Advice/Questions on buying Cameras & Accessories. **Please read OP first**

magicbastarder

i'd ask conns for a price with the body and 35mm f1.8; argos would be less likely to entertain such a request, i suspect.

that depends on what use you want to put the camera to, of course...

SpongeBob2000

Hi

I'm looking for a nice Tripod for travel, my camera is Nikon D700, any nice suggetion and where or what webiste we can get it for cheapper price.

Thank

PaddyofNine

I'd be using it for a bit of everything over the next twelve months or so, from landscape to sports. Just going to join a group and get clicking!

dirtyghettokid

the 18-55 would be best for landscapes. can you get a 18-135mm ? that would be best for a starting lens that would cover alot of focal lengths

hot to trot

I have just discovered this photography board and hope to get to know you all soon.

I know its everybodys pet hate...which camera etc... but need some guidance and have no shops nearby to discuss . sorry to post so long.

I have loved photography for years. Have nikon 801's and used them extensively , winning a few competitions with entries along the way. I bought an underwater housing and went into underwater stuff just imediately before the digital revolution. After forking out K's I couldnt afford to upgrade to digital SLR at the time. Now I want to start again with landstuff and get back to being active with it again.

I have a good range of nikon lenses already so reluctant to change away from Nikon. I have read numerous reviews etc but am not sure if the D3000/D3100 is very basic ( usually told its entry level dslr) or should I aim more for a 5100? I think the D700 is out of my range. Cant see myself doing much video. Realistically will probably use a mix of manual and some semi automatic programmes. would like to try RAW manipulation in time too.
Any guidance would be fab.

Thanks

jen_23

After thinking of switching to Canon/Nikon I chickened out and am getting a new Pentax K5 instead. Atleast I have all the lenses!! lol
Can't wait for it to arrive now )

CabanSail

hot to trot wrote: »

I have just discovered this photography board and hope to get to know you all soon.

I know its everybodys pet hate...which camera etc... but need some guidance and have no shops nearby to discuss . sorry to post so long.

I have loved photography for years. Have nikon 801's and used them extensively , winning a few competitions with entries along the way. I bought an underwater housing and went into underwater stuff just imediately before the digital revolution. After forking out K's I couldnt afford to upgrade to digital SLR at the time. Now I want to start again with landstuff and get back to being active with it again.

I have a good range of nikon lenses already so reluctant to change away from Nikon. I have read numerous reviews etc but am not sure if the D3000/D3100 is very basic ( usually told its entry level dslr) or should I aim more for a 5100? I think the D700 is out of my range. Cant see myself doing much video. Realistically will probably use a mix of manual and some semi automatic programmes. would like to try RAW manipulation in time too.
Any guidance would be fab.

Thanks

Having a selection of Nikon glass means it would be wise to remain with that system. I had an 801 too and found my first DSLR body to be quite intuitive from to use.

As to which body to choose depends on the glass you have. If your a lens has an internal AF motor then any of the bodies will be fine. You just need to work out which features you want/need in your budget. If the lenses rely on the AF motor in the body then they can still be mounted on the entry level bodies but you will have to manually focus or else buy a body with the motor. I know the D300 is fine and I think the D7000 and D90 also have the AF motor.

There are Plenty here who are shooting film. So you could just dust off the 801 and get the negs scanned and be in with the elite group. ;-)

BigDaddyCan

bought a nifty fifty today! DACENT YOKE!

Heebie

Let us know what you think of it. You're not the only Pentax shooter on here. I've got a K20D and a K10D for a backup body.

jen_23 wrote: »

After thinking of switching to Canon/Nikon I chickened out and am getting a new Pentax K5 instead. Atleast I have all the lenses!! lol
Can't wait for it to arrive now )

BigDaddyCan

BigDaddyCan wrote: »

bought a nifty fifty today! DACENT YOKE!

recommend a good place to get one at a decent price?

marko93

PaddyofNine wrote: »

Long-time lurker here - after messing with a borrowed DSLR for a few months I think it's time I bought my own. Been looking at a few different models, and was wondering what you thought of the Nikon D3100? Gotten good reviews here and elsewhere. I'd be using it for general stuff, nothing too specialised.

I'm mainly asking if you think the following are decent deals, or should I shop elsewhere?

I can get it with the standard 18-55 VR lens for €559 from Argos, or €579 from Conn's. The latter is more expensive, but they say the training course offer is still available (although other sites seem to suggest it's ended, I'll have to ring them tomorrow).

Conn's also offer it with the above lens and a AF-S 55-200 lens for €794, and I was wondering if you think this is a good deal or no? Or should I just buy it with the kit lens, and shop for a second lens elsewhere? (I'd definitely be looking to pick up a secondhand nifty fifty anyways).

So, all opinions and advice welcome.

EDITED: to add, I see I can get the standard kit for €456 from Amazon... Amazon are excellent for other stuff, but is buying a camera from them a good or bad idea?

I think it's called Berrminghams or something along the lines, along the quays has the D3100 for under 500 man, 469ish i think..

mayo.mick

Short while lurker, first time poster in here so go easy on me guys:D
After reading the good reviews here i finally decided to take the plunge and have upgraded my compact digital to the nikon d3100. It came with the standard 18-55mm nikkor vr lens. What would you guys recomend for taking photo's at football matchs/rallies? Was in harvey norman this morning and was looking at a nikkor 50-300 vr lens, it was priced @ €369:eek: Decided i'd ask for advice here first.
Thanks,
mayomick.

mayo.mick

mayo.mick wrote: »

Short while lurker, first time poster in here so go easy on me guys:D
After reading the good reviews here i finally decided to take the plunge and have upgraded my compact digital to the nikon d3100. It came with the standard 18-55mm nikkor vr lens. What would you guys recomend for taking photo's at football matchs/rallies? Was in harvey norman this morning and was looking at a nikkor 50-300 vr lens, it was priced @ €369:eek: Decided i'd ask for advice here first.
Thanks,
mayomick.

good lens for sports is going to cost you. you need a relatively low f number lens and that in long telephoto would could you 1k+. the fps on the 3100 would not be terribly fast for fast moving sports in any case. go read reviews on different lens and buy the lowest f number one that you can afford.

sarah_mol

Hi all,

I have a canon 450d. Im looking to buy my first wide angle lens and am struggling with the decision. Photography is just a hobby for me, but I spend most of my free time taking pictures. Im looking for a good quality, not very expensive(if possible) canon brand lens, so if anyone has some advise...Im all ears.

Ive been checkin out the 10-22, but bit on the dear side. Is €600+ more or less what I should expect to pay for a good lens?

....sigma 10-22?!

steve_

What would you recommend as my first entry level DSL? I am currently deciding between the Nikon d3100 or the Canon 550d

sarah_mol

steve_ wrote: »

What would you recommend as my first entry level DSL? I am currently deciding between the Nikon d3100 or the Canon 550d

Hi Steve,
I'm no expert, but as you can read above I chose a Canon as my first and absolutely love it. Cant fault it at all!

steve_

steve_ wrote: »

What would you recommend as my first entry level DSL? I am currently deciding between the Nikon d3100 or the Canon 550d

550d probably a bit of a step up from the 3100. The nikon 5100 would be more comparable to the 550d / 600d. All good enough cameras though. The main point for consideration is where you might take your dslr photography to. If you want a good entry level camera 3100 would be fine. If you really want to get serious after that you'd probably want to buy a camera a level or 2 or up in the Nikon / Canon lineup - (D7000, 60d or even 7d) so to be honest 3100 would be fine to start with. The 5100 or 550d / 600d have a few extra things - most obvious of which is swivel screen but as I said if you get really into it you'd probably want to bypass this level of hardware so starting with 3100 is fine.

milkjunkie90

Im looking to invest in a decent tripod. My budget is less than 150euro. I will be doing a lot of travelling so something compact and light would be great. I do mean a proper tripod tho, not a gorillapod... Any help? Thanks!:D

steve_

milkjunkie90 wrote: »

Im looking to invest in a decent tripod. My budget is less than 150euro. I will be doing a lot of travelling so something compact and light would be great. I do mean a proper tripod tho, not a gorillapod... Any help? Thanks!:D

Seen a few manfrotto tripods on adverts from what iv heard they are quite good

milkjunkie90

milkjunkie90 wrote: »

Im looking to invest in a decent tripod. My budget is less than 150euro. I will be doing a lot of travelling so something compact and light would be great. I do mean a proper tripod tho, not a gorillapod... Any help? Thanks!:D

this weighs 1.8kg. it's dirt cheap but I actually find it quite good and decently built. comes with comfortable bag. has counterweight hook for windy situations. has 2 spirit levels. will hold up to 2kg of equipment.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hama-00004161-Star-61-Tripod/dp/B0000WXD0W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314717894&sr=8-1

twirlagig

Hi All,

Not very knowledgeable on SLR and lens etc... Just have a question regarding these two and would value any honest opinions

Really want to get in stuck into macro photography - I love it! I would look at it for hours! Ok, my question is this - is there a lot of difference between these two?

http://www.argos.ie/static/Product/partNumber/5692891/c_1/1|category_root|Photography|14419436/c_2/3|cat_19780865|Camera+lenses|25367818.htm

and

http://www.argos.ie/static/Product/partNumber/5694208/Trail/searchtext%3ESIGMA.htm

Is it worth giving out the extra 100 quid for the Canon one? Or is there very little difference? Or should I be aiming for something else altogether? Only venturing in to this, so would appreciate what ye think/advise? Thanks in advance

hbr

twirlagig wrote: »

Hi All,

Not very knowledgeable on SLR and lens etc... Just have a question regarding these two and would value any honest opinions

Really want to get in stuck into macro photography - I love it! I would look at it for hours! Ok, my question is this - is there a lot of difference between these two?

The first thing you should be aware of is that neither lens is a true 1:1 macro lens.

I have both lenses. The Canon 50mm f/2.5 and the APO version of the Sigma.
The Canon is one of my favourite lenses. It is one of the sharpest 50mm Canon
lenses. It makes a really great general purpose 50mm prime lens. It is a pretty
good close-up lens, but it won't give you the kind of magnification you can get
with a 1:1 macro lens like the more expensive 100mm macro lenses from Canon.

Close up shot here:
http://pix.ie/corkpix/1709910/in/album/372959

Something a bit bigger:
http://pix.ie/corkpix/1745439
http://pix.ie/corkpix/1708571

Even bigger:
http://pix.ie/corkpix/2484227/in/album/371364
Have a look at the full size version of this one.

The Sigma is quite good as a long zoom lens. It wouldn't be my first choice
as a macro lens. I haven't many close-up shots with this lens.
http://pix.ie/corkpix/1626335/in/album/371914

I can heartily recommend the Canon as a general purpose 50mm prime.
You should be able to pick up a used one for a lot less than the Argos
price. These are old-style lenses of all metal construction. A used one
will be just as good as a new one.

If you will be shooting very small subjects, a 1:1 macro lens might be
a better choice. There are a few good ones available. The Tokina 100mm f/2.8
is probably the best bang for your buck. The Canon and Sigma
macro lenses are quite expensive, but you might pick up a used one if you
shop around. I bought a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 on adverts.ie just a few weeks
ago.

katiemaloe

That Sigma lens isnt actually a macro lens. Its a zoom lens with a macro switch that you can use when its zoomed from 200-300mm. The canon would be far better for lots of reasons: faster focussing, wider apeture (more light getting through the lens) and always nice to get the proper branded gear for your camera. And it's an actual macro lens!

Go to a proper camera shop rather than argos. At least then you can get good advice, help and after sales.

Kintarō Hattori

I had the Sigma and while it's a fine value zoom lens it just doesn't cut the mustard for macro shots I'm afraid. It doesn't give you the detail you'd want. Also trying to hold the camera steady enough to take a decent shot at the 200-300mm range can be quite tricky when you realize how slow the Sigma is.

macfhinn

Good camera for starting off? Have a Max of €500 to spend

Colin4May

SpongeBob2000 wrote: »

Hi

I'm looking for a nice Tripod for travel, my camera is Nikon D700, any nice suggetion and where or what webiste we can get it for cheapper price.

Thank

I use an adapted, lightweight microphone stand for my Lumix G3. Pain though when i want to take pictures of me while singing!!

dinneenp

Heebie wrote: »

Let us know what you think of it. You're not the only Pentax shooter on here. I've got a K20D and a K10D for a backup body.

I'm a Pentax user as well. I upgraded from a K-X to a K-7 and love it (expect for the worse high ISO quality). I find the top lcd screen great and the extra buttons too.
I have a Sigma 30mm f1.4, Tamron 18-50 f2.8 and a Sigma 70-200 f2.8.

I'm hoping to get some shots of the Iron Man Triathlon in Galway this weekend.

Woolygloves

Can I ask if there's a worthwhile difference between good point and shoot and a bridge camera in the areas of image quality, speed of taking pics etc?

Or do people mostly move on to bridge cameras coz they want the fun of adjusting settings?

I am a beginner who likes to set up a good shot and mostly takes pics of my kids in low inside light and better outside light. I want some zoom. I don't have time to adjust controls too much but want great quality images that I can print in larger sizes sometimes. I do have PhotoShop.

So is it worth getting a bridge like a Panasonic fz45 or a lx3 (is that even considered a bridge? Sorry I'm only learning this) or will I do as well with a good p+s? I'm concerned low light pics will be bad from a p+s.

Thanks vv much

5uspect

Woolygloves wrote: »

Can I ask if there's a worthwhile difference between good point and shoot and a bridge camera in the areas of image quality, speed of taking pics etc?

Or do people mostly move on to bridge cameras coz they want the fun of adjusting settings?

I am a beginner who likes to set up a good shot and mostly takes pics of my kids in low inside light and better outside light. I want some zoom. I don't have time to adjust controls too much but want great quality images that I can print in larger sizes sometimes. I do have PhotoShop.

So is it worth getting a bridge like a Panasonic fz45 or a lx3 (is that even considered a bridge? Sorry I'm only learning this) or will I do as well with a good p+s? I'm concerned low light pics will be bad from a p+s.

Thanks vv much

If you know what your doing "adjusting controls" is infinitely faster than waiting form some crappy P&S camera to even turn on. Why do you need a complex and expensive image editor for printing?

Bridge cameras typically have physically larger sensors which more light recorded per unit area. As a result the images have lower noise and look cleaner. Also their larger size means that the optics are less of a compromise and therefore for typically of better quality. Sharper images and faster apertures for low light. They can of course be used fully automatically.

You might consider an EVIL camera with interchangeable lens. Get a fast prime for low light and a zoom for everything else.

The best thing you can do is go to the shop and play with few cameras and get the one which feels most responsive/comfortable to you.

Woolygloves

Tx, I meant that I have PhotoShop to try and compensate for lack of sharpness and light etc in pictures from a p+s . From what you are saying though a bridge camera would have better image quality so I may go with that. Was looking at the Panasonic lumix fz45 if you have any comments on that.

Can I ask is it the size of the sensor that determins low light performance and will this be obvious from camera specs?

I'll check out the other one you mentioned.