DSLR recommendations?

[rancid badger]

I'm looking for a half decent, entry level DSLR for my son Thomas.
He's doing photography at 'AS' level as part of his sixth form studies and the teacher has 'hinted' that he could do with a DSLR.

Now then; I would like to go with the Canon eos 450 but we cant afford that
My brother bought the eos 400 for my niece a while ago and its a cracking tool.

The teacher has suggested the Sony Alpha 230 with 18-55mm lens. This is an unknown quantity to me as I've had Olympus UZ compacts and no one I know has experience of sony cameras either.

So! I'm looking for something up to about £350, reasonable spec etc, any ideas?

cheers
Steve

 

[Cobweb]

It all depends on what lens system you prefer, for optics, you can't beat Nikon that being said, you can't beat canon for clean (noiseless) images...

Once you/he decides on what system you'd like to go for then start looking at the older bodies, they go cheap on ebay because am's want the latest and greatest.
I love the D100 I got off here, I use it as a second at weddings and it's great, mind you I prefer Nikon optics and I still love grain!

I'd stay away from sony, both the optics and sensors suck.
Stick with Nikon, Canon, Olympus or Fuji

 

[British Red]

I use an Eos 400D and it is as you say a great camera (also known as Rebel Xti in the US). You can just about get a new one for your price limit

http://www.pricerunner.co.uk/pl/29-689455/Digital-Cameras/Canon-EOS-400D-Black-Compare-Prices

Red

 

[spamel]

Ahh, Rancid Badger, I took a picture the other day and it reminded me of you. The picture was of a badger, and from the smell of it it had been dead some time!

 

[eraaij]

I own -by accident- both the Canon 350d and a Nikon D70s. IME - Canons shoot a bit more colorful/saturated out of the box, Nikons a bit darker. This all can be adjusted. Read a few reviews on bodies and lenses and decide then. I personally prefer the Nikon, mainly because of the huge array of available used lenses and the handling ease. Both brands are good and have their share of fans.

It is better to buy an entry level DSLR new (Nikon 3000/Canon 1000d f.e.) than a used higher class one from the previous generation - the quality difference between the CMOS sensors is vast. Don't go for the most megapixels hype - it is not important.

I learnt a lot from www.kenrockwell.com but there are other good sites around - and loads of books.

-Emile

 

[pteron]

I'd stay away from sony, both the optics and sensors suck.
Stick with Nikon, Canon, Olympus or Fuji

Sony make the sensors for Nikon!

Don't be swayed by the CMOS vs CCD or number of mega pixels hype. There are good CMOS and good CCD sensors. Once you get past about 8-10 megapixels, you are into diminishing returns - to cram more pixels into the same area, they are made smaller, which makes them noisier.

In your shoes, I'd go for a second hand Canon. Two reasons - 1. they make their own sensors, 2. I like the motors in the lens body - it means that the motor can be sized perfectly for the lens. The alternative is a motor in the camera body and it will always be too big for some lenses and maybe not up to snuff for the bigger lenses.

(BTW I have designed image sensors... FWIW)

 

[Rebel]

Although Sony manufacture Nikon's sensors they aren't the same. Nikon design their own and use Sony's manufacturing plant to fabricate them. This makes sense as Sony is one of the world's leading sensor manufacturers. You will see in tests that the results of comparable Nikon sensors is superior (at the moment).

Check out http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/%28appareil1%29/287|0/%28appareil2%29/325|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28brand2%29/Sony

If you've got a Canon shooters in the family why not go with Canon then you can swap bits and pieces and share advice.

Personally I prefer Nikon, especially the ergonomics of their camera bodies but really between the two major players (Canon and Nikon) it's mostly down to personal preference as they are both constantly trying to better each other.

Pentax cameras could be an option too. Often there are bargain prices to be had on their gear and it seems pretty good to me.

 

[teflon]

Most secondhand dslr's have only had amateur use and will be in very good condition and will have everything that's required to learn photography. No point in wasting money on dubious 'latest' features if he's just starting. Most likely he'll be using manual anyway. I'd suggest getting into one of the two main systems straight away and have done with it - either Canon or Nikon.

D70 gets my vote. Well specified, light and very easy to use. But what ever you choose, just get a kit lens with it and you're sorted. 8]

 

[maddave]

I own the canon 450d but to be honest the only real difference between that and the 350d is liveview...no biggie the 350d is a great camera

 

[robin wood]

I am still iusing 300d they go for £100-£150 on ebay and are fantastic. Entry packages come with cheap lenses which are not the best.

A 300d with a £200 lens would give far better image quality than a 450d with kit lens. I would suggest a 300d or 350d and a voucher for him to research and buy a lens or two when he has played around a little. May not be quite as nice as a pressie as a new one though.

Now you are going to end up with far too many options.

 

[tjwuk]

Its a personal choice really. I choose Nikon due to the fact that you can use some older 'Nikon' manual focus lenses and also the shutter mechanism is rated for more uses. Usualy about 50% more than the rest!

Also I had a bad experience with Canons CCD failure a few years back and didn't like their attitude, only to find out later they had massive problems with that CCD.

It isn't all about the high spec camera either, its more about a high spec lenses. A cheap camera with a good lens will give good photo's. But a expensive/ful spec camera with a cheap lens will give rubbish images.

 

[teflon]

Am I the only one who thinks the cheaper 'kit' lenses really shouldn't be overlooked? They are extremely versatile and are capable of very good results - otherwise they just wouldn't sell. The money saved would be better spent on a basic tripod, which is a far more useful for getting sharper pictures than an expensive lens. Just my thoughts.

 

[tjwuk]

Am I the only one who thinks the cheaper 'kit' lenses really shouldn't be overlooked? They are extremely versatile and are capable of very good results - otherwise they just wouldn't sell. The money saved would be better spent on a basic tripod, which is a far more useful for getting sharper pictures than an expensive lens. Just my thoughts.

Depends what you mean by cheaper! I have a couple of sigma lenses which work out at about half the cost of new Nikon equivalent. They are the top range Sigma there again and produce stunning images. Its all about how the lens is ground, type of glass etc, same with any optics I guess.

Many cheaper cameras these days use plastic lenses. They may be 10+ megapixel but the quality of the images is crap, IMO.

I know many people who bought the Nikon D50, then purchased high quality lenses and produce some really high quality images with the setup

 

[oetzi]

The good thing: there are no really "bad" cameras on the market.
Even better: they become technically outdated every six month.
So lots of people sell perfectly good cameras for almost nil and also the (mailorder)-shops have lots of special offers all the time. You can also look out for a Forum on digital photography, since these almost always have an intern 2marketplace" where you may find what you are looking for, too.
That said, my personal choice are Olympus (E-420 and E-520) only for the simple reasons that 1. they are the smallest and most lightweight cameras around and 2. the lenses included in the Kits are way above everything supplied by other brands.
This specific brand doesnt make me a better photographer, though

 

[teflon]

"Many cheaper cameras these days use plastic lenses. They may be 10+ megapixel but the quality of the images is crap, IMO." - tjwuk

Something I didn't know, though I'm guessing that you're referring to some compacts, whereas I'm mainly looking at Canon/Nikon kit lenses which have a lot going for them. They are capable of professional results if the technique is sound.

 

[tjwuk]

"Many cheaper cameras these days use plastic lenses. They may be 10+ megapixel but the quality of the images is crap, IMO." - tjwuk

Something I didn't know, though I'm guessing that you're referring to some compacts, whereas I'm mainly looking at Canon/Nikon kit lenses which have a lot going for them. They are capable of professional results if the technique is sound.

Not absolutely sure about all Canon lenses! I know if you get any Nikon, marked as a Nikkor lens it will be a good.

One good way I find to see what images cameras and lenses take these days is to do a search on Flickr for that camera/lens then look at the group photo's.

Hope this helps

 

[teflon]

Thanks, but I'm not actually looking - just laying out the possibilities for the original poster.

 

[rancid badger]

Thanks for the replies everyone

I'm trying to track down a 400d, Big Reds link works but I cant get to the seller.

It'll be something really simple no doubt

I have an Olympus 590 UZ compact. It replaced my 550UZ, after an accident and insurance claim. I wish now, I had taken the option of upgrading to the Canon

The new 590UZ is actually not as good as the 550!:twak:

never mind, one thing at a time

thanks again

atb

Steve

 

[rancid badger]

I got through with Red's link and made it to the seller but they're sold out!

I'll give them a ring tomorrow and see whats what

thanks again

Steve

 

[British Red]

Sorry RB

I expect many have been sold out as they are now the "previous" model. Might be worth trying E-bay etc There were some good deals out there a few months ago for sure.

Red