Going Slightly Crazy

S

Skips

Messages
270
Name
Skippy
Edit My Images
Yes
I've posted before I know, and I still haven't made a decision on which camera to buy. It's looking heavily like my budget is going to be 700 quid. (Assuming that the 300 quid of that budget is still there and hasn't already been spent on another camera in which case weeks of research is pretty much null and void)

Anyway, 700 quid is a lot of money to me so I obviously want to make the right choice and I started, as most probably do looking at canon vs Nikon. And I didn't look at cameras I looked at the lens selection. I figured rightly or wrongly that Nikon was probably slightly better for me. Then someone suggested I look at Pentax and then at Olympus. Someone suggested I take a looksee at Tokina lenses and now I'm just about as confused as I possibly can be.

Seriously guys? What the hell? How did any of you ever make a decision on where to start?
 
To be honest I just went for canon because I did. No reason behind it apart from they have been making cameras for a few years and should know what they are doing.

Some will say x is better this but y is better at that.

They will all take a picture and produce amazing results.

Guessing that probably won't help but that's what I did.

End of the day only you can choose what make to go for.
 
I'm far from experienced compared to most people on this forum, but I started with a Nikon film camera maybe 10 years ago. When I moved to digital I initially went for a Canon then dabbled in Micro Four Thirds and now I'm back with Canon.

I would definitely stick with Canon or Nikon, I'm not a big fan of the Four Thirds sensor size compared with APS-C when you have the disadvantage of carrying around similarly sized bodies. Beyond that you will go round in circles with which brand to go for.

My Canon DSLRs have always produced great photos to my eye and I have never been tempted to move to digital Nikon for that reason. Whatever you go for you will be happy with the results, a huge portion of what makes a good photo is down to the photographers skill and the subject you are shooting. When I see other people's photos I don't think "that must've been a Canon that shot that", because they can both produce incredible images.

My only bit of wisdom I could impart is don't spend too long reading and deciding when you could have a camera in your hands taking photos.

Have fun deciding!
 
Problem I think is that I can't have a camera in my hands taking photos till beginning of next year. So all I have is reading and deciding.
 
Which camera does not really matter, glass is where it's at and what glass depends on what your shooting.

I bought a new nikon d5000 as I was sucked into the marketing side and now wish I brought a second hand d90 to start with.

I already want to upgrade my body as I shoot a band and would like something which is better at a higher iso like the d7000 or d700 oh and I have a couple on lenses I would not mind in my bag either :)

If your not sure what you want buy second had then you can make more informed decision whan you have figured out what suits you.
 
I was given an old Nikon D60 from a family relative and I decided that I preferred a Canon, so I switched to a Canon 550D. I now have a Canon 7D.

As most people would say, it all depends on the feel of it. Just go into a Jessops and test out say, for your £700 budget, the Canon 600D and the Nikon D5100 and see what you think.

Another reason why I switched to Canon was because all my friends were using them, so I could borrow their lenses! Maybe that can be another factor to think about for your decision :)
 
Nm: Question was about something outside price range anyway.
 
Last edited:
I had my heart set on a Canon when starting out on the digital path. Went into a shop handled them all and ended up buying a Nikon :D

Go and have a play. It may help you decide.

(Another thing to consider is Nikon & Canon second hand lenses are far more common than other brands...)
 
I went for Canon because it was the brand that the best in my quite small hands. I went in to Jessops and Currys stores, played about with all the ones on display to see which I felt the most comfortable with, then went home and purchased a cheaper second hand body online.
 
What was it about the nikon lens range that appealed to you?
Looking at lenses first is a good way of deciding which brand to go for if you have some specific purposes in mind for the camera. Camera bodies are updated often and depreciate fast, but lens collections are generally more steady and won't be "out of date" for a long time. The lens also determines image quality far more than the camera body, so if you know the type of lens you're going to be after it's a good way to go about it to pick the brand with the best offering in that category.

As others have said, handling is also important and it is very useful to get your hands on some camera bodies and see which appeal to you.
 
Look at the K-r, really good value for money, small and light, built in image stabilisation and features that come closer to DSLRs a couple hundred pounds more expensive than it (D5100/550D). A great array of pancake and couple of tele primes as well as what in my opinion one of the best lenses around the 50-135. On the negative side not as good in video as others, not articulated display if you want it and the AF speed of the Pentax motored lenses leaves something to be desired I am afraid. The most important part though is that at £400 with the kit lens or about £320 without leaves a bit of cash for at least one decent lens.

An A580 might be another choice as well as a s/h D90 if you are leaning towards Nikon glass.

I am still not convinced from Canon's low/mid level DSLRs I am afraid both in built quality and value for money.
 
Spoony said:
Which camera does not really matter, glass is where it's at and what glass depends on what your shooting.
Click to expand...

It does really matter, as you say yourself below. ;)

Most DSLRs will give very good pics in good light. If you want anything out of the norm, then you want narrow down what you want by features or lenses.

You choose the level of camera you want on many different factors, what kind of pics you want to take, which will affect the choice of lenses, which will all be limited by how much you want/have to spend etc. On top of that is how the camera feels in the hand, and how the user interface is to you. :shrug:

When I was getting my first DSLR it was between the Nikon D70 and the Canon 300D. While I was thinking about it the 350D was announced, so I thought that was going to be the one to get. When I actually got to handle the cameras though, the 300D felt plasticky and lightweight. :shake: My knuckles were also rubbing on the lens when I held it, and the 350D was going to be virtually the same body. The D70 however felt solid and sturdy, and the grip just felt comfortable in my hand.

Spoony said:
I already want to upgrade my body as I shoot a band and would like something which is better at a higher ISO like the d7000 or d700 oh and I have a couple on lenses I would not mind in my bag either :)
Click to expand...
Sometimes you may find that a camera doesn't do what you want it to do, but if you need something specific in the design, and you know that from the start, good ISO, high frames per second, lots of pixels, to be able to use certain lenses etc, then not getting that feature from the start may be a false economy as you may want/need to change quite soon. :shrug:
 
Let's see. Weight and size aren't necessarily an issue. When I get a chance I will go and handle everything relevant.

This is my first camera but with my previous camera (a Bridge camera) I spent a lot of time shooting portraits, candids and documentary type stuff, some street photography, some landscape and some architectural stuff.

With lenses I'm not so interested in zooms, this may well change once I actually start using them I suppose but I'm happy to zoom with my feet rather than hand so looking at the primes mainly.

Let's see, I found that my usual method of shooting with the bridge (and I hope this changes) was to leave the camera on at all times for a chance to capture a moment happening as it happens.

I love shooting in natural light but am interested at some point in the future into looking into getting some speedlights maybe.

I like to be mobile.

I'm not too bothered about video but feel I maybe should be. Maybe in the future once I've got the stills side sorted I'll start looking at video again.

I really can't remember why I made the decision that I like Nikon lenses better than Canon. Maybe I felt that Canon did low and high range lenses and Nikon was more mid-range quality wise.

Weather sealing would be a bonus but I managed to carry my old bridge camera up a river, which sometimes required walking up to my shoulders in water and climbing up waterfalls, without getting anything damaged. Ya know maybe weather sealing is more an issue than I thought. Weather sealing would be a big bonus.

Would love to be able to shoot dance indoors in available light.
 
Is £700 also your budget for long term lens spending Skips? if so I'd say Canon or Nikon are probabley the best options.

If its purely for the body and a kit lens then the Pentax k-5 might be worth considering, very well sealed body that you can get with a sealed kit lens for just over £700. Personally I looked long and hard at it before going with the 550D instead but that was based on the latters lighter weight for high altitude trekking and its better selection of zooms for landscapes(10-22 and 15-85 espeically). The Pentax would have the option of the limated prime lenses though, their not cheap(not high end Canon/Nikon prices either though) but they are very well reguarded and very small/well built.

The original full frame 5D might also be worth considering if you can do without liveview, it would give you more DOF control than the crops and the ISO performance might I'd guess still be superior to them aswell. That would make getting wide angle primes much easier/cheaper aswell with the 24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8 and 35mm f/2 around £120-180 used if you can find them.
 
Last edited:
I thought video may be a good thing on a DSLR but reality is i very rarely use it, not because of any issues its just a lot easier to whip out my Sony AVCHD camcorder which is pocket size, cheap and gives excellent low light performance with very little noise.Cost less than £300 too.

DSLR for photos, camcorder for video i say.
 
I chose canon as I went into best buy played with both and found the canon menus easier and quicker to use.

I had a 500d now a 7d
 
I will have more money later on for lenses. Want to start with a body and a nifty or 35mm I think. Maybe a kit lens would be a better idea?

Think I agree with you Steve on the DSLR for photos, camcorder for video. This may have been why I was leaning more towards Nikon as well I think.

Liveview isn't something I'm bothered about, much happier with my nose wedged into any liveview screen than using my eyes.. But what is the original 5D like compared to most of the current Cropped cameras?

Is there a big difference between full and crop? Would I be missing out on more than I should be by having an older full frame compared to the newer cropped cameras?

K-5 is interesting but yeah, price of lenses is steep.
 
Is anyone able to talk me through the pentax lens range and which lens brands are available for pentax and what different lenses would do on a K-5?
 
Last edited:
I decided on what I wanted to shoot most of, in my case airplanes, and how I could shoot it best. I went for a Canon 550D because it suited my budget, had great reviews, had a good output, was a good make and had lots of lenses in case I started expanding my shooting techniques. I'm glad I made the decision because I've now got hundreds of brilliant photos of all types.
I've since upgraded to a 7d and a 5DMkII and half a dozen great lenses and can take great quality photos of practically any subject. The downside of this hobby/obsession is that I've since spent in excess of £8500 in the last year, the upside is that I have the sort of kit that I can take anything with.
On a computer screen there doesn't seem to be a massive amount of difference between FF and crop, but on prints it's much cleaner and has wider perspective.
 
redhed17 said:
It does really matter, as you say yourself below. ;)
Click to expand...

:D so i did.

When I first brought my camera I did not really know what I was going to shoot, just that I wanted to get into photography.

I only know the limitations of my camera now I have found out what I shoot (some of the time)

Also I thought that when I brought a camera and a couple of lenses I thought it would be the only thing I needed. Oh how wrong could I have been, spending £xx on a new camera, lenses, memory card, bag was just the beginning. :wacky:

It’s an expensive hobby.
 
When i looked at getting a new DSLR, i looked in Jessops, had a feel and decided on the D7000, then decided i couldn't afford that and a lens :) So, decided on the D90 which i bought on the talkphotography forums for much less than i would have paid in Jessops. Have since bought a few lenses on here and on fleabay.
 
Spoony said:
:D so i did.
Click to expand...

;) :LOL:

Spoony said:
I only know the limitations of my camera now I have found out what I shoot (some of the time)
Click to expand...

Hopefully with enough research and opinions the camera can be bought with the right features for the user not to reach the limits too soon. You can see from this thread though how people tend to upgrade their cameras. ;) As far as image quality goes almost any camera will give very good to excellent results, it is whether the camera has the other features, lenses and accessories to do what you want.

Spoony said:
It’s an expensive hobby.
Click to expand...

And it can be even more expensive if you get that initial camera purchase wrong. ;) Once the camera is chosen, spend the money on the lenses rather than camera upgrading too often. ;)

That said, I'm on my 4th DSLR in six years. :eek: Though one was a replacement for one that was stolen. :crying:

I see no need to upgrade the camera I have now though, as although the high ISO performance will be better in future cameras, I'm happy with the high ISO performance now, :) in all other respects the D300S does all that I need. :love:

I have the lenses I want. If some extra money becomes available I would like a 50mm f1.8, a 105mm Macro lens and maybe a 10-20mm, but I'd use them so infrequently that they would be a luxury, and I can't afford luxuries. That said, I'm slowly talking myself into the Nikon 50mm f1.8G. ;) :LOL:
 
Last edited:
Okay, honestly it looks like the K-5 is about exactly what I want, but it's right at the edge of my price range and the lenses are bloody expensive (and confusing me)
 
I don't think you will be disappointed by the K5.

One thing that has not been mentioned is that any K mount lens made from about 1975 onwards can be used with Pentax DSLRs (but see the Pentax section in the link below). You may lose some or all the auto functions, which may or may not be important to you, but there are loads of old K mount lenses around at good prices and, as noted above the IS in the camera, so all lenses are image stabilised.

Dave

http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-99.html
 
The number of letters that the Pentax lenses have seems huge, they don't appear to do a low f/stop 35mm (which I believe is the current 50mm equivalant, how long does a 50mm feel on a crap body?)
 
*crop body

Okay I actually found an example of the f/2.4 35mm pentax lens on a K-5. And it looks pretty good, apparently it actually goes down to f/2.1 in real terms.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the responses everyone, was borrowing someones laptop, left it in a drawer, safe and sound, and someone managed to, whilst the laptop was unopened crack the screen. I didn't damage it but was my responsibility so as they have no insurance I need replace it. Looks like my new budget is probably closer to 400 or 500 at a push.

Crazy is increasingly a less apt word.
 
Skips said:
The number of letters that the Pentax lenses have seems huge, they don't appear to do a low f/stop 35mm (which I believe is the current 50mm equivalant, how long does a 50mm feel on a crap body?)
Click to expand...

They do the 35mm 2.4 for just 140£ (less than 115£ s/h). Stabilised too :)

The 35mm is a 52.5 so yes almost a 50mm a 50mm is a 75mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top