DSLR's my head is spinng !

Orange_crunch

Orange_crunch

Messages
124
Edit My Images
No
Hi Everyone :)

Looks a great friendly forum :) looking forward to be a active posting member but first....

Looking for my first DSLR and its becoming very confusing very fast.I have a budget of around £500 and have short listed 3 cameras.

NIKON D3100 Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm Zoom Lens
NIKON D3200 Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm VR Lens
SONY SLTA37K.CE with 18-55mm Zoom Lens


Some very conflicting reviews on the net, so some honest feedback on these models would be great, or any more models and lens kits to avoid or recommend :)


Cheers
Natalie
 
What led to the shortlist and why have the two Nikon's in it as presumably the 3200 is newer (better?) and has VR.
 
Natalie,

the best of that lot is the D3200, should be a good camera to get you started.

What do you want from the camera? What do you want to do with photography?
Is just for fun, pleasure, business eventually etc etc.
 
Thanks for the reply :)
Price is a major factor and I seen the NIKON D3200 for £499, The Sony A37 for £429 and the NIKON D3100 for £360 ( even seen the older D3000 for £265). These were the only camera available within my budget.

The sales assistant was not very helpful saying " no noticeable difference on quality of prints just different features" and said the older D3000 is just as good as the D3200 but it lacked the live view.

I have found its just another £70 and you can have this model...before you know it you looking at £800+ models :nono:
 
Hi Natalie..I have the D3100 and am extremely happy with it..it is described as an entry level DSLR and while this is true mainly, I think, because of the guide mode..it is a very high quality and technically advanced (this is amplified with D3200) piece of equipment..bottom line is if you can afford it go for the D3200, if budget is tight go for the D3100, either way you won't be dissapointed!
Hope this helps

Robin
 
if its between the 2 i would save the money and go for the d3100 which also has VR.

the d3200 had more megapixels and a higher resolution screen and better video capabilities but unless your going to use the live view alot, which to be honest i never have and take more videos then personally i would recommend the d3100 and with the money saved a prime lens such as the 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm even.
 
Orange_crunch said:
Thanks for the reply :)
Price is a major factor and I seen the NIKON D3200 for £499, The Sony A37 for £429 and the NIKON D3100 for £360 ( even seen the older D3000 for £265). These were the only camera available within my budget.

The sales assistant was not very helpful saying " no noticeable difference on quality of prints just different features" and said the older D3000 is just as good as the D3200 but it lacked the live view.

I have found its just another £70 and you can have this model...before you know it you looking at £800+ models :nono:
Click to expand...

Must have been in Jessops :lol:

seriously though, when you buy a DSLR you are buying into a system, the top two being Canon and Nikon with Pentax and Sony the other two main systems.
Canon and Nikon have a vast array of lenses and accessories so if you choose a body from either of those you can be guaranteed not to be short of gear.
The big advantage of the Pentax and Sony bodies is that they have Image Stabilization / Vibration Reduction built into the cameras, this will save you on expensive IS and VR lenses. I'm not familiar with the Nikon system but I do know that certain lenses will only work with certain bodies (something to do with the autofocus drive), maybe one of the Nikon guys will jump in and explain better. :thumbs:

Oh, and welcome to TP :)
 
Both the Nikon's you mention need AF-S lenses to autofocus as they don't have inbuilt focus motors.
Out of the two, I'd probably choose the d3100 if money is an issue. It's a great camera and is very well featured. The d3200 is pretty new and the price is still at a premium. I personally don't believe the difference in cost matches the difference in features. The saving you gain could be spent on a better quality lens in the future.
 
Hi

Have you though of buying a second hand kit?

I bought both my bodies used.
 
Not had much luck with used items over the years.... and the old D40's on ebay still fetch £200+ :gag: And I just love to open new things ( anyone else love that ?)

I am doing the photography at my sisters wedding in October and really need something that is decent in low light ( horrible church lighting) and will be taking lots of photos of my pet dogs ( they are faster then the speed of light and very difficult to get a decent photo of ) and all the normal stuff I guess.
..........................................................................................

Jessops :lol: very good guess :lol: They even offered a free tripod and 50 free prints on the A37 for £429 but no offers on the Nikons.
Hoping to buy the camera this weekend, cant wait to get started :)
 
To be honest for low light weddings and crappy lit churches you really need pro gear, thats why we spend thousands on kit, because you need it.

So I would advise,
1. Get a decent camera, one with good focus in low light
2. Get some fast lenses (wide apertures) such as 2.8 zooms or 1.4/1.8 primes (fixed focal length)
3. A decent flash gun/speedlight.

I know it is going to cost, but if you want to do a good job at a wedding, then you need it. Otherwise a low cost DSLR will just not cut low light weddings.
 
andyscott said:
To be honest for low light weddings and crappy lit churches you really need pro gear, thats why we spend thousands on kit, because you need it.
Click to expand...

I'm going to disagree, at least to a degree.

If the OP wants to print whole images or reasonable crops at a reasonable size or view them on screen or on line I'm pretty sure that almost any modern DSLR will deliver decent results up to and including ISO 3200 and probably 6400 too. However, it takes a little experience and care to get the best out of kit and better lenses than the kit lens would help too.

I don't know what this will do to the budget but ditch the kit lens and replace it with a 17-50mm f2.8 and/or a bargain basement 50mm f1.8 and with a little practice and care and considerate post capture processing with modern software decent results could (or indeed will) very well be possible, even allowing for an entry level body and low light.
 
Orange_crunch said:
.....
I am doing the photography at my sisters wedding in October and really need something that is decent in low light ( horrible church lighting) ....
Click to expand...

Of these three would go for the newer Nikon D3200.

Goodluck for the wedding photography, you won't do much better on image quality unless you spend significantly more so do not let that put you off. It will be the maximum aperature of the lens that will be your limiting factor although the image stabaisation will help, dpreview claim you will get 3 stops advantage on the VR mode. Again unless you spend a lot more you won't get much better so go for it.

I would recommend you invest in a monopod as it will inprove the sharpness of the pictures in the church and is less of an issue than a tripod. It will enable you to use a lower ISO and get less noise in the images.

Remember to get there early and do some test shots or if you can practice on a non wedding day that will be even better.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I'm going to disagree, at least to a degree.

If the OP wants to print whole images or reasonable crops at a reasonable size or view them on screen or on line I'm pretty sure that almost any modern DSLR will deliver decent results up to and including ISO 3200 and probably 6400 too. However, it takes a little experience and care to get the best out of kit and better lenses than the kit lens would help too.

I don't know what this will do to the budget but ditch the kit lens and replace it with a 17-50mm f2.8 and/or a bargain basement 50mm f1.8 and with a little practice and care and considerate post capture processing with modern software decent results could (or indeed will) very well be possible, even allowing for an entry level body and low light.
Click to expand...

ISO has nothing to do with low light focus capabilities ;)
Yes they will be clean enough.



My best bit of advice would be don't shoot the wedding ;) but thats not for me to say :nono:
 
andyscott said:
ISO has nothing to do with low light focus capabilities ;)
Click to expand...

Well, obviously, but I doubt you've tried the models listed at higher ISO's in the venue so we, or rather you, may be in the land of FUD.

As to shooting the wedding as the wedding photographer. That's another question.
 
Orange_crunch said:
Thanks for the reply :)
Price is a major factor and I seen the NIKON D3200 for £499, The Sony A37 for £429 and the NIKON D3100 for £360 ( even seen the older D3000 for £265). These were the only camera available within my budget.
Click to expand...

I would suggest trying another shop, or some online research, while the Nikons are good cameras they will become limiting if/when you start looking to buy more glass. A lot of the Nikon back catalogue of lenses isn't fully compatible with the cheaper Nikon models.

You also have omitted Canon, the 500D or 550D would be in your budget and Pentax, the Kr (and probably others) would also be in your budget.
 
Well she cant afford to hire a pro at the wedding so its me or nothing at all :thinking:


All points took on board many retailers offer a standard 18-55mm lens, so I will look into a body only camera and picking a different lens and see where the budget gets me :)

Quite a few people seem to dislike the A37 ( As I said Jessops offered loads of freebies to push the sale and the sales assistant at curry's said its not a true DSLR ) and a very friendly chap in curry's said don't buy the Sony its horrible to use...

Been looking at some sample images of all the mentioned cameras and comparing them to the mid to high end models and its pretty hard to notice any difference. Sore head now members :cuckoo:
 
Dave1 said:
I would suggest trying another shop, or some online research, while the Nikons are good cameras they will become limiting if/when you start looking to buy more glass. A lot of the Nikon back catalogue of lenses isn't fully compatible with the cheaper Nikon models.
Click to expand...

Most lenses made since 1998 have included AF-S so will work fine. I don't think it's really an issue. it's only older glass that won't autofocus, and most of those models have now been updated to include AF-S
 
TCR4x4 said:
Most lenses made since 1998 have included AF-S so will work fine. I don't think it's really an issue. it's only older glass that won't autofocus, and most of those models have now been updated to include AF-S
Click to expand...

Was it really that long ago?

I remember having a D40 (i thought it was around 2005, my memory must be playing tricks) and really struggled to find decent cheap lenses fully compatible with it. I still remember the compatible 50 was about 3 times the price of the older (AF-D ?) version which seemed to be in plentiful supply.
 
Dave1 said:
I would suggest trying another shop, or some online research, while the Nikons are good cameras they will become limiting if/when you start looking to buy more glass. A lot of the Nikon back catalogue of lenses isn't fully compatible with the cheaper Nikon models.

You also have omitted Canon, the 500D or 550D would be in your budget and Pentax, the Kr (and probably others) would also be in your budget.
Click to expand...

OK will look in to them models also :)
 
Orange_crunch said:
OK will look in to them models also :)
Click to expand...

Good luck, if you can stretch the budget very slightly I would suggest you consider a 500D with the 18-55IS kit lens (probably around £400 new), a Canon 50mm f1.8 for the low light indoor shots (£50 s/h, £70-80 new) and an external flash unit, even just a cheap one like the Jessops 360AFD (£40 s/h, £60 new).

That should cover most of what you need to.
 
jessops are doing the 1100D at £359 ive heard thats a good camera.
 
pepi1967 said:
jessops are doing the 1100D at £359 ive heard thats a good camera.
Click to expand...

Between the 1100D and 500D for similar money I'd choose the 500D.

Better, newer sensor with improved high ISO. Much improved LCD screen and better resale value when inevitably upgrading spring straight to mind.
 
Orange_crunch said:
Quite a few people seem to dislike the A37 ( As I said Jessops offered loads of freebies to push the sale and the sales assistant at curry's said its not a true DSLR ) and a very friendly chap in curry's said don't buy the Sony its horrible to use...
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what other people think, what do you think?
There isn't a bad current production DSLR in terms of IQ but they do vary in handling, features etc. & handling especially is a very personal thing.
What you usually find is that people are used to 1 way of doing things (be that the Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony etc. way) & anything different throws them.
But different isn't necessarily worse, it's just different & with practice & getting to know the camera you may even find that the new way is better.
This tends to affect the smaller brands more as obviously more people are used to the Canon & Nikon* way but if you look back over the last few years imo Canon & Nikon have been appropriating functional ideas from Olympus/Pentax/Sony more than the other way around.

Having said that the A37 is different from the others in using an electronic viewfinder rather than an optical one. However, I think that it's quite easy to argue that the A37's EVF is better than the OVFs of the other APS-C bodies that you listed (harder to argue against an OVF in a FF body).
& yes, it's not a true SLR but that brings advantages like no mirror slap, what you see is what you get shooting & faster AF in Liveview & video. In a few years time there will be hardly any true SLRs in production & chances are that they won't be at the consumer level.
You need to try it & see what you think.

& don't let anyone tell you that there aren't enough lenses available to the Sony system for the kind of work that you want.
Yes, it isn't as large a system but what it lacks are a few specialist & expensive lenses - all the main bases are covered & if you take stabilisation into account there are more options on Sony than Canon & Nikon put together (& that's even including Nikon FF lenses that won't AF on the D3xxx series bodies).

Ultimately if you go with a Canon or Nikon that's fine as long as you do it for reasons that suit you & not what suits a sales person.


* & there is nothing stopping any manufacturer from changing "their" way of doing things - it seems that quite a few pros are unhappy about some changes that Nikon have made on the D800/D800E that go against 30+ years of Nikon handling
 
Last edited:
To simplify things -

Every camera made in the last few (3 for arguments sake) years can produce high quality A3 size prints providing you use good lenses and the right technique.

Getting a slightly older model with a lens like the tamron 17-50 f2.8 will give better results than the latest model with a kit lens.

Mike
 
pooley said:
Getting a slightly older model with a lens like the tamron 17-50 f2.8 will give better results than the latest model with a kit lens.
Click to expand...

Good advice, but with a small caveat, if buying lower end Nikon, be careful as many of the older non-VC Tamron 17-50's won't AF as no built in AF motor. Only the newer version (designated A16N I think I read somewhere) has a built in AF motor for any of the cheaper Nikon bodies.
 
Cant understand when people say you need a top end camera to take wedding pics as how did they manage years ago with much lower spec cameras compared to the 'entry' level ones of today?
 
woof woof said:
I'm going to disagree, at least to a degree.

If the OP wants to print whole images or reasonable crops at a reasonable size or view them on screen or on line I'm pretty sure that almost any modern DSLR will deliver decent results up to and including ISO 3200 and probably 6400 too. However, it takes a little experience and care to get the best out of kit and better lenses than the kit lens would help too.

I don't know what this will do to the budget but ditch the kit lens and replace it with a 17-50mm f2.8 and/or a bargain basement 50mm f1.8 and with a little practice and care and considerate post capture processing with modern software decent results could (or indeed will) very well be possible, even allowing for an entry level body and low light.
Click to expand...


3200 and 6400 on an entry level dslr? Which one are you referring to because the the 600d and my friends 5100 nikon both are horrible at that high of an iso. I rarely go to iso 400 and only do that when I'm desperate. Even with my 70-200 2.8 mrk2 or 17-55 2.8 lens the image quality is awful compared to iso 100-200. If there is an entry level dslr out there that can give good quality at those iso's I would really like to know which one so I can sell mine and buy it.
 
heidfirst said:
It doesn't matter what other people think, what do you think?
There isn't a bad current production DSLR in terms of IQ but they do vary in handling, features etc. & handling especially is a very personal thing.
What you usually find is that people are used to 1 way of doing things (be that the Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony etc. way) & anything different throws them.
But different isn't necessarily worse, it's just different & with practice & getting to know the camera you may even find that the new way is better.
This tends to affect the smaller brands more as obviously more people are used to the Canon & Nikon* way but if you look back over the last few years imo Canon & Nikon have been appropriating functional ideas from Olympus/Pentax/Sony more than the other way around.

Having said that the A37 is different from the others in using an electronic viewfinder rather than an optical one. However, I think that it's quite easy to argue that the A37's EVF is better than the OVFs of the other APS-C bodies that you listed (harder to argue against an OVF in a FF body).
& yes, it's not a true SLR but that brings advantages like no mirror slap, what you see is what you get shooting & faster AF in Liveview & video. In a few years time there will be hardly any true SLRs in production & chances are that they won't be at the consumer level.
You need to try it & see what you think.

& don't let anyone tell you that there aren't enough lenses available to the Sony system for the kind of work that you want.
Yes, it isn't as large a system but what it lacks are a few specialist & expensive lenses - all the main bases are covered & if you take stabilisation into account there are more options on Sony than Canon & Nikon put together (& that's even including Nikon FF lenses that won't AF on the D3xxx series bodies).

Ultimately if you go with a Canon or Nikon that's fine as long as you do it for reasons that suit you & not what suits a sales person.


* & there is nothing stopping any manufacturer from changing "their" way of doing things - it seems that quite a few pros are unhappy about some changes that Nikon have made on the D800/D800E that go against 30+ years of Nikon handling
Click to expand...

Nail on the head there :)
The Sony's 7 fps would be very handy...
The D3200 for its innovative Guide Mode and MP count...
The D1000 for its price and Guide....
Then a few pro's said get the older Nikon D5100 as its a better camera...
Then add a few curve balls with the canon series...

It does seem that a lot of people love the older DSLR cameras and always say the new camera features are just a slight update and not worth the upgrade.

Many many years ago I did my older sisters wedding with a Dimage z1 3.1 camera ( that might give away my age :lol:) and the photos turned out excellent apart from the indoor ones which were very noisy and had a bad orange tint.
.
To a beginner its all very confusing :thinking:
 
Orange_crunch said:
Nail on the head there :)
It does seem that a lot of people love the older DSLR cameras and always say the new camera features are just a slight update and not worth the upgrade.
Click to expand...

It all depends on your requirements. The features that are being added may or may not make a difference. Luckily for me none of the generally added features are what I need (video, larger rear screen, tiltable rear screen, improved high ISO, etc,.)
I proved this to myself by buying an 8 year old DSLR and I love it! The useability of DSLRs doesn't seem to have improved over the last 8 years (buttons and dials for key things, shape/handling etc,.) and an obvious advantage being that you can get a very well built camera for very little money. As long as the IQ is good enough the only limitation is presumably if doing huge prints or exteme cropping.
 
I'd definitely look at Canon simply because at that level they're as good as Nikon (which I use) and the lenses are all compatible and cheaper. A 500D and 50mm f1.8 and a half decent flashgun will see you okay. Any kind of standard zoom will do for group shots as you'll be in the sweetspot aperture wise.
 
Another thought -

£429 would get a Pentax Kr with the kit lens.

Dave
 
Tringa said:
Another thought -

£429 would get a Pentax Kr with the kit lens.

Dave
Click to expand...

Which does open up a lot of used lens options too.
 
I will being looking at all the mentioned models over the weekend and try to make my mind up from there. I was today Costco and they had the Sony Alpha A380 + kit lens for £289 ( around £340 with VAT ) but they didn't have a working model :lol:
 
The23rdman said:
I'd definitely look at Canon simply because at that level they're as good as Nikon (which I use) and the lenses are all compatible and cheaper. A 500D and 50mm f1.8 and a half decent flashgun will see you okay. Any kind of standard zoom will do for group shots as you'll be in the sweetspot aperture wise.
Click to expand...


Seen the 5500D with 18-55mm IS Lens today, quite impressed then they said we also have the 600D for £12 more :bonk: They recommended a new lens (Canon EF 50mm f1.8 MK2) on both cameras as the one in the kit is not the best :'( Anyone have any views on the standard kit 18-55mm IS Lens ?

But never had any in stock till next weekend, I think we might have a winner here.... the 600D
 
Nothing wrong with the kit lens. It would be a good place to start.
 
I've got to agree Shayne. the 550d is horrible above 800 really. it's not 'terrible' at 1600, but not really useable...
 
samems said:
Cant understand when people say you need a top end camera to take wedding pics as how did they manage years ago with much lower spec cameras compared to the 'entry' level ones of today?
Click to expand...

Well as someone who shot weddings 'in the old days' and still shoots them today;

In the 'old days' no one really expected shots of the ceremony, inside we always shot with flash, usually a side-mounted hammerhead type bounced off the ceiling - loads of power, but nowadays those shots would be slaughtered by the C&C brigade here - no idea what a B&G would think when comparing them to high ISO shots with natural light.

And most of the shooting was very posed and static, so no need for our fab AF motors as we had massive focus screens and loads of time to use them:cool:.

I'll shut up now as I've already been moderated out of this thread once:rules:.

But I do agree about the slagging of high ISO on some DSLR's, I've printed 1600 from a 300d and given the choice between that and 400 film (effectively no photo), it's just a joke. But then many people who only picked up their first DSLR 2 years ago would tell me that I shouldn't be charging money to shoot with a 40d because it's a pile of cr@p.:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top