Canon body only?

[JennyS]

I'm seriously needing a camera upgrade but can't afford to spend a small fortune at the moment......

At present I'm mainly taking close-ups of flowers. What I'm wondering is could I buy a Canon 20D or 40D body-only and still get good macro shots while I accumulate the pennies to eventually get additional lenses?
Help and advice much appreciated!

(Another factor - as I'm a woman with smallish hands is the Canon weight and control positioning etc woman-friendly as I've only used a compact Fuji before?)

[HowlinWolf]

Er, JennyS, what are you intending to use as a lens?

HW

[JennyS]

Er, JennyS, what are you intending to use as a lens?

well that pretty much sums up my total lack of technical knowledge......I thought what was advertised as 'body only' did have the ability to take photos...?

[big bill]

Depending on your budget Jenny there are plenty of good deals out there at the moment ,Canon 400d is great and you can pick uo twin lens kits for about £300 - £400 or you could go to the famous online auction site but its upto you and your budget the 400d is a good camera and very capable of macro and wildlife photography

[Gill Catton]

again depending on your budget, have you considered a Panasonic FZ50 (or FZ30 if you can still find one) They are considerably cheaper than a DSLR set up but give you way more flexibility than a point and shoot camera. You can't buy lots of lenses for it (though a little snap on macro lens can help) - but then you don't have to carry lots of lenses around! It's very comfortable in my hand and not too heaviy even to take on a long walk. Here are some of the pictures of flowers I have taken with it.










This last one was taken with the macro snap on lens too.

Hope this helps?

[HowlinWolf]

Originally Posted by JennyS

well that pretty much sums up my total lack of technical knowledge......I thought what was advertised as 'body only' did have the ability to take photos...?

Body only means just that: no lens. You will need to attach a lens before you can use it for photography. Cameras are sold as such if the photographer doesn't wish to have the lens(s) that come as part of a promotional kit, or they already have the lenses they intend to use.

HW

[zan]

yup, you'll need a lens to take photos with a DSLR

The easiest way to work out if you like the Canon cameras is to go into a shop and try them out. I'm also a girl with smallish hands, and own both the 400D and the 40D. They are both excellent, but the 40d feels better to me, despite being larger and heavier.

However, it depends how much you really want a DSLR. DSLRs (while they can be used in auto settings) require a greater basic knowledge of photography to get the most out of them, and while you can learn to use them as you go, you might find it more worth your while (and pennies) to get a bridge camera or advanced point and shoot as Gill says. Once you learn the basics on that sort of camera you can decide if it's worth upgrading to a full-on SLR.

zan

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by zan

yup, you'll need a lens to take photos with a DSLR

The easiest way to work out if you like the Canon cameras is to go into a shop and try them out. I'm also a girl with smallish hands, and own both the 400D and the 40D. They are both excellent, but the 40d feels better to me, despite being larger and heavier.

However, it depends how much you really want a DSLR. DSLRs (while they can be used in auto settings) require a greater basic knowledge of photography to get the most out of them, and while you can learn to use them as you go, you might find it more worth your while (and pennies) to get a bridge camera or advanced point and shoot as Gill says. Once you learn the basics on that sort of camera you can decide if it's worth upgrading to a full-on SLR.

zan

Indeed my panasonic is so good it has taken me ages to work out whether i want or even need to upgrade to a DSLR! - I think I will, but I'll never get rid of the Panasonic

[ollyk]

Is this shot the sort of thing you want?





I took this with a Nikon 8700 (about 4 years old) to get a shot like this on an SLR you are going to have to spend serious ££££. Obviously SLR's have other advantages but seriously they do not often do that without a dedicated macro lens.

btw not my best shot but I can't host outside images on this site some rather ridiculous rule.

[JennyS]

Body only means just that: no lens. You will need to attach a lens before you can use it for photography. Cameras are sold as such if the photographer doesn't wish to have the lens(s) that come as part of a promotional kit, or they already have the lenses they intend to use.

Thanks folks for clearing that one up - my confusion was caused by a seller on a well-known site advertising 'body only' and then going on about the photos he'd taken with said item (I do get fed-up of being so thick sometimes!)

Is this shot the sort of thing you want?

Well, not bug-eyes, but what I do need is something like the Forget-me-not shot below large enough to use as part of a digital slideshow......and to be able to see whether a plant has glandular or forked hairs etc on the stem or calyx.
At the moment I'm having to crop so hard to get to the usable pixels that my photos are ok for web-use but something 1200 x 1200 pixels (and often smaller) isn't going to cope on a large screen.