sorry another which camera thread

[tommy the cat]

Well as post says......sorry...... but I have finally decided to get a dslr and was wondering what peeps would recommend on a budget.
I would like to come in under £500 and do like the canons as I have had a couple of different compact canons.
Been a long time since I used a slr so go carefully with me.......
Main uses will be wildlife ,deer birds etc and I am a bit of a sucker for landscapes.
So lens recommendations for someone on a budget would be great.
Many thanks Dave
Ps I realise the 'budget' isn't gonna cover lenses.
http://www.jessops.com/online.store...on/EOS 1000D Twin Lens Bundle-75534/Show.html
Or 450d my head is spinning

 

[discoveringtheforest]

Olympus e520 or e 420 * thumbs up*

 

[SiWhite]

I'd recommend a Nikon D40x (10MP), comes with a 18-55mm but you could easily get a 70 - 200mm for longer shots. I've got a D40 and am super pleased with it - very intuitive to use and a world apart from a compact. I wish I'd bought mine years ago!

 

[tommy the cat]

Ta will get a look see in Jessops after Christmas looking at the d70 or the eos 450d (? I think it is) Gonna have a feel in the hand as the eos is meant to be small but light.
Ta D

 

[xavierdoc]

I was a dyed-in-the-wool Canon user for 35mm and DSLR, until my Pa (photography is his full-time job) switched to Nikon this year. This was a big step for him as he had 4 Canon bodies and a plethora of lenses, as well as using Canon's professional service. If there is one thing I have learned about my Dad, it's that he researches these things to death before making decisions (he was Chief engineer of various departments at Rolls Royce, before early retirement to switch to "less stressful" pro photographer!)

He went for D700's, which is designed (and priced!) for the professional market, I am not sufficiently familiar with the rest of the range to recommend a specific model in your price range. Have a look at the www.dpreview.com website for some good info and owner/user ratings and comments.

I have stuck with Canon, but only because I can't afford to change! Nothing wrong with Canons, but if I was building an outfit from scratch I would go with Nikon.

Merry Crimble!

Xav

 

[Wayland]

Make doesn't matter, model barely matters either these days.

Get the one you like the look of and really learn to use it.

Photographers make good pictures, cameras are just the tools they use.

 

[brancho]

Olympus e520 or e 420 * thumbs up*

I got an E 410 for £283 with two zoom lenses. The lenses cost more than that bought seperately so budget left for a flas tripod memory card and bag.

Look HERE I like it but then I always like olympus

 

[DKW]

id say go for the cheapest possible dslr, with the best possible kit-lenses. For starters, that is.

I can recommend looking towards nikons d70, or canons equivalent.
I personally am more a nikon-guy.
The kit-lenses that goes with nikons are generally fairly good lenses, and on a budget you could look towards sigmas lenses for the d70 (sigma hasn't got many lenses suitable for a d40)
I would allways spend more cash on the lenses then on the camera itself.

 

[tommy the cat]

Ok thanks some more good stuff. As said apart from an o' level in photography many years ago.... bit new to this. My eye is on the canon 1000d in the ad above as I cant see (to the untrained eye) many differences from that and the 450d but is cheaper which will allow the other lens.
Will the above Jessops link lens the 300mm be sufficient to get me better shots of deer?
Looking at the tele converter as well??
Dave

 

[Squidders]

please do check out prices at warehouse express or microglobe before buying from jessops...they are a bit expensive.

 

[tommy the cat]

Sorry Squidders I am going in to have a feel of the camera in the hand before ordering on line!
It was just a link I found. Thanks for the micro globe suggestion only been to the warehouse express site.
Dave

 

[Mikkel]

Canon and Nikon use Lens stabilizers, that means around 30% higher price on comparable lenses.
Pentax and Sony (to name two) got in-house stabilizers, and therefore can use less expensive lenses with the same results.

And as Wayland said, it's not the camera but the photographer who takes the shot. Bad photographers very often try to compensate by getting increasingly expensive kit, and they photos still remain uninterresting.
Ansel Adams didn't have 50mpix Hasselblad stuff, and somehow he still managed to get shots that most people can only dream of

 

[Squidders]

that's true but also the best photographer in the world will still produce dire photos with a bad camera... there does need to be a level of quality in the equipment for decent results.

 

[Mikkel]

I do not agree, the famous photo of Che was taken with a 4$ camera, and the photographer who took it (and many other brilliant photos) have spent much time trying to communicate that it does not take advanced equipment to take good shots.
A great photographer with 10 year old equipment will still easily beat a average photographer using the latest stuff.

Of course, having good equipment doesn't hurt, but it's far from being essential to good photography.

 

[tommy the cat]

I do not agree, the famous photo of Che was taken with a 4$ camera, and the photographer who took it (and many other brilliant photos) have spent much time trying to communicate that it does not take advanced equipment to take good shots.
A great photographer with 10 year old equipment will still easily beat a average photographer using the latest stuff.

Of course, having good equipment doesn't hurt, but it's far from being essential to good photography.

I agree but I also aint gonna get a great pic of a deer unless my stalking skills improve not with the ixus with a 3x zoom!
D

 

[Squidders]

what film did the $4 camera take?

Because as far s I recall, all (for example) 35mm film cameras have the same resolution and the ISO depends on the film used... of which you could put the absolute best in to the cheapest camera available.

In digital photography, the cheapest cameras have tiny very poor quality sensors... you will not see a good sensor in a bad camera and it's the sensor that really defines a cameras picture quality.

 

[Wayland]

The camera can only affect the physical quality of the image, focus, resolution exposure and the like but it is the photographer that points it in the right direction, at the right time and takes the picture.

Most modern cameras produce a reasonable physical result these days. To improve that result by tiny amounts generally requires an expenditure of money far out of proportion to the improvement.

So in terms of value for money, brand or model matter very little.

What does matter is that you have the controls you want and like the way they are laid out.

Some people want lots of auto modes, others want simple manual control. What I would recommend, would almost certainly differ from what Squidders would recommend. That does not mean one opinion is better than the other, it just means we like different ways of doing things.

Write a check list of the controls you think you need and then the things you think you want, and check those against the camera models in your price range.

Once you have narrowed things down a bit try and get to somewhere you can handle the cameras you have shortlisted and see how easy it is to use the controls you will use most.

By this stage you won't need our advice because you'll be making up your own mind from a good knowledge of the specifications and your own impression of handling the cameras.

 

[Squidders]

The main thing I have learned about photography is that I would rather be lucky than good... even the worlds most acclaimed photographers still need to wait for the moment. If the universe doesn't want to give you a good photo, you will never get one.

A cheap camera will give you good photos in many situations but the most amazing things always happen when conditions are far less than ideal... it's an unfortunate fact that more expensive cameras are able to take photos of a higher quality in bad conditions.

I have seen amazing photos from £40 point and shoot film cameras but I have never seen a great photo from a mobile phone even if you're pointing it at something great.

 

[Wayland]

The main thing I have learned about photography is that I would rather be lucky than good... <Snip

Very very true......

But have you noticed that luck also seems to favour the well prepared?

 

[Squidders]

prepared with a good camera you mean??