Quality on a budget

[merrygold85]

Hey,

Is it possible to get a DSLR of any sort of quality for less than £200?

I have a Pentax Optio compact which is grand for out and about, travelling etc., but not so grand when I want to take a really nice photo. So I was thinking of getting a Digital SLR for some good nature shots and the like, but it seems to me like getting one for less than £300 is difficult. I want to stay clear of second hand stuff because at the moment anything in the hundreds is a whole lot of money to me. I recently splashed out on some mess tins for £17, so that'll tell ya.

Cheers

 

[Glyn]

You may struggle to find any new DSLR for under £200, especially if you want a lens with that.
I wouldn't dismiss the second hand route out of hand - I sold my spare camera last year, a Nikon D100, complete with lens, external flash, tripod and bag for under £200. It may not have been cutting edge (it was a couple of generations behind todays DSLRs), but it was still a damn good camera...

 

[mountainm]

My Sony alpha came in at about 350 a few years ago. Very happy with it. But given the budget perhaps a compact with a 10x zoom and built in wide angle facility would do. I think the lanasonic lumix range has one.

 

[bronskimac]

For your budget and noit second hand you are really in the "superzoom" or "bridge" camera range instead of SLR. These are compact cameras that have a nice long telephoto lens up to 30 times magnification. They are able to work at such extreme zoom because of the anti-shake.

Fujifilm do refurbished models on their web site. You get the same guarantee that you would get from a new one. I'm saving for one at the moment. The refurbs offer significant savings, the model I am after is £150 less as a refurbished.

http://shop.fujifilm.co.uk/refurbished-digital-cameras/slr-style?ff_resolution_normalised=34

 

[bronskimac]

The main downside of these cameras is the size of the sensor, at the extreme end of the zoom there is sometimes noise that can cause a slight discolouration around the edges of things. For most normal use you won't notice it. The pre-set shooting modes can almost make manual mode obsolite (probably also true of modern SLRs)

Checkout several reviews for any you are interested in before committing to anything.

The question is really what do you want the camera for? Long zoom, ease of use, sensor size (physical size not resolution generally bigger sensor the better), resolution; for most purposes 10 megapixles is more than adequate, if you want to make big prints over A4 size then more megapixles may be better suited.

Mega-zoom cameras are also smaller than SLRs so might be more convenient.

At your budget I would go for the "mega-soom" rather than SLR. As I said I am hoping to get one soon. I have had SLRs in the past and the cost of the body and lenses can quickly escalate.

 

[merrygold85]

Thanks guys, you have been very helpful. Can you get a bridge camera with interchangeable lenses?

 

[andyc54]

Mark now dont laugh but what about a 35mm slr cheap as chips for a camera that in digital would cost around a £1000 you can get loads on ebay with lenses and film is £1 a roll at poundland developing at tesco 1.98 put onto cd.its what i use and i love the quality of film its just different to digital plus images on film when blown up dont distort and still look great.like you i ant got the money for fancy digital and to be honest i dont want one give me film anyday for quality pics and waiting for a film to be developed is like christmas every time

 

[brancho]

You can get an Olympus E-420 and lens for you budget HERE a good small DSLR that can deliver superb images.

 

[robmac]

i dropped on a canon 20d and wish i never sold it.its put together like a swiss clock with magnesium body and pair it up with a good piece of glass and its a superb set up.don`t discount it because its an older camera it WILL give stunning results on a budget

 

[merrygold85]

Andy, I too believe that film takes a better image. I also really enjoy the process of developing a photo (not so much handing it into a shop) but the instant feedback from a digital just saves so much time, effort and ultimatley disappointment. The fact that you can immediately see that you have captured what you wanted is, in my opinion, possibly the only reason - but such a good one - to choose digital over film. In the past I have been gutted to find that certain photos hadn't turned out liked I wanted, and of course a lot of photography is capturing the moment. Once it has passed, that is it. Maybe some folk like that, but for me the feedback is hugely important.

Thank you everyone for your thoughts/input. It is very much appreciated and taken on board.

Cheers

 

[russj1975]

go the second had route is my advice. You'll get a better camera for your budget. I'm guessing you'd be looking at eos400d or 450d. I had a 400d myself before upgrading to a 60d. I sold it to a mate. It was a nice compact dslr. One of the problems with the bigger prosumer type dslr cameras is the size. I have a canon powershot g9 as a compact with full manual controls and it is the camera that gets taken when i'm out on hillwalking tips almost exclusively. I find DSLRs are too cumbersome to pack and carry if the weather turns foul, and walking for eight hours with one hanging around your neck is not comfortable at all. Stowed it in my pack for use as and when and found that I wasn't stopping to take photos. With the G9 its in a small belt pouch and ready for use all of the time.