal length range, high pixel density, electronic viewfinder, poor manual control) without any real benefit. I guess they made more sense a few years ago when DSLRs were prohibitively expensive, but the price difference between a bridge camera and an inexpensive DSLR is negligible now, and the difference in value is immense.

Edit: Also, "digital zoom" is utter nonsense. Anyone suggesting it is somehow advantageous should be treated with appropriate ridicule.

ozzirt

The proof is in the pudding, I have both, and I certainly know the shortfalls of both. I will admit that my DSLR is now 4 years old and the S5 less than 18 months, but it is hardly old fashioned. perhaps that's why I initially recommended to the OP not to overlook the Superzooms, I had,... and found I really did myself no great favours.

There is too much lens envy involved here as i am talking about practical every day photography as 99% of all photography is.

The shots I posted were merely to demonstrate the optical zoom capabilities, but, I think you already knew that, and like so many, couldn't resist "having a cheap shot". I could similarly answer with something as ridiculous as , "What,... do you want me to ring the department of meteorology and order in a suitable backdrop". C'mon,.... you may get away with stuff like that with a five year old. All I say is, "do better with your DSLR freehand", I'm pretty sure that that I couldn't. The fact is that there are horses for courses, and this suits 99% of my needs,... as it would most amateur photographers.

By all means if you are going to aspire to professional work requiring large sized output, the value is justified, but for amateur photography,... not really.

charybdis wrote: »

Edit: Also, "digital zoom" is utter nonsense. Anyone suggesting it is somehow advantageous should be treated with appropriate ridicule.

I must agree. It is of no practical use whatsoever.

don ramo

cheers for the info lads, got the Nikon D60 today, got a 18-55mm VR lense with it, and got a 55-300mm Sigma DG lense also, got it for 730 Euro with a bag that fits the 2 lense and camera, and got a 4GB memory card, (saw a similar one on pixmania for 700 Euro, but the second lense was a 55-200mm, so i think i got a deal)

ive been trying out settings to see what kind of pictures i can take, will probably head out tomorow to give it a go around the place, ill have to get some books alright, totally different from any sort of camera i used before,

charybdis

ozzirt wrote: »

The proof is in the pudding, I have both, and I certainly know the shortfalls of both. I will admit that my DSLR is now 4 years old and the S5 less than 18 months, but it is hardly old fashioned. perhaps that's why I initially recommended to the OP not to overlook the Superzooms, I had,... and found I really did myself no great favours.

There is too much lens envy involved here as i am talking about practical every day photography as 99% of all photography is.

The shots I posted were merely to demonstrate the optical zoom capabilities, but, I think you already knew that, and like so many, couldn't resist "having a cheap shot". I could similarly answer with something as ridiculous as , "What,... do you want me to ring the department of meteorology and order in a suitable backdrop". C'mon,.... you may get away with stuff like that with a five year old. All I say is, "do better with your DSLR freehand", I'm pretty sure that that I couldn't. The fact is that there are horses for courses, and this suits 99% of my needs,... as it would most amateur photographers.

By all means if you are going to aspire to professional work requiring large sized output, the value is justified, but for amateur photography,... not really.

My point was that, while a bridge camera may be more than adequate for photographing brightly lit objects that are already very cleanly separated from their backgrounds, they typically aren't so great for "practical every day photography" such as taking pictures of people in dimly-lit available light scenarios that are more than just documentarian proof of their presence.

I would be astonished if you couldn't get a comparable (or better) shot with a DSLR. From the EXIF metadata in the images you've posted: both photographs' shutter speed was 1/1600 and ISO 80, the first at 6mm (~35mm 35mm quiv.) at f/2.7, the second at 47.4 (~285mm 35mm equiv.) at f/3.5. Do you honestly think a DSLR with a lens at similar framing, 35mm equivalent focal length, and exposure value would produce an inferior image handheld? If not, I would love to hear your reasoning.

Favouring brevity over the risk of making a long-winded reductio ad absurdum argument: if you're suggesting that a DSLR is overkill for everyday photography, why wouldn't a bridge camera be overkill? Or, indeed, a point & shoot? Many people are content with using their *shudder* mobile phone cameras. Even then, why bother with photography at all? This is no place for half-assed iconoclasts.

If a bridge camera works for you, that's great; but I would be extremely hesitant to recommend one.

Footnote: I assert my legal right to control the use of the phrase "half-assed iconoclast" in all forms including, but not limited to, its use in socially conscious gangster rap.

ozzirt

charybdis wrote: »

My point was that, while a bridge camera may be more than adequate for photographing brightly lit objects that are already very cleanly separated from their backgrounds, they typically aren't so great for "practical every day photography" such as taking pictures of people in dimly-lit available light scenarios that are more than just documentarian proof of their presence.

I would be astonished if you couldn't get a comparable (or better) shot with a DSLR. From the EXIF metadata in the images you've posted: both photographs' shutter speed was 1/1600 and ISO 80, the first at 6mm (~35mm 35mm quiv.) at f/2.7, the second at 47.4 (~285mm 35mm equiv.) at f/3.5. Do you honestly think a DSLR with a lens at similar framing, 35mm equivalent focal length, and exposure value would produce an inferior image handheld? If not, I would love to hear your reasoning.

I never inferred that it would be inferior, I said that you'd be hard pressed to do better, and by that I mean that can be appreciated bearing in mind the reason that the photo was taken (I won't go into the reasons) It did serve the purpose at least as well as anything else could have done. There's a very distinct difference which once again I'm sure you were perfectly aware of. I notice that you have once again diverted the topic totally ignoring the answer I gave as to why the photos were posted. You're not just a little bit envious are you or are you still fiddling about trying to get that tele lens out of it's case.

Favouring brevity over the risk of making a long-winded reductio ad absurdum argument: if you're suggesting that a DSLR is overkill for everyday photography, why wouldn't a bridge camera be overkill? Or, indeed, a point & shoot? --snip--This is no place for half-assed iconoclasts.

If you happen to be looking for your dictionary, Ithink you'll find you had it for breakfast. No,... sorry, but big words like umbrella and wheelbarrow ceased to intimidate me many years ago.

To your question. Because that is where I drew the line in answering the original post.

As for "Iconoclasts", I think you are somewhat up yourself, insofar as all this argy bargy relates, once again, to the original post.

If a bridge camera works for you, that's great; but I would be extremely hesitant to recommend one.

99% of the time it does just that. And you would probably be most unwise to recommend one as no doubt you probably have little or no experience with one, which is fair enough.

I just love "purists".

ozzirt

don ramo wrote: »

cheers for the info lads, got the Nikon D60 today, got a 18-55mm VR lense with it, and got a 55-300mm Sigma DG lense also, got it for 730 Euro with a bag that fits the 2 lense and camera, and got a 4GB memory card, (saw a similar one on pixmania for 700 Euro, but the second lense was a 55-200mm, so i think i got a deal)

ive been trying out settings to see what kind of pictures i can take, will probably head out tomorow to give it a go around the place, ill have to get some books alright, totally different from any sort of camera i used before,

Congratulations, don't forget to post some of your local photos for us foreigners to have a squizz at.

It is always a bit of a learning curve, but it can be a lot of fun, even more so now that with digital cameras there's no cost involved in whizzing of a couple of dozen experimental shots.

charybdis

ozzirt wrote: »

I never inferred that it would be inferior, I said that you'd be hard pressed to do better, and by that I mean that can be appreciated bearing in mind the reason that the photo was taken (I won't go into the reasons) It did serve the purpose at least as well as anything else could have done. There's a very distinct difference which once again I'm sure you were perfectly aware of. I notice that you have once again diverted the topic totally ignoring the answer I gave as to why the photos were posted.

I never suggested it didn't serve a purpose other than it wasn't a very good example of a camera's ability in challenging circumstances.

Again, by all means, if a solution is "good enough", use it.

ozzirt wrote: »

You're not just a little bit envious are you or are you still fiddling about trying to get that tele lens out of it's case.

The longest lens I have is 85mm, it doesn't have a case.

ozzirt wrote: »

If you happen to be looking for your dictionary, Ithink you'll find you had it for breakfast.

You're right. I did, and the thesaurus, and The Elements of Style by Strunk & White, and some Coco Pops. Strunk & White turns the milk really literary.

ozzirt wrote: »

No,... sorry, but big words like umbrella and wheelbarrow ceased to intimidate me many years ago.

Felicitations.

ozzirt wrote: »

To your question. Because that is where I drew the line in answering the original post.

?

ozzirt wrote: »

As for "Iconoclasts", I think you are somewhat up yourself, insofar as all this argy bargy relates, once again, to the original post.

charybdis wrote: »

I assert my legal right to control the use of the phrase "half-assed iconoclast" in all forms including, but not limited to, its use in socially conscious gangster rap.

You could do with one of these "dictionaries".

ozzirt wrote: »

99% of the time it does just that. And you would probably be most unwise to recommend one as no doubt you probably have little or no experience with one, which is fair enough.

What does just that? Recommend one of what? Little or no experience with what?

ozzirt wrote: »

I just love "purists".

I love you too.

ozzirt

charybdis wrote: »

What does just that? Recommend one of what? Little or no experience with what?

You asked the question, look back at your own post. See if perhaps you can find the word "recommend".

Just another poorly placed bait????

Bye bye.....