# Want a new Camera - advice please!



## StormFeather

I know there are some very teched-up people out there with some fancy bit's of kit, and I'm hoping that some of you can give me some advice.

I want to get a new camera - I currently have an Olympus compact camera - useful, but I want to expand my abilities, and maybe do a course. Therefore I'm thinking about purchasing a digital slr type one, but have no idea of what to look for, what is reliable etc. I'm looking at spending in the £500 range, so any suggestions that any of you have would be gratefully received!

Thank you


----------



## The Judge

According to my other half, you can't go wrong with either Canon or Nikon.  

He has a Canon EOS 40D which is very good (though it's no longer available except second hand because of upgrades to the models).  He'd strongly recommend a visit to a good camera shop because until you actually hold a camera and play around with it, you can't be sure what will be comfortable in your hand, which makes a big difference.  Jessops and London Camera Exchange have branches all over -- LCE tend to carry a bit more stock and are probably better/more knowledgeable than Jessops, but a lot depends on the local staff, of course.

He also says, always get the best lenses you can afford and it's best to get maker's own lens (ie Canon with a Canon body).  What kind of lenses you want very much depends on what kind of photos you are taking -- landscape, close-ups, sport etc.  A good all round Canon lens is 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS zoom, which goes from a semi-wide-angle to a semi-telephoto, so it's a good day-to-day lens, and not too bulky.  (The IS = Image Stabiliser which helps to reduce camera shake which is well worth having.)

Very often cameras are sold with a specific lens as a starter-kit, which may well be a cheaper option, but the lens itself is often not the best, so he would recommend buying body and lens separately, though this is likely to cost more.

There are a number of photo magazines around, such as Amateur Photographer, which have reviews of cameras.  He subscribes to EOS magazine, which is a Canon magazine (I don't think Canon own it, but it's very much marketed at their wares) but is very good and helpful -- EOS magazine online home page might be a starting point if you're interested.

Good luck -- let us know what you get!


----------



## Culhwch

Canon and Nikon are the most prominent, and as such lenses for those cameras are a lot more plentiful and generally cheaper. There's nothing wrong with the smaller companies though - I've got a Pentax, which I love, and I wouldn't really consider changing brands, and I know plenty of people who adore Olympus and Sony SLRs. As TJ says, best bet is to get to a camera store and see how the different cameras feel in your hand. Olympus SLRs tend to be smaller and lighter, but otherwise most beginner to intermediate SLRs are built along the same lines, with the big differences often being layout of buttons.

I'd disagree with TJ's assertion about other lens manufacturers. Tamron and Sigma make some great lenses, often comparable to or better than the equivalent 'name' lens, and also often cheaper. I have a Tamrom 90mm macro and a Sigma 17-70mm zoom, and both are superb lenses.

I'd agree about avoiding kit lenses though - I fell into this trap, and got two fairly dodgy pieces of glass with my SLR body. I would have been much better served getting one quality lens instead.

Plenty of info out there on the web, as well. Do some searches, you'll find some good review sites. Digital Photography Review is a good starting point: Digital Cameras: Digital Photography Review, News, Reviews, Forums, FAQ.


----------



## Mouse

What sort of course are you going to do, SF? If it's digital photography then what I'm about to say doesn't matter, but I did photography at college (you wouldn't know it, seeing as I know nothing about taking photos now!) and I wasn't allowed to use a digital camera. We had to use a proper film SLR.

Anywho... I bought myself this: Sony Alpha a390 with 18-70mm Lens - Exclusive to Jessops - Jessops - Digital SLRs at the beginning of last month after looking at about a gazillion different ones.

A lot of digi SLRs don't have the live-view screen thingy at the back, you have to look through the viewfinder. (Yes, you can look at the screen after you've taken the photo, but you can't look through the screen to take the photo like you can on compact digi cameras) which is why I went for the Sony. Because it had that feature and you didn't have to squint through the viewfinder. (I don't know about you, but it makes my eye water if I look through a viewfinder!)

I don't know if more expensive DSLRs have that feature. I was looking for as cheap as possible, while still being good/have the features I wanted.

And here are some snaps I took with my Sony, so you get an idea of the quality. (I hope that link works!)


----------



## The Ace

With your budget, I'd go for a secondhand SLR, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, as that'll leave some cash for a flashgun, extra lens etc.

Remember, there's no digital zoom on SLRs and the built-in flashgun is more of a sales gimmick than a useful piece of kit.

Independent lenses are a mixed bag but the likes of Sigma and Tamron have been around for years  (far longer than Sony have made cameras) and they know what they're doing, the main pitfall in this direction is that manufacturers often sell a budget lens with low-end SLRs to keep costs down, which does degrade quality a bit.

Your best bet is to find a good dealer (Jessops or a small, local one), explain what you're looking for and _handle_ a couple of likely candidates.  That's the acid test, how does it feel in your hands ?

As a lifelong film photographer, I prefer a viewfinder to a screen (it also increases battery life by not powering the screen when you don't need it) but this is all down to individual taste.


----------



## StormFeather

Thank you all for your very useful replies!

Mouse - not sure which course yet - still getting my head around other courses that i'm looking at, such as jewellry and stained glass work.  But, I'm concious that after this month's pay day, I'll be far more strapped for cash, and if I don't get a camera now, it may be years away!

(I did ask for a camera for my birthday.  Hubby's response (which is fair enough on the one hand), 'I don't know anyone who knows anything about cameras.' Therefore, I'm having to buy it myself)

I have a Jessops nearby so will pop in when I next get the chance.  Will let you know my thoughts before I actually make a decision!


----------



## Culhwch

Mouse said:


> A lot of digi SLRs don't have the live-view screen thingy at the back, you have to look through the viewfinder.


 
Actually, you'll find most DSLRs will have live-view these days, even at the cheaper end of the market. I think my Pentax, which is about two years old, was the last model they sold without it...


----------



## The Procrastinator

From the point of view of strapped for cash, I shopped around for months until I found what I wanted on special. I decided on a Canon simply because of the ease of getting lenses of all kinds, although it will be a million years before I can get all the lenses I want. The special I found included a twin lens kit, so I figured why not start with that as I couldn't afford to get a decent lens at that point anyway. Besides which, I hadn't been able to find a cheaper deal even body only.  In the end the kit lenses did turn out to be fairly crap but they were good enough to get me started and learning how to use my new digital slr! And they tided me over till I could find a Tamron 55-200mm lens on special (good lens btw).

I bought online, but I had gone to a camera shop when I started looking around and "had a feel" - and had a feel of friend's cameras etc. Managed to find a review which mentioned the lightness and feel of the particular camera I had settled on (they said it felt small, which sounded good to me as I have small hands) - and they were right. My camera, an entry-level Canon 1000D, suits me fine. 

Good luck!


----------



## StormFeather

Finally got a chance to go into Jessops today, and had a chat with the lovely 'Bob'. I explained that I'm looking for an entry level camera, that I really know nothing about these kind of things and I want to spend about £500 all told.

He showed me a Nikon that looked and felt ok, but then showed me a Samsung compact system camera, NX11. It's a little lighter, but seems to have everything the Nikon had at a slighty cheaper price. Currently, the offer they have is the camera, lens, 4G memory card, case, and an additional 'active' mini camera for £470. Whereas the Nikon was 

Bob told me that he actually has one of the Nikons, and he loves it/can't fault them, but he's been having a lot of fun going out with the Samsung and taking high quality pics with it (the prints are on display near the camera).

A quick scan through the thread and I can't find any mentions of Samsung either way - so, does anyone know/have an opinion on whether they are reasonable for cameras? Also, what is the real difference between an SLR and a compact system - Bob tried to explain but my brain has refused to retain the information!

Have been reading up - the review seems quite positive - even if I don't understand it all!

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/samsung_nx11_review/


----------



## Mouse

I've got a compact Samsung. My photo for the 300 word challenge was taken with a Samsung.  They're good enough but the macro was a bit crappy on it.

SLRs take better quality photos than compacts. You can really tell when a photo's been taken with a SLR.


----------



## The Judge

My other half doesn't know anything about Samsung, but of the two he'd still opt for the Nikon even if more expensive -- Nikon lenses are among the best so as and when you progress your photography you can upgrade without worrying about changing the body or compatibility.  You'll also find there's a better second hand market for Nikon as and when you do decide to sell and upgrade for something better.

An SLR, when you look through the viewfinder, you see what you are going to take, since you are looking through the lens.  With a compact you are looking through a window in the camera, not through the lens itself.  Also, a good SLR will always take better quality pictures than a good compact.


----------



## StormFeather

Thank you Mouse & TJ - you've made me have a good think!

I've done some reading and am now thinking the Nikon would be the better option.  Looking at Jessops alone, there seem to be some decent online deals:

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/78032/show.html

Will pop back into the shop next week, and have another, closer look.


----------



## HoopyFrood

Mouse said:


> You can really tell when a photo's been taken with a SLR.



I'm always telling people this. On the rare occasion that I do get my hands on a SLR I go crazy because I just love the quality of photos you get from it. 

I have a bridge camera, which is like a top of the range compact, but with extra deelies like a viewfinder, pop-up flash and is generally much more beastly than the slim compacts. It takes pretty good quality photos and the macro's not bad -- but I'd still leap at SLR if I could.


----------



## Mouse

Yeah definitely. Compacts take some really good photos, but SLRs are totally different.

I've got two film SLRs, one lovely Canon EOS one with several macros lenses!* and one Minolta... which is one of those weird type of films that I can't remember the name of now. The ones where you don't have to wind the film on, you just drop it in. Then I have my DSLR which is the Sony.

*which I'd sell to you, Hoops, if you were interested.


----------



## HoopyFrood

Oh, a _film_ SLR! That sounds awesome (although the lazy part of me does love the convenience of digital) and I am an absolute sucker for macro. Unfortunately I have no money for anything fun at the moment, but thanks very much for the offer! If I finally get my life sorted (as my friend keeps calling it) then I may take you up on it.


----------



## Mouse

No worries! It's not going anywhere so I'll still have it if you ever were interested. Wouldn't be mega bucks or anything.  It's quite hard to buy actual film now, I had to get it online... from Amazon I think. Though it's probably easier to get in Exeter.


----------



## Vertigo

I have two Canon EOS film cameras (5 and 600) and a Haselblad 120 film camera. Unfortunately they are all gathering dust now. I think you will find it harder and harder to get film now digital has come so far and to be honest, other than for very specialist work, I don't think I would bother any longer. The "small" format digital cameras now have resolutions way higher than the grain of even the best, slowest 35mm film. For fine photography I would image that some people will continue to use 120, 5x4 and 8x10 film cameras but other than that I think film will pretty much disappear within the next few years. I can get a digital back for my Haselblad but it comes in at around £10,000 believe it or not, which is just a tiny bit outside my budget 

Re lenses; I wouldn't worry too much about them. Whilst Nikon are still very good and possibly have the edge over Canon lenses, techniques for making and coating lenses have come so far nowadays that you would really have to look closely to tell the difference between the results even with cheaper lenses. The biggest difference between compact and SLR lenses is that I suspect most compacts are still only a single lens or maybe two or three (though don't quote me on that, they are much smaller diameter though), whereas an SLR lens will be a compound lens with typically at least 6-10 elements in it, and much bigger diameters. This makes a huge difference on image quality especially at the edges of the frame.


----------



## The Ace

Samsung are beating their chests about producing an SLR without a mirror-box, a contradiction in terms.

With an SLR, the lens _is_ the viewfinder (the lens projected the image onto an internal screen via a 45 degree mirror which retracted the instant before the shutter fired.  As the distance between lens/screen and lens/film was the same, so focus on one was sharp on the other, sharp viewfinder=sharp print/slide.) and in the days of film this was critical as all viewfinders were optical (and unpowered) so only an SLR could show you exactly what would appear on film.

With the advent of digital, this disappeared as the sensor delivers the same image whether viewing or storing, although SLRs with their optical viewfinders and interchangeable lenses still have the edge in flexibility.

Mouse, I'm assuming your camera is the Minolta 110 SLR taking drop-in cartridges.   
I own the Pentax equivalent, the Auto 110 which takes interchangeable lenses (which I also own), film and processing is a nightmare, though.


----------



## Mouse

The Ace said:


> Mouse, I'm assuming your camera is the Minolta 110 SLR taking drop-in cartridges.



I just googled it, Ace, as I'm too lazy to actually go upstairs and check. It's one of these:







A 'vectis.'


----------



## The Ace

Sheesh ! Their APS SLR.  I forgot they made one.

APS was designed as an easy-load alternative to 35mm, as the cartridge could be simply dropped in, changed at mid-roll and the whole thing could be processed without ever being opened. 

Digital took off before APS got into its stride properly, so the Vectis S1, despite being a nice piece of kit, never really got the chance to achieve its potential.   Fuji were the only other company to make an APS SLR, but theirs was nowhere near as good.


----------



## Mouse

APS, that's it! Couldn't think what it was. It took three different size photos too, which was kinda cool.


----------



## StormFeather

Ok - I think I've made my decision. I'm now able to spend a bit more than initially expected, so after plenty of research, and a long chat with Bob at Jessops, I'm now going for the Nikon D90. It's a nice balanced weight, comes with an 18-105mm lens, and does everything I can think off, and then some.

Won't be able to get it until Thursday - but ridiculously excited. Can't wait to go and play . . . .


----------



## StormFeather

It's arrived!!!!!!

Now just need to figure out what I'm doing with it . . .


----------



## The Judge

Good choice!  Hope it gives you many hours of pleasure.


EDIT: the other half suggests you buy a UV or skylight filter to protect the front of the lens -- it's cheaper to replace the filter than the lens if you scratch it.  And if the lens doesn't come with one, do make sure you buy a lens hood.  Oh -- and always back up your images, so you don't lose them!


----------



## AE35Unit

It all depends what you want the camera  for, and how serious you are. A DSLR is great because it allows you to change lenses, use external flash etc and the prices have really come down. I got my Canon 30D for £250 from ebay in excellent condition-I believe if you buy second hand you can get a better camera for the money-a new DSLR for £250 is gonna be very basic and flimsy-mine is solid, pro spec. But there are issues to know with a DSLR. One is the sensor size which is smaller than film. So that means any lens you put on it is gonna be longer than the numbers tell you on the barrel.  For example on a 35mm film camera a 28mm lens is a very useful wide angle focal length, but on my DSLR it becomes about 45mm-not wide at all! My 19-35mm zoom is fabulous on my film camera, but put it on my DSLR and it becomes like a 30-50mm-not near wide enough!
On the the hand if you like shooting distant wildlife or birds you gain at the other end! A 300mm lens on a film camera just isnt long enough, but on a DSLR it becomes longer!! So my 75-300 zoom becomes a 115-460mm zoom on the DSLR!
If you need an explanation why this is so let me know!
The other thing is MP size. Theres a myth that more MP=better image. Not necessarily so! If the sensor is too small thern cramming more MPs in just makes for more noise (electronic grain). Not such an issue with modern DSLRs but its a pain with compacts and bridge cameras. My Panasonic Lumix has a tiny sensor with 6MP, but the noise is terrible. If they'd made it a 3 or 4MP camera the quality would have been much better! But that same 6MP on the Canon 10D I used to have was fantastic because it had a bigger sensor. My current DSLR has 8.5MP-plenty for me as I dont print off. If I was doing huge prints then I'd benefit from a higher pixel count.


----------



## AE35Unit

Mouse said:


> I just googled it, Ace, as I'm too lazy to actually go upstairs and check. It's one of these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A 'vectis.'


Oh dear, APS, the Betamax of the photography world!


----------



## The Ace

Sound advice, Your Honour.

As to flash, Jessops do their own flashgun (just check that you buy the correct version to fit your camera) at a far lower price than a Nikon speedlight.  For lenses, I'd go for something in the 70-300/50-250mm range when you're ready for something bigger.  See what's available used, though.

Most flashguns intended for film have too high a trigger voltage to work with digital, so you're better to buy new.


----------



## AE35Unit

The Ace said:


> Sound advice, Your Honour.
> 
> As to flash, Jessops do their own flashgun (just check that you buy the correct version to fit your camera) at a far lower price than a Nikon speedlight.  For lenses, I'd go for something in the 70-300/50-250mm range when you're ready for something bigger.  See what's available used, though.
> 
> Most flashguns intended for film have too high a trigger voltage to work with digital, so you're better to buy new.



Ah, Id be very wary of cheap flashguns! I had a bad experience with a  Jessops unit recently! It stopped working for no reason, luckily I got a full refund. I then bought a lower spec Canon flashgun online that works a treat!


----------



## LittleMissy

WOW  There's so much to learn about cameras... who knew!!!

I've always been amazed at the pictures that can be taken and, with my old standard digital, and now my better quality mobile phone camera, I'm not able to get nearly as good a shot... although every once in a while I get something that, I at least, think is pretty good! (Although I realise is nowhere near as good as what I *want* to achieve )

So, I nipped into this thread thinking it might help me to pick out a new camera... but, all the techo-mumbo-jumbo has my brain fried! 

My question then, to an absolute novice, what do you suggest?

Thanks to the photography challenges my desire to learn more has multiplied!!! I'm seriously considering taking a 'beginners photography' course in the new year at a local college (funds allowing) and was wondering what is the best thing to start out with which doesn't cost an absolute fortune!? And, to me, triple digits is a fortune LOL 

Just to give you a clue, I'm currently using the camera on my Nokia X6 (and, occassionaly, my FujiFilm F460 Digital Camera - which doesn't have nearly as many options as my mobile does )

Thank you, in advance!!!


----------



## The Ace

Try a used entry-level DSLR.

Canon, Nikon and Pentax have been around for donkey's.  Samsung made a series of SLRs (the G-series) which were cheaper, rebadged Pentax.

Going secondhand will help your budget, but make sure charger, battery and USB cord are included.  (Each manufacturer has a unique USB terminal in the camera and replacements are expensive.  The battery and its charger are generally specific to a given make and model, can only be bought from the manufacturer and are _very _expensive to replace.)

The dealer may be nice and throw in a storage card, but if he doesn't, make sure you don't leave the shop without one (512mB minimum) of the correct type.

Also, beg, steal or borrow an instruction manual (they're often available online).  You'll never do anything more than point the camera without one.


----------



## LittleMissy

Thank you Ace.  I shall start searching through the shops at the weekend, when I have the actual time to have a proper look.

I have been looking on eBay, but, like I said, the techno-mumbo-jumbo confuses me so I tend to end up a little cross-eyed and having no clue which is the best to bid on LOL 

Can I ask, what do you mean by 'entry-level', please?  Or is that one of those things if I just go into a shop and ask they'll explain!?  Although, I'm always concerned that because of my clear lack of knowledge they'll try selling me a dud!!!


----------



## Mouse

Entry level would be a cheaper beginner sort of camera. Something like I've got (the Sony I mentioned in this thread somewhere). Easy to use, not _mega_ expensive, but better than a compact.


----------



## The Ace

And most assistants know what it means anyway.  Just don't say your budget's _too _low.


----------



## Allanon

I just bought the Canon EOS 550D    I LOVE IT!!!!  Just need to learn how to use it now!!


----------



## AE35Unit

Allanon said:


> I just bought the Canon EOS 550D    I LOVE IT!!!!  Just need to learn how to use it now!!



Congrats- great choice! As a Canon user I can tell you you wont be disappointed!  And cameras are that good these days you can put it in Auto (P or Green square) and still get a good shot. Of course if you want to get creative it's there for you!  I use mine mostly on Av, where i select the aperture and the camera chooses the shutter speed. 
You won't be short of advice and help on here! Any info you need just ask! Oh what lens did you get? Im guessing the 18-55 zoom.


----------



## Allanon

Yeah it did come with that lense and at the moment I'm uing the standard built in settings but they are good. I added an entry to this months comp using this camera.


----------

