got a 35mm slr camera but it has a million differant settings and lens settings too so think im going to give up on this and get a very budget priced digital slr anyone advice or suggestions thanks mike
cameras ??????
- Thread starter mike 01302
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Nikon D3000 can be had for around £300 with a 18-55 mm lens, or a Canon EOS 1000D for about the same price with a 18-55mm lens. I'm a Nikon owner but I have to say if I was going to go low end, I like the images that come of the Canon more.
I started of with a D40 and kept upgrading, buying lens and other kit along the way, once you pick a brand you kind of have to stay with it. Although depending on reviews I'll most likely end up selling my D90 and probably my Panasonic LX3 for a Fujifilm X100 (I don't really need anything other than a 35mm lens).
I started of with a D40 and kept upgrading, buying lens and other kit along the way, once you pick a brand you kind of have to stay with it. Although depending on reviews I'll most likely end up selling my D90 and probably my Panasonic LX3 for a Fujifilm X100 (I don't really need anything other than a 35mm lens).
robin wood
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
On a tight budget then a second hand older model like a canon 300d, 350d or 400d are fantastic value. I have a 40d but still use my 300d alongside. Lens quality makes more difference than the camera so an old body with a good lens will give better pics than a new body with cheap lens. DSLR will have as many if not more settings as your current camera though. If you are just going to point and shoot in auto mode why not get a good quality compact?
My wife has a panasonic lumix LX3 which gives fantastic results, great wide angle and low light capability with a leica lens, only drawback is poor telephoto but most long lenses on compacts give poor snaps anyway. I have just agreed to buy a second hand canon s90 which is their slightly smaller quality compact and highly rated. To be honest for most folks use a cheaper point and shoot in auto mode gives perfectly adequate results and because it doesn't weight a ton you have it with you.
My wife has a panasonic lumix LX3 which gives fantastic results, great wide angle and low light capability with a leica lens, only drawback is poor telephoto but most long lenses on compacts give poor snaps anyway. I have just agreed to buy a second hand canon s90 which is their slightly smaller quality compact and highly rated. To be honest for most folks use a cheaper point and shoot in auto mode gives perfectly adequate results and because it doesn't weight a ton you have it with you.
Hi Mike,
If, as you say you didn't get on with your 35mm SLR then the chances are you won't get on even with a lower end digital SLR.
Yes they are more simple to use, especially if you just leave them on auto...but then that begs the question...why bother with an SLR. The chances are that you will be able to take better photos with a more manageable camera.
Budgetbus makes a very good point and one that I would go along with. A bridge camera may well be far more useful.
I have a Panasonic FZ 18 (which I use when I don't want to bother with a full kit) which has now been superseded by the likes of http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz45-black-digital-camera/p1521800. This camera has a Leica lens and comes in a smaller format than an SLR yet has all the bells and whistles you might need. I am not recommending just this make or just this model, but more as an example of what is available.
Worth a thought.
Cheers
Sack
If, as you say you didn't get on with your 35mm SLR then the chances are you won't get on even with a lower end digital SLR.
Yes they are more simple to use, especially if you just leave them on auto...but then that begs the question...why bother with an SLR. The chances are that you will be able to take better photos with a more manageable camera.
Budgetbus makes a very good point and one that I would go along with. A bridge camera may well be far more useful.
I have a Panasonic FZ 18 (which I use when I don't want to bother with a full kit) which has now been superseded by the likes of http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz45-black-digital-camera/p1521800. This camera has a Leica lens and comes in a smaller format than an SLR yet has all the bells and whistles you might need. I am not recommending just this make or just this model, but more as an example of what is available.
Worth a thought.
Cheers
Sack
Budget range DSLR are much the same. The important thing is getting the right 'glass'. Zoom, macro, prime etc Thats where your budget should go. I have a Canon 400D. Awesome consumer level camera, but each of my lenses cost me more than i paid for the camera itself. Sadly it shows. I wish this was one of the situations where a cheaper option was just as good.
Having said that, i bet Robert Capa got bye on a cardboard box and whatever he could find lying around in his foxhole!
Having said that, i bet Robert Capa got bye on a cardboard box and whatever he could find lying around in his foxhole!
The answer it really depends on how much you know about photography.
The more you know the less you need a bit like bushcraft you could say for instance THIS is simple but needs the user to know more as it is so simple.
the user of THIS gets an included guide built in on how to use it.
I think you need to give more info and refine the question
The more you know the less you need a bit like bushcraft you could say for instance THIS is simple but needs the user to know more as it is so simple.
the user of THIS gets an included guide built in on how to use it.
I think you need to give more info and refine the question
Similar threads
