Which Camera? **Please read OP first**

JohnBoy26

CelticRambler wrote: »

The best advice I've heard (from a pro photographer) for those moving into DSLR but without any clear idea of what they want to do is buy a decent, cheap body and keep the "few hundred extra" for lenses. Why? Because the body will need to be replaced, sooner or later, either because it's knackered/dropped/stolen/obsolete/whatever OR because you finally decide what you really need and trade up. Lenses, though, should last forever, and the right lens can make a far bigger difference to a photo than a few extra megapixels.

Very true but if you don't want to spend too much on a body then get a refurbished or used d7100 for around the same money as the entry level offerings.

Mike Litoris

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

I wouldn't say it is tbh(well apart from the iphone bit that is).

Apart from the "obvious" more expensive, class above Nikon being a better camera, getting told the 750d is like an iPhone compared to the D7200 is bullshít.

bren2002

Mister Jingles wrote: »

https://m.argos.ie/static/Product/partNumber/6530378/c_1/1%7Ccategory_root%7CPhotography%7C14419436/c_2/3%7C19780865%7CDigital+cameras%7C14419441/c_3/4%7Ccat_14419441%7CDigital+SLR+cameras%7C14419500.htm


I could probably up my budget for the above. Would it be a decent buy for basic stuff and messing about ?

Yes

Signpost

Following on from my last thread I used the link given and found this camera - https://www.eglobalcentral.eu/canon-eos-70d-twin-kit-with-18-55mm-is-stm-and-75-300mm-iii-lens-digital-slr-camera-black.html - All that bothers me is it seems too good a price for the camera with the two lenses? Wouldn't mind getting a wide angle lens too but does whats there seem like a good deal for an mid range camera for someone only getting into DSLR?

JohnBoy26

Signpost wrote: »

Following on from my last thread I used the link given and found this camera - https://www.eglobalcentral.eu/canon-eos-70d-twin-kit-with-18-55mm-is-stm-and-75-300mm-iii-lens-digital-slr-camera-black.html - All that bothers me is it seems too good a price for the camera with the two lenses? Wouldn't mind getting a wide angle lens too but does whats there seem like a good deal for an mid range camera for someone only getting into DSLR?

Tbh that is an old camera so the price isn't too far off. There is an 80D out now. If it doesn't have to be canon a nikon d7100/d7200 would be better. There is a much better sensor in both compared to the canon.

BreadnBuddha

Signpost wrote: »

Following on from my last thread I used the link given and found this camera - https://www.eglobalcentral.eu/canon-eos-70d-twin-kit-with-18-55mm-is-stm-and-75-300mm-iii-lens-digital-slr-camera-black.html - All that bothers me is it seems too good a price for the camera with the two lenses? Wouldn't mind getting a wide angle lens too but does whats there seem like a good deal for an mid range camera for someone only getting into DSLR?

That's the old version of the 70D, so now heading for 4 years since launch date.

The basic kit lens (18-55mm) is alright but I wouldn't be chasing after that 75-300, seeing as it's not an IS (Image Stabilized) version.

For the same money, this is a better deal:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Neu-Canon-EOS-70D-Digital-Camera-18-55mm-IS-STM-55-250-IS-STM-White-Box-/112029242667?hash=item1a1576952b:g:kzEAAOSw3YNXYl2B

BreadnBuddha

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Tbh that is an old camera so the price isn't too far off. There is an 80D out now. If it doesn't have to be canon a nikon d7100/d7200 would be better. There is a much better sensor in both compared to the canon.

I'm with JohnBoy26 also. The Nikon D7200 is a better camera, all told. Larger sensor, higher MP count, higher ISO, more AF points, better AF, larger and higher resolution display, 100% FOV optical viewfinder, Built in NFC (both have wifi), a headphone port for video work, dual memory card slots, lighter....

If you're set on a kit with two lenses (I wouldn't....), this is a resonable deal:

https://www.eglobalcentral.eu/nikon-d7200-twin-kit-with-af-p-18-55mm-and-70-300mm-vr-lens-digital-slr-cameras.html

This is what I'd spend my money on:

https://www.eglobalcentral.eu/nikon-d7200-kit-af-s-18-140mm-vr-lens-digital-slr-cameras-en.html

It's a hundred quid more than that Canon kit, but it's a much better piece of kit, IMHO.

Signpost

Thanks a million for the detailed replies BreadnBuddha & JohnBoy26, very appreciated!

Just to show my slight ignorance at being a complete novice in relation to lenses (for now, it will change!) but would the 18-140 be a good enough lens to do portrait & landscape? Only be likes of taking picture of relatives at a wedding etc or scenic pics on holidays, nothing too advanced? Price difference is nothing so would love to get the right camera up front!

Thanks

CelticRambler

To answer that, why don't you have a look at the pictures in the Random Photos thread(s), and click on the ones that match the styles you have in mind. Most of them have info on the camera and lens used, which will give you an idea of what's possible - bearing in mind that some of the photos will have been cropped and/or tuned out of the camera.

BreadnBuddha

Signpost wrote: »

Thanks a million for the detailed replies BreadnBuddha & JohnBoy26, very appreciated!

Just to show my slight ignorance at being a complete novice in relation to lenses (for now, it will change!) but would the 18-140 be a good enough lens to do portrait & landscape? Only be likes of taking picture of relatives at a wedding etc or scenic pics on holidays, nothing too advanced? Price difference is nothing so would love to get the right camera up front!

Thanks

The 18-140 will do all of those things very well. There's a lot to be said for having a single lens that lets you just pick it up and make your art. I have the earlier 18-105mm version and it's what I use most often for family/holiday pictures, even with a lot of much more expensive primes and zooms to choose from. That little bit of extra reach to 140mm is worth the minor increased price.

There's something misleading that I've read in a few places and seen some very well known youtubers spreading around, and that's how Canon is a cheaper lens system to get into. Now that may indeed be true, if you only ever look at the lower cost lenses and in particular at things like a 50mm 1.8 prime. Not at all the case once you move up into faster, higher build quality lenses. The truth of the matter is that you can find Nikon lenses for just the same price if you look around a bit, and with the D7200, you can put almost ANY Nikon lens (excluding the Nikon 1 compacts and a few super expensive, super specific use types) made in the last 50 years on it and it will work. Perfectly. Which means eBay, DoneDeal, Adverts and a host of other sources will allow you add GREAT lenses very affordably to a Nikon system, with little to no worries about compatibility.

Before you buy, go and have a closer look at both models in a shop. Do your homework on features and have a good think about what's important to you. Then, and only then, go and decide which body feels better in your hands and makes more sense to you. I used to work in the Camera Exchange, about 15 years ago now, where Padraig bet it into me that no two customers would ever make the same choice between different manufacturers for the same reasons. He's right. Canon have some incredible cameras and some lame ducks, as do Nikon. For me, a Nikon works the way I expect an SLR body to work. I can't get the same feeling with a Canon and that really IS down to personal preference.

So figure out what yours is, then buy the camera you'll be happy with, knowing there's no need to second guess your decision later.

Signpost

Done a favour for a lad & in lue of me refusing money he's trying to give me a mark II Canon 5D with a 80-200 lens. Very little done as he has other cameras he uses. Would this be a good camera to use or should I just buy a new one?

glic83

Signpost wrote: »

Done a favour for a lad & in lue of me refusing money he's trying to give me a mark II Canon 5D with a 80-200 lens. Very little done as he has other cameras he uses. Would this be a good camera to use or should I just buy a new one?

Excellent camera to start out with, it's Full Frame, just pick up another lens like a nifty 50 and you will be sorted.

BreadnBuddha

Signpost wrote: »

Done a favour for a lad & in lue of me refusing money he's trying to give me a mark II Canon 5D with a 80-200 lens. Very little done as he has other cameras he uses. Would this be a good camera to use or should I just buy a new one?

I'd pull his arm off, I'd take it so fast....

Be great as a trade-in against a D7200.

Well, I had to say it, being a Nikon fan myself.

JohnBoy26

Signpost wrote: »

Done a favour for a lad & in lue of me refusing money he's trying to give me a mark II Canon 5D with a 80-200 lens. Very little done as he has other cameras he uses. Would this be a good camera to use or should I just buy a new one?

A new equivalent camera will be very expensive. I'd happily take that camera if I were you. As another poster said It's got a full frame sensor so it's capable of taking excellent photos when combined with the right lens

johnmcdnl

Currently using a Canon 1100D for 3/4 years at this stage with the following lens, in the order I mostly use them
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (NO IS)
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM lens
Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8
Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6


I've been feeling the itch to upgrade the body for a while. The 1100D has served me well, but just want to start looking to upgrade and have a kit that should serve me as well for the forseeable future.

I would like something that is in the relative scheme of things, portable, i.e. stuff that can fit into a backpack for a Ryanair flight, something that can be carried on a hike.

My initial thoughts of sticking with the cropped sensors (7D Mark II) so I could continue to use my current lens, but now seriously contemplating moving full frame with a 6D
I did the maths out and straight of the bat - sure it's cheaper to stick with cropped sensors because I don't need to buy an EF lens with the body, but with the set of lens I'm roughly planning on moving to on crop, in the short term - it's only roughly 20% more expensive, and by the time I fill out the shelf - will end up costing the same.
I know full well that the 7D Mark II is overkill, espeically considering I don't have a huge amount of interest in shooting sports or anything that needs it's 65 AutoFocus points.



Mostly I'm interested in landscape, cityscape, and have always wanted to get into milky way photography. This is really where the 1100D is killing me - just can't handle ISO 400+ without serious amounts of noise being introduced - have got some decent shots, but always feel like I could do so much better if I wasn't always living on the edge of a noisy pixelated mess, that takes ages to process to clean up.


1100D + Kit 17-55mm outside Drogheda


1100D + 50mm in light polluted south Dublin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9b9ZKedbkk

1100D + 50mm in with decent skies in Kildare


(yes I do try to take other photos of the night sky that I'm not in but just found these 2 examples first of what I've managed to get with my current gear) The Samyang 24mm 1.4 that I'm planning on getting is rated extremely highly for this type of nightime photography, so I'm planning on getting this lens regardless. Another reason why I'm leaning towards full frame though is that using 24mm on a crop body, as I've learned isn't ideal for night time landscapes. It's just not wide enough. I know you can do panormaic stitches to get around it, but it's additional post processing that is time consuming.


What's also important to take into consideration is what I don't have much interest in - I've never had any interest in portraits, very little in sports, and not much if any in ultra wide angle stuff that distorts perspective, if the edge of something is straight in real life, I want the photo to have a straight edge. No fish eye stuff for me in other words.

But really in general, I want something that does landscape + cityscapes well primarily, with the occasional photo of myself standing in front of the Eifel tower or the likes being something that wouldn't go astray.


I went through an exercise last night of going through the Random Pics threads hear and picked out photos I liked and came up with the following EXIF data on photos I like so the more and more I think about it the full frame option especially having done the sums and realised the price jump won't quite be what I was expecting.





TLDR
So I guess,
Should I just go for it - and go for a 6D -> and if so does the lens path I've planned out make sense or is there better alternatives out there.

What other alternatives in the Canon Crop Sensor land should I look into, as a worthy upgrade on the 1100D. I really don't want a minor upgrade here, because I'll only end up going back later and upgrading again. Want to do it right the first time.
I do know that the 7D is targetted at the sports/bird shooters so it's hard to actually find a wide selection of shots that I'm more interested in with this body, Flickr groups around the 7D MkII are pages and pages of bird shots, with occasional other shots intertwined. However I'm sure it's quite a capabale body in any regards, even if I never take full advantage of it's focussing systems. But if there's a Canon crop body, that has very high performance, that costs less could be tempted.

Nikon -- a magic world that I know very little about - simply because I've been using Canon to date - I've never researched much over the years, and don't know where to even begin.

Have no problem going second hand either, where I can snatch a bargain, but for starting point just working with new prices I got of eglobal.

JohnBoy26

A canon 7d or 7dII won't be the upgrade you had hoped for if you intend to do night photography. Infact id say the difference in noise between your 1100d and the newer canon cropped frame sensors would be minimal.

Canon make their own in house sensors and haven't really improved them much over the years.

lochdara

I have just posted the same question in a new thread.. Same interests photography wise also. Boards search didnt link me to this.

JohnBoy26

lochdara wrote: »

I have just posted the same question in a new thread.. Same interests photography wise also. Boards search didnt link me to this.

There is far better cameras out there for landscapes and night photography. The 7dmkii is more suited for fast action and sports.

CelticRambler

An observation: all but one of the photos you've picked out have a focal length of 50mm or less. Is there any point in adding a 70-200mm to your collection? You've already got the Tamron 70-300mm; would that not be sufficient for the odd time you'll want a picture that deviates from the type of shot you obviously prefer?

BreadnBuddha

If you're thinking of effectively changing to a full frame system with landscapes and astrophotography in mind, would you consider going for something with more than 20 megapixels, for similar money?

An excellent condition Nikon D800 will give you 36MP for around 11-1200 euro. The same Samyang lens is available in a Nikon mount. I've nothing against Canon, nor against a 20MP body, as I've only recently picked up a D500 myself. I just think it's a bad idea to look to make a 'big upgrade' for astro/landscapes and then select a 20MP body in full frame format. That's not going to give the detail in resolution I think you're hoping for in the upgrade.

Just a thought.

johnmcdnl

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

A canon 7d or 7dII won't be the upgrade you had hoped for if you intend to do night photography. Infact id say the difference in noise between your 1100d and the newer canon cropped frame sensors would be minimal.

Canon make their own in house sensors and haven't really improved them much over the years.

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

There is far better cameras out there for landscapes and night photography. The 7dmkii is more suited for fast action and sports.

Yup the more I look the more I realise the 7Ds aren't for me, paying over the odds for features I more than likely won't ever use. The last time I tried a fast photo burst was to see was a new Class 10 SD card fast than my older Class 4 card :pac: As for the focusing - 90% of the shots I take don't move
But still open to some suggestions as to where I could look in regards to crop sensors.
Interesting to note though that the noise improvements even in the upper end of the crop sensor bodies isn't so much that I'd have expected, especially considering that the 1100d is fairly close to the bottom of the barrel (or so I'd thought)

CelticRambler wrote: »

An observation: all but one of the photos you've picked out have a focal length of 50mm or less. Is there any point in adding a 70-200mm to your collection? You've already got the Tamron 70-300mm; would that not be sufficient for the odd time you'll want a picture that deviates from the type of shot you obviously prefer?

The longer term stuff is highly unlikely to be bought in the next 12 months, and it would be more a case of if I ever get the urge to start shooting at those focal lengths, that'd probably be the lens I'd choose. Sure prices change over time but the comparison was firstly an exercise for myself as I'd initially thought that going full frame == breaking the bank, staying crop so I can keep using the stuff I have now == cheap. As I look, maybe not so true.

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

If you're thinking of effectively changing to a full frame system with landscapes and astrophotography in mind, would you consider going for something with more than 20 megapixels, for similar money?

An excellent condition Nikon D800 will give you 36MP for around 11-1200 euro. The same Samyang lens is available in a Nikon mount. I've nothing against Canon, nor against a 20MP body, as I've only recently picked up a D500 myself. I just think it's a bad idea to look to make a 'big upgrade' for astro/landscapes and then select a 20MP body in full frame format. That's not going to give the detail in resolution I think you're hoping for in the upgrade.

Just a thought.

I've wouldn't have any huge objections to switching to Nikon, the 6D constantly comes up when it comes to nighttime photography so I'm just aware of it being well regarded especially with low light performance.

But I'm certainly open to the option - but I'd also need a suggestion for a kit of lens here too so I can see what the upgrade path for me in the coming years is to have a full bag.

Quite simply, this is my starting point for researching, and trying to figure out where to go from where I am right now. I haven't invested enough in Canon gear to care about switching right now if that makes sense when it comes to price/performance/size

JohnBoy26

johnmcdnl wrote: »

Yup the more I look the more I realise the 7Ds aren't for me, paying over the odds for features I more than likely won't ever use. The last time I tried a fast photo burst was to see was a new Class 10 SD card fast than my older Class 4 card :pac: As for the focusing - 90% of the shots I take don't move
But still open to some suggestions as to where I could look in regards to crop sensors.
Interesting to note though that the noise improvements even in the upper end of the crop sensor bodies isn't so much that I'd have expected, especially considering that the 1100d is fairly close to the bottom of the barrel (or so I'd thought)



The longer term stuff is highly unlikely to be bought in the next 12 months, and it would be more a case of if I ever get the urge to start shooting at those focal lengths, that'd probably be the lens I'd choose. Sure prices change over time but the comparison was firstly an exercise for myself as I'd initially thought that going full frame == breaking the bank, staying crop so I can keep using the stuff I have now == cheap. As I look, maybe not so true.



I've wouldn't have any huge objections to switching to Nikon, the 6D constantly comes up when it comes to nighttime photography so I'm just aware of it being well regarded especially with low light performance.

But I'm certainly open to the option - but I'd also need a suggestion for a kit of lens here too so I can see what the upgrade path for me in the coming years is to have a full bag.

Quite simply, this is my starting point for researching, and trying to figure out where to go from where I am right now. I haven't invested enough in Canon gear to care about switching right now if that makes sense when it comes to price/performance/size

Nikon cropped sensor cameras would be a good bit better than canon when it comes to noise, dynamic range and over all image quality.

This is mainly due to them using sensors from the likes of sony and toshiba. Sony are the leaders when it comes to image sensors, their sensors are light years ahead of canons own sensors imo.

A cropped sensor will still be no match for a ff camera in low light. A nikon d750 is a great ff camera where price/performance ratio is concerned. Bear in mind though that ff lenses, especially pro ff lenses are extremely expensive.

BreadnBuddha

johnmcdnl wrote: »

Yup the more I look the more I realise the 7Ds aren't for me, paying over the odds for features I more than likely won't ever use. The last time I tried a fast photo burst was to see was a new Class 10 SD card fast than my older Class 4 card :pac: As for the focusing - 90% of the shots I take don't move
But still open to some suggestions as to where I could look in regards to crop sensors.
Interesting to note though that the noise improvements even in the upper end of the crop sensor bodies isn't so much that I'd have expected, especially considering that the 1100d is fairly close to the bottom of the barrel (or so I'd thought)



The longer term stuff is highly unlikely to be bought in the next 12 months, and it would be more a case of if I ever get the urge to start shooting at those focal lengths, that'd probably be the lens I'd choose. Sure prices change over time but the comparison was firstly an exercise for myself as I'd initially thought that going full frame == breaking the bank, staying crop so I can keep using the stuff I have now == cheap. As I look, maybe not so true.



I've wouldn't have any huge objections to switching to Nikon, the 6D constantly comes up when it comes to nighttime photography so I'm just aware of it being well regarded especially with low light performance.

But I'm certainly open to the option - but I'd also need a suggestion for a kit of lens here too so I can see what the upgrade path for me in the coming years is to have a full bag.

Quite simply, this is my starting point for researching, and trying to figure out where to go from where I am right now. I haven't invested enough in Canon gear to care about switching right now if that makes sense when it comes to price/performance/size

I'd go for a D800 with a Nikkor 17-35 F2.8 ED IF. Buy used but excellent condition and you'll have both for around 1700. That's about 3750 quids worth when they were new. A 50mm 1.8G or D lens will set you back between 70-200 euro depending on where you buy and whether new or used. If the 17-35 2.8 is too much of a stretch, there are plenty of other options to look at, but that's the one that should beat the 17-40mm Canon F4 at least on paper, for about 100 euro more invested and for most situations, it'll probably do what you want instead of dropping 600 notes on the Samyang.

I can't add much on the Canon recommendations as I don't know their kit first hand.

The_Mask

Hi I'm heading to Iceland in two weeks & I am thinking of picking up a cheapish reliable DSLR camera beginners set to capture the Northern Lights. I have always been interested in photography & wish to continue my interest when I return. I would appreciate if any of my fellow boardies could recommend a make or model or any help in pointing me in the right direction. Cheers guys

AndersLimpar

The_Mask wrote: »

Hi I'm heading to Iceland in two weeks & I am thinking of picking up a cheapish reliable DSLR camera beginners set to capture the Northern Lights. I have always been interested in photography & wish to continue my interest when I return. I would appreciate if any of my fellow boardies could recommend a make or model or any help in pointing me in the right direction. Cheers guys

Any of the Canon or Nikon entry level models with a kit lens will be perfect. €500 should get you going.

There are loads of other makes but canon and Nikon have the most second hand lenses etc available so makes sense to start with them.

Enjoy the trip

Tiriel

The_Mask wrote: »

Hi I'm heading to Iceland in two weeks & I am thinking of picking up a cheapish reliable DSLR camera beginners set to capture the Northern Lights. I have always been interested in photography & wish to continue my interest when I return. I would appreciate if any of my fellow boardies could recommend a make or model or any help in pointing me in the right direction. Cheers guys

I agree with the previous response, choose Nikon or Canon kit, wide angle lens for the landscape in Iceland. Only thing I'd flag is that you don't have much time to get used to it & learn.. so get it as quickly as you can & get on YouTube watching tutorials! Enjoy!

Bacchus

Tiriel wrote: »

I agree with the previous response, choose Nikon or Canon kit, wide angle lens for the landscape in Iceland. Only thing I'd flag is that you don't have much time to get used to it & learn.. so get it as quickly as you can & get on YouTube watching tutorials! Enjoy!

Yeah, I'd agree with this regarding the time. Don't go buying a DSLR and expect to come back with stunning photos in 2 weeks time. Get the camera ASAP, get on to the tutorials and more importantly spend your evenings practicing shooting in low light. You should also probably consider getting a tripod... I assume it will be relatively dark when you are shooting so with an entry level camera you're going to get significant shake otherwise. Heck, even with high end cameras it might be a problem if you need to have a long exposure to capture the northern lights properly (sorry, I'm not much of a night time sky shooter).

magicbastarder

one issue i could foresee is battery life - my wife was in iceland a year ago and the temperatures were low enough to cause battery problems after three shots; i.e. less time than a single long exposure shot would take of the lights, i guess. something to research, if there is actually data available on it.

CelticRambler

Re winter/colder-than-Ireland photography, here's an article that sums up the challenges and ways of dealing with them: http://www.adorama.com/alc/0008151/article/Winter-photography-tips

pixbyjohn

Aurora at Seafront, Reykjavik, Iceland. October 2015 by Pixbyjohn, on Flickr

F2.8 24mm 1.6 seconds ISO1250
17-35mm lens Nikon D810
Taken in October 2015