Beginner Newbie advice

A

AndyAHP

Messages
26
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone, my name is Andy, living in Cornwall firstly.

I am looking to get much more involved in Photography. I have quite limited knowledge on the subject but I am keen to learn and understand more. This is day one, week one stuff so I'll apologies in advance if this causes any eye rolling.

I am interested in opinions on a good starting point for a first timer digital SLR that will last me a decent time before I may want to start getting something better. My interest initially is in landscapes, I also like the idea of night sky images.

I am also contemplating completing an online photography course. I know paying for a course to learn about something you can get secondhand for free off YouTube etc may seem daft, but I want to make sure I cover all angles and not just learn how others found their feet through trial & error in case I miss something important while tying myself in knots possibly.

I appreciate any tips and advice on any aspects of starter kits/cameras/lenses etc in advance.

Thanks
 
Hi Andy, That is a more complicated question than you may release. My advice regarding the camera is to get a cheap used camera, What ever cameras you buy, from £30 to £3000 you will wish you had a different one. After a while you will know which features you need and which you don't. Having a low cost camera to start with means you will not loose too much when you buy a different camera. Notice that I am saying 'different camera" rather than better camera. Cameras only record the image, it is the photographer that takes the photograph.
Which ever you choose, go out and use it at every opportunity. You will learn a lot from your mistakes and no one needs to see them.
Most of all, enjoy your photography.
 
Thanks for that King Kenny and I will definitely take your advise on that.

I did figure it maybe a difficult question to answer with many different possible answers.

My first thought was also to get a decent used camera rather then spend big bucks to start with. Baby steps and all.

I have come cross an Olympus E410 with a Zuiklo 14-54mm lens but I totally get it's only as good as it's operator. I am not sure what people's experiences are with this perticular camera as a starting point and something to play with and find your feet with.
 
Hi Andy, I say this to everybody considering paying for a photography course. Save your money and put it towards a camera or a lens or seeing as you want to do landscape photography, a good tripod and head will last years. You will not learn how to take photographs on a photography course.

YouTube really is your friend for learning the technical stuff and the rest really is up to you. Get out and shoot, shoot and shoot some more.

A great place to start on YouTube is Mike Browne. You’ll have to go back to some of his older videos to find the basic technical stuff be he’s an excellent teacher.
 
Last edited:
Go mirrorless Andy.

DSLR's are slowly becoming a thing of the past and although if you buy one tomorrow and it's discontinued the next day it may last you 10 years mirrorless cameras do have many advantages such as being able to focus accurately and consistently anywhere in the frame and face / eye detect. New abilities give you compositional freedom unmatched by DSLR's with their focus points clustered around the central area.

Also don't get hung up on a 1st time or entry level camera as they all have automated modes and a mid to higher end camera may suit you better if you get more interested in taking more control.

If you want a DSLR or a DSLR like mirrorless camera they come in several formats which could be on your radar, Micro Four Thirds, APS-C and Full Frame so do some research and good luck choosing.
 
Thank you ecolman & woof woof.

I get you on the course idea. My thinking was getting straight forward information to start with and build on that but I will absolutely check out Mike Browne via YouTube, great info point and thank you.

I need to get myself a camera first, get some information and get taking shots, playing around with it and learning. I will get doing some more research on various options camera wise such as digital SLR or alternatives like have been mentioned.
 
Like others have said, don't waste your money on an online photography course, you won't learn how to take good photos there. With digital photography you can take basically unlimited shots, so experiment, see what works and what doesn't.

Understanding the Shutter Speed - Aperture - ISO exposure triangle and how it affects your images is a great fundamental starting point.

An idea of a potential budget would help in us suggesting cameras and lenses for you. If you're interested in night sky and astrophotography I would say go for as new a camera as you can, as newer cameras tend to handle high ISO noise better than older models. By newer I mean anything from the last 5-6 years or so.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking you're new to all of this so you should buy an entry level body. They are in many cases harder to use than a mid-range level camera, as they are very cut down with the sole intention of forcing you to upgrade sooner as you bump into the limitations of the entry level camera. Case in point, I have a Fujifilm X-T4, an upper mid range camera I would say. My wife has an entry level X-T100, and it is a nightmare to use.

I am biased but for price to performance ratio you can't go wrong with the Fuji system, and if you can get hold of the 18-55mm 'kit' lens it is far and away better than any other kit lens on the market. Something like a Fuji X-T3 or X-T4 with the 18-55mm lens can be had for under £1000 used and is a fantastic starter photography setup. At this point I would go for a mirrorless camera over a DSLR. I don't see the point in investing in a dead DSLR based system if you're just starting out. Not that your images will be worse, just as some point in the future you're going to have to change mounts / systems if you start investing in a DSLR now.

Editing software is also a must to get the best out of your images.
 
Last edited:
AndyAHP said:
Thanks for that King Kenny and I will definitely take your advise on that.

I did figure it maybe a difficult question to answer with many different possible answers.

My first thought was also to get a decent used camera rather then spend big bucks to start with. Baby steps and all.

I have come cross an Olympus E410 with a Zuiklo 14-54mm lens but I totally get it's only as good as it's operator. I am not sure what people's experiences are with this perticular camera as a starting point and something to play with and find your feet with.
Click to expand...

If your looking at something like that I have an e500 with a few lenses etc - let me know
 
Hi guys, busy day today!

Thanks for all the advice and tips so far. I think budget wise I would be looking secondhand at around £200.

I have seen a few such as an Olympic E410
Canon EOS 400D
Canon EOS 40D

I am very open to experienced ideas of what will give me a decent bang for my buck to start out with.
 
Thank you for your advice Richard.

I did have a brief look at mirrorless as advised further up and will take a more better look.

Based on my rough budget I am not 100% sure what is the best move
 
AndyAHP said:
Hi guys, busy day today!

Thanks for all the advice and tips so far. I think budget wise I would be looking secondhand at around £200.

I have seen a few such as an Olympic E410
Canon EOS 400D
Canon EOS 40D

I am very open to experienced ideas of what will give me a decent bang for my buck to start out with.
Click to expand...
The 40D is a much more robust camera. As I mentioned in my previous post, go for the more feature rich camera. My first DSLR was a 400D. Within a year I'd sold it and bought a 40D, which I kept for nearly 9 years. If I'd just bought the 40D in the first place I would have saved a lot of money and bought one camera not two.
 
+1 for the 40D. It's a bit dated now but a very capable camera and an excellent start.

I understand the folk telling you to go mirrorless and at some point you will, but I don't think you will learn as quickly on a mirrorless camera.

It's all too easy to look at the EVF on a mirrorless camera and get a good exposure without understanding why or how you got to that exposure.
 
Whilst it is possible to take good photos of landscapes in straight out of the camera JPEGs most photographers shoot in the RAW file format to have more control over the image rendition. Therefore don’t forget to factor in the cost of editing software to process your photos and associated computer equipment.
 
ecoleman said:
+1 for the 40D. It's a bit dated now but a very capable camera and an excellent start.
Click to expand...
Also built like a tank compared to the later xxD models. Much closer to a 5D than anything else in size and build quality. When I swapped mine for an 80D the decline in build quality was very apparent in the newer camera.
 
@AndyAHP You have lots of great advice above; so all you have to do is cut through all the noise and simplify things.

I was in a similar position to you many years ago - 2010 to be accurate. I wanted to get into photography (or back into it in my case). Many cameras later (!) I'll try and give you a quick view of what I learned.

i) Try to avoid walking into a camera shop (if you can still find one), clutching a fistful of notes (if you still use them) and saying "please sell me a camera".
ii) Whatever you buy, you will almost certainly want (or maybe need) to change it in a few years
iii) Because of point ii, second hand is excellent. Let someone else take the depreciation hit. Just try to buy from a reputable seller so you have a fighting chance of avoiding a wrong-un.
When you are bored of it, you'll get most of your money back.
iv) Your first choice of manufacturer may well lock you into a system for life. Maybe you start to pick up a few lenses, or a remote controller.
Or the controls have a feel to them, or you just know how the menus work, so find other manufacturers cameras don't feel right.
So that first decision may be a big one.
v) All the major manufacturers produce great cameras.
vi) Do you have any friends with decent camera(s) that might just let you have a play around?
vii) When you have decided on a manufacturer, a chart like this --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Canon_EOS_digital_cameras may help to cut through the noise.
I'm sure you'll find a similar chart for other manufacturers.
The top half of this chart are DSLRs, the bottom half mirrorless. You'll find many more second hand models from the top half.
Within each half, the lower models are cheaper, more "plastic" and less feature packed. The upper models are professional models which started out very expensive,
but depreciate fast and are mostly made of metal.
The date columns are obvious, but the oldest models will probably disappoint you. The early tech left quite a bit to be desired. I think things got better around 2007 or so.
viii) They do say that you invest in lenses, the camera bodies are just consumables. So maybe don't sweat the decision too much, but keep the cost down.

So, the very best of luck!
 
So I've found this 40D local to me.

Canon EOS 40D
18-55mm micro lens with image stabilizer fitted with Hoya UV filter auto wind.
Charger, 2 batteries, hahnel remote control, complete set of UV filters and camera bag
 
I've also found a Nikon D60 with 2 lenses 18-55mm and a 55-200mm, charger and large bag
 
If you are going for a cheap Nikon, I'd get a D90. They are very good value. A D60 would be harder work to get good pictures with and will be more restricted on what lenses it can use.
 
I know nothing about the Nikon, but the 40d looks a good buy.

I’d love to have a discussion with the seller about the ‘auto wind’ though. :LOL:
 
Yea I am not sure what that's about. It looks like a decent set up though to start with
 
The 40d is still a good camera, showing it's age a bit but a lot better than the 400d. The 18-55 kit lens is not a bad lens either, I still have the 30d which I use occasionally..
 
Yea I am tempted to go for it based on recommendations.

I've also come across a Nikon D5200 for a decent enough price. 2616 shutter count
 
AndyAHP said:
So I've found this 40D local to me.

Canon EOS 40D
18-55mm micro lens with image stabilizer fitted with Hoya UV filter auto wind.
Charger, 2 batteries, hahnel remote control, complete set of UV filters and camera bag
Click to expand...
You don't need UV filters, unless they are really high quality ones they will do nothing but make your images look worse. They are a hold over from the film days and are not needed on a digital camera
 
I would also suggest finding a local camera club, as they would be a great font of information, and alot cheaper than a camera course.
 
Thanks for all the advice guys, I really do appreciate it. I just need to settle on a camera to start with first.
 
AndyAHP said:
I've also found a Nikon D60 with 2 lenses 18-55mm and a 55-200mm, charger and large bag
Click to expand...
You don't say the price of the kits you have found. Just for information, I recently found a Nikon D3300 + 18-55 + 55-200mm for less than £200, everything in superb condition.

I fully agree with the fact DSLRs have no future, but that doesn't matter so much. Even if you only keep your equipment for 2-3 years, you'll have spent only £200 and you'll probably be able to resell everything for £100.

About the cost of post-processing software, I wouldn't worry too much about that. Both Canon and Nikon offer free, but good quality software. Canon has DPP (Digital Photo Professional) and Nikon NX Studio.
 
I've found 2 D60, £150 and £225

A Nikon D5200 for £175

A Canon 40D for £140.
 
AndyAHP said:
I've found 2 D60, £150 and £225

A Nikon D5200 for £175

A Canon 40D for £140.
Click to expand...
Those D60 are very expensive in my opinion. They are old, 10 Mpixels cameras (pixels are not everything, but still!). The D3300 I found has a 24 Mp sensor. The D5200 looks much more promising.

Unfortunately, I've no experience with the 40D.
 
Yes I've been quite keen on the idea of the D5200.

Comes with Nikon AF-S 18-55mm.
Nikon 35-80mm
2 batteries, charger, manfrotto bag
Shutter count - 2616
 
Citizen of Bath said:
Those D60 are very expensive in my opinion. They are old, 10 Mpixels cameras (pixels are not everything, but still!). The D3300 I found has a 24 Mp sensor. The D5200 looks much more promising.

Unfortunately, I've no experience with the 40D.
Click to expand...
I’m going to disagree.

As a rule I’d much rather have an older midrange camera than a modern entry level one. In the right hands those entry level cameras have impressive spec; but they’re literally designed to be difficult to use.

There’s nothing more frustrating for me than a camera where I need to delve into menus to change basic settings.

And as far as ‘learning’ is concerned, it’s much easier to follow a tutorial if the settings you want to change are visible.

I could take a 40d out tomorrow and shoot an event without missing a beat.
Yes it’s only 10 or 12 mpix, yes it only has 9 af sensors, and yes it tops out at about 6fps. But my muscle memory would kick in and I’d have no problems whatsoever.
 
The Nikon D5200 has many advantages over the D60. For instance, you have a 39-area autofocus system, while the D60 has only 3 autofocus points. It's also better in low light, faster (5 frames per second instead of 3), and 5 years more recent. To be honest, I wouldn't buy a D60 even if it was for £10.

In relation to Phil's comment, I'd say the D5200 is a midrange amateur camera and the D60 an entry-level one (with the annoying necessity of delving into menus to change settings). This said, I've never used a Canon 40D and i'm sure he is right about that camera.
 
Erty said:
If you are going for a cheap Nikon, I'd get a D90. They are very good value. A D60 would be harder work to get good pictures with and will be more restricted on what lenses it can use.
Click to expand...
(y)
 
Citizen of Bath said:
The Nikon D5200 has many advantages over the D60. For instance, you have a 39-area autofocus system, while the D60 has only 3 autofocus points. It's also better in low light, faster (5 frames per second instead of 3), and 5 years more recent. To be honest, I wouldn't buy a D60 even if it was for £10.

In relation to Phil's comment, I'd say the D5200 is a midrange amateur camera and the D60 an entry-level one (with the annoying necessity of delving into menus to change settings). This said, I've never used a Canon 40D and i'm sure he is right about that camera.
Click to expand...
I've heard nothing but good stuff about the 40D. I do kind of think the D5200 is possibly a decent set up that I can get.
 
AndyAHP said:
Yes I've been quite keen on the idea of the D5200.

Comes with Nikon AF-S 18-55mm.
Nikon 35-80mm
2 batteries, charger, manfrotto bag
Shutter count - 2616
Click to expand...
The 35-80 lens won't autofocus on that camera. It will manually focus (but that won't be fun).
The Nikon 3000 and 5000 series need AF-S lenses (some can also do AF-P) for full functionality. This means the AF-D lenses (which can be really good value) won't be as easy to use. Don't bother trying to use AF or AF-D lenses on a 3000 series camera as they won't meter the light levels automatically.
The D5200 is probably more technically capable than a 40D but it won't be as tough.
 
Erty said:
The 35-80 lens won't autofocus on that camera. It will manually focus (but that won't be fun).
The Nikon 3000 and 5000 series need AF-S lenses (some can also do AF-P) for full functionality. This means the AF-D lenses (which can be really good value) won't be as easy to use. Don't bother trying to use AF or AF-D lenses on a 3000 series camera as they won't meter the light levels automatically.
The D5200 is probably more technically capable than a 40D but it won't be as tough.
Click to expand...
So any optional lenses are best being AF-S for best performance on the D5200.
 
The Nikon D200 set up that I've found above is £150 and seems to come with a heck of a lot of extras
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top