Advice on buying my first SLR

derv

I have been talking about buying a good camera for a long time , an am finally gonna do it (i think).

Based on your experiences , what is the best first move for me?
Unfortunately I am not in a position to say money is no object, because it is.

Is it a good idea to buy second hand?
How much would I need to spend?
What camera & lense should I start with?

All help and advice much appreciated.
Thanks.

Zombrex

* Disclaimer, I know Canon. Others can probably give you similar advice for Nikon

First off the better the lens the better the quality of your photos.

So general rule, start with a cheap(ish) digital SLR, like one of the Canon XXX range (Canons get better the less numbers in the model number, so Canon 5D better than Canon 50D better than Canon 500D but also more expensive) and buy the most expensive lenses you can afford.

People often make the mistake of starting off thinking they need a super expensive camera, buy one and then never use the advance features such a camera brings, while combining it with a cheap-ass lens. They then wonder what all the fuss is about SLRs because there images are not up to much.

A Canon 500D body only (without any lens) will set you back about €550. If you want a lens with it it will cost more, but you probably won't get a great lens. If you aren't planning on buy any other lens (or can't afford to) get it with a lens. If you have the budget to buy it along with another good lenses just buy the body.

One way you can get a good lens that will give you good images cheaply (relatively speaking) is to go for a good "prime" lense. A prime lense is fixed at a particular focal length, which means you can't zoom in or out with it.

The advantage of this is that the makers can put good quality lenses in the lens without having to worry about complicated optics to allow it to zoom, thus making the lens cheaper.

A Canon 50mm f1.8 lens can be picked up for about €100.

After that you are into spending between €400 and €1200 euro for a general purpose zoom lense, one that can go through wide to close up. Second hand is ok so long as the lense is still in good condition.

Which one you go for will depend on your budget.

derv

thanks for the advice, appreciate it.
would it be a good idea to buy a second hand body to save money, then pay that bit extra for a a good lense?

i had a figure of 500 euro in my head to spend , but by the sounds of things I may not get what I want for that price.

TinyExplosions

I'd suggest looking at getting a Nikon D3100 body only if you can, and an 85mm f1.8 lens -it's a great entry level camera and a fantastic lens that'll last you as you upgrade if you get the bug. It's worth getting good glass

-shouldn't run you more than 600 or so

nilhg

derv wrote: »

I have been talking about buying a good camera for a long time , an am finally gonna do it (i think).

Based on your experiences , what is the best first move for me?
Unfortunately I am not in a position to say money is no object, because it is.

Is it a good idea to buy second hand?
How much would I need to spend?
What camera & lense should I start with?

All help and advice much appreciated.
Thanks.

Realistically it makes very little difference which entry level kit you start off with, any of Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony or Pentax would be fine, in terms of value for money things have never been better, all the various brands have strengths and weaknesses but whatever you choose will be a fine piece of kit. If you can get the one that feels good in your hand, or if you have a pal who has some kit you could borrow , them it might make sense to buy the same brand as him.

Wicknight wrote: »

First off the better the lens the better the quality of your photos.

With respect that's rubbish, photographers take the photos, the lens (and body) is just a tool, better tools make some tasks easier but a good photographer will find a way.




[/QUOTE]

Zombrex

nilhg wrote: »

With respect that's rubbish, photographers take the photos, the lens (and body) is just a tool, better tools make some tasks easier but a good photographer will find a way.

Oh don't be silly :rolleyes:

It isn't about being easier, a professional photographer doesn't spend one and a half grand on a L-class lens because it makes his life easier. It is because it takes much sharper clearer pictures.

It is obviously not going to make you in a brilliant photographer but I see people all the time buying really expensive cameras and combining them with cheap lenses and producing muggy photos and complaining that this is no better than something they could take with a compact. That is because it is no better than something they could take with a compact. Lens lens lens all the way.

Zombrex

derv wrote: »

thanks for the advice, appreciate it.
would it be a good idea to buy a second hand body to save money, then pay that bit extra for a a good lense?

i had a figure of 500 euro in my head to spend , but by the sounds of things I may not get what I want for that price.

Second hand should be alright if you go to a reputable dealer and get a warranty with it.

You could probably pick up a second hand Canon 30D with a new 50mm f1.8 lens for about €500 (some else can give the Nikon equivalent).

TinyExplosions

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh don't be silly :rolleyes:

It isn't about being easier, a professional photographer doesn't spend one and a half grand on a L-class lens because it makes his life easier. It is because it takes much sharper clearer pictures.

It is obviously not going to make you in a brilliant photographer but I see people all the time buying really expensive cameras and combining them with cheap lenses and producing muggy photos and complaining that this is no better than something they could take with a compact. That is because it is no better than something they could take with a compact. Lens lens lens all the way.

I don't think it's all that silly a thing to say... I good photographer will be able to get a good shot with any camera -they'll be able to work to it's strengths and weaknesses. They may buy more expensive glass because it's clearer/makes it easier to get the shots they want, but I know a couple of people that could get much better shots out of a point and shoot than I could get out of a D3 with an 85 1.4 or somesuch

nilhg

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh don't be silly :rolleyes:

It isn't about being easier, a professional photographer doesn't spend one and a half grand on a L-class lens because it makes his life easier. It is because it takes much sharper clearer pictures.

It is obviously not going to make you in a brilliant photographer but I see people all the time buying really expensive cameras and combining them with cheap lenses and producing muggy photos and complaining that this is no better than something they could take with a compact. That is because it is no better than something they could take with a compact. Lens lens lens all the way.

So good composition, proper exposure and appropriate lighting are all factors of L lenses?:rolleyes:

Professional photographers pay big money for faster lenses, often with built in IS, that does not mean that cheaper slower lenses are "muggy" (or maybe Canon ones are:D)

Freddie59

nilhg wrote: »

So good composition, proper exposure and appropriate lighting are all factors of L lenses?:rolleyes:

Professional photographers pay big money for faster lenses, often with built in IS, that does not mean that cheaper slower lenses are "muggy" (or maybe Canon ones are:D)

I can only talk from my own experience, and while I would agree with nilhg in the main, I did find a difference between the kit lens of the 450D and a 17-85 lens I replaced it with.

Currently have a 40D with a 17-55 f/2.8 and that is another leap.

But ultimately it IS down to how good a photographer you are.

I bought the 450D new, but bought the 40D on eBay (3,000 actuations) 18 months later.

You'll be fine starting out with a kit lens, but don't expect great results from the camera if you use it in auto. Learn M mode quickly, and bu 'Understanding Exposure' by Bryan Peterson on Amazon.co.uk.

Zombrex

nilhg wrote: »

So good composition, proper exposure and appropriate lighting are all factors of L lenses?:rolleyes:

A photo with the same composition, same exposure and same lighting will look better taken through a L-class lens (or what ever the better Nikon lens range is) than through a €100 starter lens.

You can learn composition, exposure and lighting. You can't learn sharpness.

If it is a choice between spending the money on the camera or the lenses are you seriously going to argue with me that he should spend money on the camera not the lenses?

TinyExplosions

Wicknight wrote: »

A photo with the same composition, same exposure and same lighting will look better taken through a L-class lens (or what ever the better Nikon lens range is) than through a €100 starter lens.

Yes, but you're assuming then that a good photographer would approach a shot in exactly the same way irrespective of the glass or type of camera?

Though this is getting waaaay of topic, and essentially I agree with you that you should get good glass, and worry about upgrading the body later!

charybdis

Wicknight wrote: »

A photo with the same composition, same exposure and same lighting will look better taken through a L-class lens (or what ever the better Nikon lens range is) than through a €100 starter lens.

Canon's current 50mm f/1.8 lens is one of the cheapest lenses - if not the cheapest lens - they make. At around f/5.6 - f/8 it wipes the floor with all but the most expensive of zoom lenses and even then it's marginally better. The only "L" glass that approaches or eclipses its performance at this aperture value are fixed focal length lenses, mostly super-telephotos (which cost several thousand Euro each). Even Canon's 50mm f/1.2 "L" lens that costs more than sixteen times the cost of the 50mm f/1.8 performs significantly worse at the same aperture. If you don't believe me, you can go and look at the resolution charts and MTF graphs for them yourself.

My point is that while lens quality is important, prioritising "sharpness" as an overriding value is not only a bad idea in creative terms, it's a bad idea in technical terms (at least when one assumes a direct relationship between the cost of a lens and the sharpness of the images produced with it). The reality is that sharpness is a complicated concept that depends on a large number of variables and will not be magically bestowed upon the bearer of the "L" glass. For most non-extreme use cases, a photograph taken with a "consumer" lens will not be appreciably "better" than one taken with an "L" lens.

Wicknight wrote: »

You can learn composition, exposure and lighting. You can't learn sharpness.

You can learn sharpness. There are techniques and practices that can be used to give both objectively and perceptually sharper images. Someone skilled in this and equipped with a cheap lens will almost certainly consistently produce sharper images than someone not as skilled who is equipped with an expensive one.

Wicknight wrote: »

If it is a choice between spending the money on the camera or the lenses are you seriously going to argue with me that he should spend money on the camera not the lenses?

It's usually a good idea to spend money on both. While the maxim of "spend on the lenses, save on the camera" is usually a good idea, it isn't an absolute; it depends on the lenses and cameras in question and what the photographer wants to achieve. In this case, I don't care what the OP does, he should've read the sticky.

Zombrex

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Yes, but you're assuming then that a good photographer would approach a shot in exactly the same way irrespective of the glass or type of camera?

No offense to derv but he is just starting out. There is no point arguing about this mythical "good" photographer and what he would or wouldn't do. Derv is going to end up taking the shot he takes. The basic fact is that a shot taken through a more expensive lens will look better than a shot taken through a cheap lens. That is a simple fact of optics. It will look sharper with better color. Yes he could spend 5 years learning how to take a shot that is just as good with an iPhone but that is irrelevant since he isn't a pro he is just starting out.

If derv is thinking "Where do I spend my money", then he spends his money on his lenses.

And I agree that this is getting way off topic.

Zombrex

charybdis wrote: »

Canon's current 50mm f/1.8 lens is one of the cheapest lenses - if not the cheapest lens - they make. At around f/5.6 - f/8 it wipes the floor with all but the most expensive of zoom lenses and even then it's marginally better. The only "L" glass that approaches or eclipses its performance at this aperture value are fixed focal length lenses, mostly super-telephotos (which cost several thousand Euro each). Even Canon's 50mm f/1.2 "L" lens that costs more than sixteen times the cost of the 50mm f/1.8 performs significantly worse at the same aperture. If you don't believe me, you can go and look at the resolution charts and MTF graphs for them yourself.

Expensive is a guide. By expensive I mean better optics. The Canon 50mm f/1.8, which I own and recommended derv buy, is not what I would consider a starter lens since it is a prime. By starter lens I mean the cheap zoom lenses you get with Canon DSLRs basic body and lens packs.

charybdis wrote: »

My point is that while lens quality is important, prioritising "sharpness" as an overriding value is not only a bad idea in creative terms, it's a bad idea in technical terms (at least when one assumes a direct relationship between the cost of a lens and the sharpness of the images produced with it). The reality is that sharpness is a complicated concept that depends on a large number of variables and will not be magically bestowed upon the bearer of the "L" glass. For most non-extreme use cases, a photograph taken with a "consumer" lens will not be appreciably "better" than one taken with an "L" lens.

Again it was a general guide in a short reply. All things considered

Expensive = Better optics = Better image

If someone wants to explain the detailed and complicated area of lens optics to derv go ahead. Personally I think as a bigger this will just over complicate the matter. Saying a good photographer will do X is some what irrelevant to derv.

As has already been pointed out this is getting way off topic.

charybdis

Wicknight wrote: »

Expensive is a guide. By expensive I mean better optics. The Canon 50mm f/1.8, which I own and recommended derv buy, is not what I would consider a starter lens since it is a prime. By starter lens I mean the cheap zoom lenses you get with Canon DSLRs basic body and lens packs.

My point wasn't so much that prime lenses are usually optically excellent (although it's true) but that the degree to which any photographer - but particularly a beginner - can produce good images will almost certainly not be limited by the optical performance of their lens in terms of sharpness or otherwise. I was criticising the notion that you could buy your way into sharp photographs; in practice sharpness depends upon many factors, most of which would override lens quality in terms of limiting sharpness for a beginner.

Wicknight wrote: »

As has already been pointed out this is getting way off topic.

Well, we already have a thread for this question, so we might as well discuss something else here.

OP, you should go read the sticky first, but you could probably get a second hand Nikon DSLR for around 300 Euro and a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 lens new for around 200 Euro. If you really want to push the boat out and buy all new stuff, you can get a Nikon D3000 for 410 Euro and a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 lens for 215 Euro on Amazon, totalling 625 Euro. This would mean you've a current-generation DSLR, a kit zoom lens, and an optically excellent fast normal prime; this is essentially all anyone would need for 90%+ of photography (except possibly some more esoteric pursuits like sports & wildlife, although to do them well you'd need a lot more expensive equipment). Use the kit lens when you're learning the basics of how to operate the camera, then switch to the 35mm prime and don't look back. This is just one option, you can buy Canon, Nikon, Pentax, whatever (I picked Nikon because they have a cheap & fast normal APS-C prime). Cameras differ more between price brackets than they do between brands. Get something. Learn to use it. Don't worry about the quality of your equipment. Only when you're getting most of what you think you can get out of it and you actually know exactly what to buy to improve your images should you upgrade.