First SLR camera + accessories: Recommendation sought

R

richard9897

Messages
43
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi. I don't know much about photography. I'd like to take good landscape pictures. I've never owned a digital SLR camera, but I'd like to. I have a limited budget of say £250. Second-hand may be the way to go for kit - possibly.

I want the camera body to accept practically any lens I may want in the future. I must be able to employ a zoom lens of some nature. What exactly I don't know.

I suppose one asks what do I want to do with any pictures I take. Well, as a starting point, what about if I said I'd like to print my work at S8R size, that is 8" x 12".

Let's also imagine that I'd like to print my own prints.

Comments appreciated. Thanks
 
Last edited:
Secondhand will be the only way to go with that budget methinks, checking around a Nikon D40, D70 or similar with short zoom, e.g. 18-55mm is about par for that budget. With a better budget you will have much better opportunity to obtain better kit obviously.
 
Richard

To be honest you will be struggling to get anything that hasn't had a fair bit of usage with a DSLR camera. Maybe looking at a new compact camera is an option, you can get a really good new one for that amount of money.

Realspeed
 
I wonder if to be more realistic we ought to be talking say £500 as a budget.

But, that's stretching things at this end.

I wonder what megapixels we would be after.
 
Last edited:
Hi Richard,

£500 is more realistic. For that you can get a good entry level camera, with lens, and have enough over for memory cards, spare battery and bag. You mention an intention to print your images, so the cost of this - and possibly software for image manipulation - needs to be considered.

The pixel count is largely irrelevant at entry-level. The size and quality of the sensor has more impact on the final result, and the quality of the lens is just as, if not more, important. (Although the quality of the photographer is the definitive factor in all cases). Any modern camera is capable of producing shots that will look fine at your 8 x 12 example. I have a print measuring 24" x 16" on the wall above this computer. It was taken on a 10MP camera and looks, well, good enough to go on a wall. I don't think anyone is now making a dSLR with under 10MP, and most are higher.

All entry level cameras come with a decent `kit` lens, typically around 18-55 or 18-85mm. This will be fine for landscape and portrait, but will struggle if you want to do wildlife or sports. All makes have a wide range of interchangeable lenses and other accessories, and most will allow you to use pretty much any lenses you buy on any body equipped for that make, so you needn't buy new lenses every time you upgrade the body.

Nikon and Canon are by some distance the market leaders. There is nothing much to pick between them. But don't ignore the other makes; it's fairly safe to say that there are no bad cameras on the market today, so pick one that feels right -make sure you handle a good few different ones before you buy.
 
I don't think your budget is unrealistic at all.

My used D40x with bag, kit lens (18-55mm), remote and memory card was £200 delivered :)
 
im not really qualified to give info but i will say its possible to get cameras in the budget my own a pentax k100d super was £250 i got 3 different lens in with that
18-55 lens
80 - 200 lens
70 - 300 sigma lens
a cobra d400 external flash
all cased up
 
Canon 350D, 400D, 450D would all give you excellent prints, just a case of looking around to see what's on offer. I still use my 350D as well as my 7D it's a very capable camera. This with the 18-55 kit lens

Img_3049c.jpg
 
...actually, it may have been £220 delivered come to think of it.

jon ryan said:
Bargain of the year - nice one! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Bargain of 2009 maybe, Jon :lol: Mind you, as such I'd be even more surprised if you couldn't pick one up for the same or less these days.

richard9897 said:
I was just looking at the D40x as it happens. :lol:
Click to expand...

Cracking camera mate. The only negatives I can pick out so far during my ownership is that there is no built-in motor for focusing older lenses and that it doesn't have a 'bracketing' feature for easier HDR shots.

Fantastic first camera though.
 
artyman said:
Canon 350D, 400D, 450D would all give you excellent prints, just a case of looking around to see what's on offer. I still use my 350D as well as my 7D it's a very capable camera. This with the 18-55 kit lens

Img_3049c.jpg
Click to expand...

That image is excellent, is that the original kit lens?
 
It's a good camera - I used one for a few years. But it's old by digital standards (came out in 2004), has only 8.2 MP, not brilliant low-light performance. Given the age, I'd want to know it's history. I don't think you can get a true shutter count (anyone know about this?), and if it happens to be my old one, well... it had a pretty tough life :D. If you go for one of these, a warranty is vital.

`Completed listings` on ebay is a good place to get an idea of what people are paying.
 
I bought a Canon 500D last year at this time as my first and still only DSLR and I am quite happy with it. I got it at Camera World off Oxford St. in London for £ 500 with £ 30 cash back.
 
Why do people put so much store in "it's only got 8Mp", and "It's old, 2004" :thinking:

I still would be using my Canon EOS 10DE if some lowlife hadn't stolen it.

Ok so 10,20Ds are not as good as todays and the same will apply to todays next year but I easily produced GOOD A3 images with my 10D and that was just 6Mp.

JPEGImage16097992.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mostly, I agree. But if you read to the end of what I wrote, you'll see that my caution is due to the fact that an older camera will be closer to the end of its life. Hence my comment about the warranty.

8MP cameras are certainly capable of producing good results - my first press camera was a Canon D30: 3.2 MB, 2 1/2 FPS, pretty useless above 400 ISO, shutter lag you needed a calender to measure... and we produced shots from sport to ribbon cutting to RTAs - everything you saw in the local press in the early 2000s. And we processed it using PSE 2!

But now I don't use kit like that because much better is available. In the same way I don't stick to the 2001 Golf I had at the time. Yes, it was a pretty good tool, but by now there is better around for a similar price, and it probably won't be knackered!
 
I bought my 350D with 18-55 kit lens for £150.
Ok, so it's not cutting edge by today's standards but it's a great learning tool for a beginner like me. ;)
 
jon ryan said:
Mostly, I agree. But if you read to the end of what I wrote, you'll see that my caution is due to the fact that an older camera will be closer to the end of its life. Hence my comment about the warranty.

8MP cameras are certainly capable of producing good results - my first press camera was a Canon D30: 3.2 MB, 2 1/2 FPS, pretty useless above 400 ISO, shutter lag you needed a calender to measure... and we produced shots from sport to ribbon cutting to RTAs - everything you saw in the local press in the early 2000s. And we processed it using PSE 2!

But now I don't use kit like that because much better is available. In the same way I don't stick to the 2001 Golf I had at the time. Yes, it was a pretty good tool, but by now there is better around for a similar price, and it probably won't be knackered!
Click to expand...

I did read it all.

Why assume that an older camera is beyond it, as long as it has been looked after whay, there are posts here from people with week old cameras that are faulty.
 
Originally Posted by jon ryan View Post
Mostly, I agree. But if you read to the end of what I wrote, you'll see that my caution is due to the fact that an older camera will be closer to the end of its life. Hence my comment about the warranty.

8MP cameras are certainly capable of producing good results - my first press camera was a Canon D30: 3.2 MB, 2 1/2 FPS, pretty useless above 400 ISO, shutter lag you needed a calender to measure... and we produced shots from sport to ribbon cutting to RTAs - everything you saw in the local press in the early 2000s. And we processed it using PSE 2!

But now I don't use kit like that because much better is available. In the same way I don't stick to the 2001 Golf I had at the time. Yes, it was a pretty good tool, but by now there is better around for a similar price, and it probably won't be knackered!
Click to expand...

JSER said:
I did read it all.

Why assume that an older camera is beyond it, as long as it has been looked after whay, there are posts here from people with week old cameras that are faulty.
Click to expand...

Good.

So you possibly noticed the bit - in the first four words - where I said: "It's a good camera." You will also have noted that nowhere did I say, assume, or imply `that an older camera is beyond it`, simply that it would pay to be cautious.
 
Post no longer needed, sneaky trader's post has been deleted.
 
Last edited:
Wozzaaah said:
You wouldn't be Andrew Shufflebotham from some camera place by any chance would you?
1st post on a forum and lots of links to your company, naughty naughty....:rules:
Click to expand...

Shuffled off pretty fast, didn't he? Seems the mods do pay attention at times :D
 
Makes me laugh when they pretend to be a satisfied customer but know everything there is to know about the company and use their real name in their posts. :clap:
Some people never learn eh? You'd think a 'website developer' would have more sense than that and actually introduce himself properly, that way instead of being turfed off he may actually gain some business. :lol:

Anyhoo, back to the topic, I've had a few bits and pieces off an Ebay seller called The Photographer's Bag, they seem to suddenly get lots of identical bodies in stock, recently 350D and now 40D though they're a little out of the OP's budget but I believe they're a very nice body.

And no, I'm not the seller! :lol:
 
jon ryan said:
Good.

So you possibly noticed the bit - in the first four words - where I said: "It's a good camera." You will also have noted that nowhere did I say, assume, or imply `that an older camera is beyond it`, simply that it would pay to be cautious.
Click to expand...

This was an open comment, in other words why do some people etc not addressed to or at you so why reply like that, had it been a comment addressed to you I would have said "Why do you assume ".

Blimy, have to explain everything or get told off for no reason.
 
artyman said:
Canon 350D, 400D, 450D would all give you excellent prints, just a case of looking around to see what's on offer. I still use my 350D as well as my 7D it's a very capable camera. This with the 18-55 kit lens

Img_3049c.jpg
Click to expand...

Spot on Artyman I still have my 350D and it is an excellent camera perfectly capable of producing superb pictures - I used mine for 5 years before I felt the need to upgrade - and then to a 450D another excellent camera.

.
 
JSER said:
This was an open comment, in other words why do some people etc not addressed to or at you so why reply like that, had it been a comment addressed to you I would have said "Why do you assume ".

Blimy, have to explain everything or get told off for no reason.
Click to expand...

What you said, in direct response to my comment, was `why assume...`. Possibly this would have been less ambiguous had you actually said `why do some people assume...' (although as no-one seemed to be making any such assumption within this thread, further exposition may have been necessary). However, now that you've generously explained what you actually meant, any further comment will be superfluous.
 
Have a look at MPB, who have lots of secondhand Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses, and would be a good place to get a feel for models and their specifications. They will also come with a 6 month warranty.
You could get a Canon 350D with 18-55 IS or a Nikon D70 with 18-55 VR lens for your budget from them. (IS and VR = Image stabilisation systems)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top