First time DSLR buyer - Help Please!

[FungiJus]

All,
Now, the last thing we need is another debate so I am reticent almost to post this, but I really need some advice as to some camera makes / models to start me on the road to my first DSLR.

I have had some recommendations for some fine looking bridge cameras but I feel that I would really like to take the leap and get a DSLR, albeit entry-level, or second hand, as I only have a budget of £500 max.

What I am looking for if possible is simply some suggestions as to what are or were good cameras for the budget. I can do the research around those models, handle a few and select one at that point.

There was some sound advice on a recent thread about choosing second hand and I believe Eeyore suggested some used camera retailers (I have tried for a good hour to find that thread again but can't...) but the point is that I am not opposed to buying a used machine / lenses if that's what it takes.

As I've not had an SLR before I have a lot of learning to do, but looking through the pages of recent posts I think I have compiled a list here of the salient points (I have probably forgotten some - please let me know if I have).

I will be mainly photographing fungi (and my kids, family etc), so have based the following requirements on those criteria.

Must haves

• Good low light performance (dare I say good high ISO performance)
• Live view fold out screen for when low to the ground
• Good macro function / lens availability
• 10 mp or thereabouts

Nice to haves

• IS of some sort (in lens or in body)
• Decent battery life
• HD video
• Spot metering (not sure how important this would be for fungi and/or kids?)

Don't mind if it doesn't have

• High burst rate
• In camera editing
• Silent operation

Hope you are able to help me finally decide on a camera - I must stop procrastinating .

Many thanks in advance,
Justin.

[Hobjob]

Does you 500 notes have to cover lenses as well?

If so you have little leeway - the general rule of thumb is that
you will need to spend at least twice the cost of the body on glass.
Good glass costs, but look around the Gallery and you will see lots
of cracking photos with Sigmas of all sorts.

On the whole kit lenses are not very good.

Macro can be done cheaply initially with screw on lenses.

If you are after birds and mammals, then at least 300mm is needed.

My son has just bought Canon D500 - I was well impressed,
especially with the video (which he wants for skiing). Little small
for my hands though.

Whatever brand you go for, you will be stuck with, so make sure the
range of lenses that you aspire to are available. I hae three conon
users in my family so to go for something else would be crazy, but there
really isn't much between any of them.

You get one heck of a lot of camera even at the entry level dSLRs

[FungiJus]

Originally Posted by Hobjob

Does you 500 notes have to cover lenses as well?

Thanks Hobjob - I'm afraid it does which is why I'm not opposed to pre-loved.

As for the screw in lens, it looks like Jason and Squishy have had some great results with these so that may well be the way to go to begin with.
macro lens attatchment

Cheers,
J.

[squishy]

how important is the high ISO performance? if it's mostly for macro photography, you'll be using a tripod 90% of the time anyway.

It seems to me that you're better off with a lower level camera body and a better lens. that'll give you sharper photos, but not necessarily good high ISO performance.

Given £500 thats the kind of thing i would get. Maybe a second hand 400/450/500D and a second hand sigma 105 or 150 mm.

Good glass does make a big difference.

Thats my opinion

[marvin]

hi

you can pick up a tamron 90mm macro for around £150 on ebay tamron 90mm macro, Photography, Tamron, 35mm SLR items at low prices on eBay.co.uk

the problem you may have is that you won't be able to get a camera that will let you use auto focus with older lenses like this. for macro this may not be a problem but you will need af with the lens for general use i think. a new nikon d5000 18-55mm kit will cost you £475 and deliver excellent value for money Nikon D5000 Digital SLR 18-55mm VR Kit but won't give you macro.

the above camera and two lenses are going to be just over £600 if you can stretch to it. of course it won't be long until you want a longer lens too!!! again if you can stretch to it Nikon D5000 Digital SLR 18-55mm VR + 55-200mm VR Twin Kit the 55-200mm isn't very robust but the iq is supposed to be surprisingly good.

good luck

tim

[andrewinpompey]

Might be worth looking at the Sony Alpha A350. It has a fold-out screen, but may not quite meet your requirements for low light performance (although that is as much down to having "fast" lenses as the camera body, and I'm not sure you have the budget at present for fancy lenses?) The A350 is a year or two old and has been superceded by more recent models, so you might pick one up for a reasonable price e.g. from London Camera Exchange, Mifsuds, Camtech or others on the web. Also it has in-body image stabilisation, so that will work with all your lenses in future, and you won't need to buy more expensive "IS" lenses.

On the minus side, Sonys are less popular than Canon and Nikon, so in the future you may find there aren't quite so many fancy accessories, should you want to acquire them, but there seem to be plenty of lenses, including Sigma etc.

[Geoff F]

I would say that considering your list of requirements and your budget; you are going to be firmly in the 'bridge camera' area.

However, lets consider about you really need and what might be available in the secondhand dslr market. But expect to be spending £1000 plus in lenses over the next few years.

Firstly have a good think about what you intend to photograph. This is the vital starting point. Do you want easy to carry equipment for the occasional photo or are you going to be a dedicated photographer who is happy to lug around a bagful of heavy gear all day; and over all terrains and weather conditions.

If the former, then one of the lighter weight cameras with a kit lens would be sufficient; but if you want to be a dedicated wildlife photographer I recommend getting decent heavyweight gear to start with.

So if we are considering the serious route, lets have another look at your 'essential' and 'possible' requirements. Personally, I would consider an adjustable live view screen to be a total waste of money which may sell point and shoot cameras but isn't necessary in the 'serious' league. You can 'happily' lie in the mud and manually focus through the viewfinder using a low angle tripod. But some people do like them.

I wouldn't bother about video either. To my mind, if you want video get a proper video camera instead of trying to combine the worst of both worlds.

Spot metering is absolutely essential for macro photography, once you learn how to use it correctly.

Image stabilisation can be handy for some lenses when not using a tripod but isn't essential. I would suggest that having it in the lens gives the best all round performance and a stronger build.

Burst rate doesn't really matter unless you are going to become one of the paparazzi. Don't worry too much about high pixel count unless you are intending to print at A3 size. 8 mp is ample for most people.

So to sum up, using Canon as an example because that is what I am familar with, and purchasing secondhand. If you want a lightweight easy carry camera, try a 400D; but personally I would recommend the larger heavier and stronger 20D, 30D, or if you are lucky, 40D. These are chunky cameras with easy to see dials and controls that you can really get hold of; but some people can find them a bit on the heavy side to carry around all day.

Nikon make excellent alternatives, although they often fetch slightly higher prices on the secondhand market. Olympus and Sony are also possible but I'm out of touch with the later models.

But it is the lenses that really count although, to some extent, that comes after you have decided on a body.

[FungiJus]

Many, many thanks for all the above advice - there is a lot to go on here and it will take me a little while to sum up all the options and see what is available out there. I feel a spreadsheet coming on....

Anyway, it's late, and there's work in the morning so I shall sign off but thanks again and I will be back

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Geoff F

....Personally, I would consider an adjustable live view screen to be a total waste of money which may sell point and shoot cameras but isn't necessary in the 'serious' league. You can 'happily' lie in the mud and manually focus through the viewfinder using a low angle tripod. But some people do like them....

Whilst I agree with most of your very sensible information Geoff, I don't think that variable angle viewfinders should be dismissed so lightly. Indeed, they can be a very useful tool in "serious league" photography.

I suspect that, as a keen fungi aficionado, many of Fungijus's shots will be taken with the camera actually sitting on the ground. (I know many of mine are ).

Even the best of low-level tripods cannot achieve a full "ground level" position, and the act of looking through a viewfinder, or even trying to get exact focus via a standard live view screen, is fiddly to say the least when such a shot is required - and I would still say just as fiiddly, even when lying down.

With an adjustable angle lcd screen, ground level shots take no more time, and are just as easy as any other shot. - My days of lying around on mud soaked ground are long gone, especially when readily available (and in my mind much better) alternatives are available .

The only downfall of "Liveview" as I see it, is the amount of battery drain which it incurs, and I advocate keeping a spare battery to hand.

My Nikon D80 doesn't have liveview, but this is no problem as I chose to purchase a right angle finder, allowing easy viewfinding/focussing on low level shots. (Although even with this, kneeling down is still required for actual ground level shots).

I still use my Fuji S9600 (which has a fully adjustable lcd screen) on many occasions, and the ease of use for "full on ground level shots" beats the pants off any other method - even the right angle finder. And, were it not for the fact that the D80/Sigma 180mm macro combo produces even better images, the S9600 would see much more use than it now does.

A couple of other points for Fungijus to consider: -
High ISO performance is not essential for immobile subjects such as fungi - but a good tripod is.
With fungi subjects, manual focus gives far more control - especially when the shallow depth of field associated with macro is involved. (My Sigma 180mm is permanently set to manual focus).

Regards,
Mike.

[squishy]

I agree with mike. A lot of macro lenses have poor AF, but I've never heard photographers who use them properly complain about it.


I use the same S9600, and although i could get on without it, the tilting screen makes low level macro a lot less dirty and easier on your knees!