Help needed in choosing a DSLR.

Messages
181
Edit My Images
Yes
Lets go shopping!

I am after a point and shoot with the capability of getting more involved. Three things I wish tyo do, night sky, night shots, lightning! I also need it to be able to point and shoot for every day stuff. I am not a photographer nore do I know a lot about the subject.

My options are,

Cannon 2000d 4000d or 200d, either body or lens kit. Lens kit options are EF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 III & EF 50 mm f/1.8 STM Lens.

Any help in choosing would be great, I am limited to where I buy the camera, basically limited to one shop!
 
Lets go shopping!

I am after a point and shoot with the capability of getting more involved. Three things I wish tyo do, night sky, night shots, lightning! I also need it to be able to point and shoot for every day stuff. I am not a photographer nore do I know a lot about the subject.

My options are,

Cannon 2000d 4000d or 200d, either body or lens kit. Lens kit options are EF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 III & EF 50 mm f/1.8 STM Lens.

Any help in choosing would be great, I am limited to where I buy the camera, basically limited to one shop!
Are you set on Canon? Also, there's a shift in the market towards mirrorless cameras which offer everything that DSLRs do, are you aware of this?
 
Lets go shopping!

I am after a point and shoot with the capability of getting more involved. Three things I wish tyo do, night sky, night shots, lightning! I also need it to be able to point and shoot for every day stuff. I am not a photographer nore do I know a lot about the subject.

My options are,

Cannon 2000d 4000d or 200d, either body or lens kit. Lens kit options are EF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 III & EF 50 mm f/1.8 STM Lens.

Any help in choosing would be great, I am limited to where I buy the camera, basically limited to one shop!
which shop ????? and what do they stock ????? would be a help for advice. No good folks recommending a brand that you cannot buy.
 
Are you set on Canon? Also, there's a shift in the market towards mirrorless cameras which offer everything that DSLRs do, are you aware of this?
To add to that if OP has no plans on buying many lenses apart from the kit lens there are some nice bridge cameras
 
Thanks guys, its Currys that I am buying from, Ive been using a bridge camera for a few years now and although its pretty decent its restricting in what I can do with it. I have looked at mirrorless and they seem to be a little more expensive, also I guess I am pretty set on a DSLR , tried and tested and all that.
Im looking at the three Canons because they are very well spoken of, they have had some great reviews, the 4000 and 2000 are entry level but will do everything I need them to do but I am swaying towards the 200D because of its features and lens package, and it looks like something I can grow into without becoming overwhelmed.
I understand the basics and put them to good use with my bridge camera but its worn out now, pictures arnt great anymore, video has deteriorated badly. It had a problem with the autofocus so I sent it back to Fuji who repaired it and sent it back to me with the same issues.

Do you guys recommend the 200D? I have been reading up on it and its got some quite cool features, time laps for instance could be a lot of fun, I live in the middle of nowhere with no light pollution so filming/photographing the stars/sky/moon is something that interests me.
 
DSLR bodies have come a long way since I owned a Canon 450D.
Based on that, any entry level DSLR will be as good or even better so go with what you can afford.
Unless your heart is set in a Canon read the reviews on other manufacturers as well.
However, depending how far you want to go with photography as a hobby, be prepared to eventually buying more expensive lens.
 
Have you considered the sony A6000 camera, its about the same price as the 200D with a £100 cashback offer. Would have suggested a Nikon also but Currys don't seem to have anything in your price bracket on their website.
 
Thanks guys, its Currys that I am buying from, Ive been using a bridge camera for a few years now and although its pretty decent its restricting in what I can do with it. I have looked at mirrorless and they seem to be a little more expensive, also I guess I am pretty set on a DSLR , tried and tested and all that.
Im looking at the three Canons because they are very well spoken of, they have had some great reviews, the 4000 and 2000 are entry level but will do everything I need them to do but I am swaying towards the 200D because of its features and lens package, and it looks like something I can grow into without becoming overwhelmed.
I understand the basics and put them to good use with my bridge camera but its worn out now, pictures arnt great anymore, video has deteriorated badly. It had a problem with the autofocus so I sent it back to Fuji who repaired it and sent it back to me with the same issues.

Do you guys recommend the 200D? I have been reading up on it and its got some quite cool features, time laps for instance could be a lot of fun, I live in the middle of nowhere with no light pollution so filming/photographing the stars/sky/moon is something that interests me.
If you’re set on Canon and happy with how they handle etc. then that’s what you should get. I can’t help with models I’m afraid as I know more about Nikon and personally think they are better for a given price point. For example the D5600 is probably the Nikon equivalent on the Canon 200d and has more focus points, more cross type focus points, better battery life, better dynamic range, colour depth and noise handling and also doesn’t have an aa filter which I prefer (YMMV). Canon’s trump card is the dual pixel AF in live view which may be of benefit to some.
 
Have you considered the sony A6000 camera, its about the same price as the 200D with a £100 cashback offer. Would have suggested a Nikon also but Currys don't seem to have anything in your price bracket on their website.

Thats a pretty nice camera, I have just read through the features/spec and it does indeed tick quite a few boxes. For things like sensors to shoot lightning and remotes to open the shutter would it be an option to do these things with a camera like this?
 
Thats a pretty nice camera, I have just read through the features/spec and it does indeed tick quite a few boxes. For things like sensors to shoot lightning and remotes to open the shutter would it be an option to do these things with a camera like this?
Yep, sure would (y)
 
A6000 doesn't have the time lapse app. Think you can buy it from playmemories though
 
The canon 200d is a nice 'little' camera. One of my students uses one - and it produces very nice results. I'd add a vote for Canon having used them for many many years - and wouldn't consider Sony in a month of Sundays. (They aren't bad cameras - but I like what I know and I know what I like).
 
I would probably avoid Canon crop sensors for night shots. They tend to be noisy, try the Nikon/Pentax crop.
 
I would probably avoid Canon crop sensors for night shots. They tend to be noisy, try the Nikon/Pentax crop.

Apparently this has the same sensor as the 80D? I dont know much about sensors but surely that cant be a bad one?
 
Choosing your first camera depends on your budget.Bearing in mind lens and memory card and insurance cost have to be included
Next you said point and shoot,or in other words a compact camera when the lens can't be changed. Surely you mean a DSLR (digital single lens reflex) camera that thats interchangeable lenses.
Crop or Full frame camera is a consideration Having got both i prefer Full Frame but that is a personal choice
You say you have only one place to go to, why? the internet gives more choices than any shop can.

Next do you want to spend UK price when an import " called grey import" can be a lot cheaper and save yourself a bundle. My Nikon is one and it is just the same as a UK bought one. One thing that always crops up about "grey" imports is warranty issues. Insuring it covers all that. there are loads of companies that will service/repair A camera even grey imports, another argument that doesn't hold water about service/repair saying you can't get a grey import repaired "what a load of rubbish". An alternative is a good used camera with a very low shutter actuation count will also save you a load of money

AS soon as you get one you will soon wish you got a better model higher up in the range ,so I would suggest looking above your present budget level, all DSLR cameras will take good photos in automatic " called program mode with Nikon",so you can start from there and use the other features when you feel you want to get more out of the camera.

Or take a look here at prices different UK companies charge

https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/

example new Nikon D810 uk price £2598 I got mine as a grey import for £1609 from ireland brand new in nov 2017, that included p/p as well. Still on ebay for around £1700 obviously again grey imports
 
Last edited:
Apparently this has the same sensor as the 80D? I dont know much about sensors but surely that cant be a bad one?
It's not 'bad' but it's not great either. Nikon is noticeably better, and the d5500 is actually better than the d5600 in terms of noise handling. Canon are the worst amongst the 'big boys' in terms of sensor performance. The Canon APS-C are actually worse than current m4/3.
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Com...n-D5600-versus-Canon-EOS-200D___998_1139_1171
 
Apparently this has the same sensor as the 80D? I dont know much about sensors but surely that cant be a bad one?

Canon sensors are generally considered a generation behind Sony sensors. So for example 80D which is as good as Sony A6000 which is previous generation.

p.s. pretty much every other brand you may want to buy from uses Sony sensors - Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Olympus, iphone ( :p ), etc etc. For a given sensor size they perform similarly (hardly surprising lol) and generally better than equivalent canon.
 
Last edited:
I'd recommend that anyone thinking of buying an interchangeable lens camera should at least take a look at mirrorless and see what's available.

Personally I can't imagine any circumstances in which I'd consider a DSLR as mirrorless cameras offer so many improvements such as more accurate and more consistent focus and seeing the exposure exactly as it'll be captured when you press the shutter button. After using mirrorless cameras DSLR's seem like something from the 1800's and Canon cameras doubly so as they've been behind the cutting edge for years, in fact I wouldn't bother with their mirrorless cameras either.
 
My only advice here would be to perhaps think of the system you are buying into rather than the model

After film SLRs many years ago, I like most had a series of digital cameras - point and shoot up to bridge etc, and basically just picked the one I liked most at the time, no need to stick to one brand over another. Once you move into interchangeable lens cameras though, you start to build up a 'family' of kit, so switching between brands and models can become expensive, so there's a fair few people who just stick with the format they buy first.

My first 'DSLR' was a Canon 350D, bought from Jessops in Staines at the time, for no other reason other than the fact it was the one they had, and it felt alright in the hand. What followed was 15+ years of gradual upgrades all in the Canon format because I'd invested progressively more into the platform.

I bit the bullet and sold the lot and moved to Fuji X series, and lost around 50% of my investment in doing so, and six years after that, did the same to move to Sony. Lenses tend to hold their value well, especially at the higher end, the bodies though, drop significantly over time as they are 'outdated' - not that that affects their ability to take great photos, just people only want to pay for the 'latest' usually.

So while it's perfectly feasible to switch (or have two or more systems as many do), it does come at a cost. So look to the system as well as the model.

That said, regarding the model, it will be your first DSLR, you will replace it, so don't spend too much time stressing over the actual model - just make sure the system as the room for you to grow in the direction you want (which is a very hard thing to know!)
 
You could have a look at the Canon EOS M50 which is a very capable mirrorless camera and produces fantastic image quality. Because of the EOS M50's small "carry everywhere" size you will almost certainly find you use it more than you would a more than you would use a bulky DSLR.

Check out reviews on YouTube, The view of people who have used the camera are far more valuable than the opinions of those who have only read a particular cameras spec list.
 
Last edited:
I'd recommend that anyone thinking of buying an interchangeable lens camera should at least take a look at mirrorless and see what's available.

Personally I can't imagine any circumstances in which I'd consider a DSLR as mirrorless cameras offer so many improvements such as more accurate and more consistent focus and seeing the exposure exactly as it'll be captured when you press the shutter button. After using mirrorless cameras DSLR's seem like something from the 1800's and Canon cameras doubly so as they've been behind the cutting edge for years, in fact I wouldn't bother with their mirrorless cameras either.
I agree with you to certain extent, but mirorless is not for everyone. I personally couldn't get on with the way they felt and handled, even had a go with the Z6 but it was not for me.
 
...mirrorless cameras offer so many improvements such as more accurate and more consistent focus and seeing the exposure exactly as it'll be captured when you press the shutter button.

But you are a mirrorless zealot and not everyone sees these things your way, or mirrorless changes as 'improvements'.

The WYSIWYG viewfinder relies on it being correctly adjusted for one thing, and not all EVFs are equal. Some are crap.
 
Do you want to do any daytime photography, i.e. landscapes or portraits etc?

The reason I ask is you can buy (usually secondhand) converted cameras for astro. I think they have the infrared filter removed.

Also, if you do only want a specialised Astro tool, are you planning on shooting wide field or deep space stuff?

If deep space you will need more equipment than just the camera. Not from my own experience but memory of what a friend used to use I believe you work with a telescope and an equatorial mount to be able to counter the earths movement during the exposure/s.

If wide field, then arguably rather than spending loads more on a better sensor, full frame etc the best upgrade you can get for a basic crop sensor DSLR would be a tracking mount.

Also go on the polish site that reviews lenses because they specifically cover lens coma which will help you decide.

Regardless of all the above, my favourite inbuilt feature on my Nikon’s for astro/lightning is the intervalometer. So if you go for a camera that does not have one buy a remote one at the same time.
 
The canon 200d is a nice 'little' camera. One of my students uses one - and it produces very nice results. I'd add a vote for Canon having used them for many many years - and wouldn't consider Sony in a month of Sundays. (They aren't bad cameras - but I like what I know and I know what I like).
Talk about prejudice. I wouldn't consider canon at all but that's not helpfull either.
The A6000 is a really great camera.
 
This what l say to people who are going to buy a camera. Get a short list and go and try them. See how they feel are buttons in the right place for you. Is the menu system right for you. You are buying into a system make sure it the right one. Don’t settle for I will get used to it
 
Talk about prejudice. I wouldn't consider canon at all but that's not helpfull either.
The A6000 is a really great camera.
What’s prejudice about sharing my opinion? The op asked about a particular camera that I’ve used and seen in action and shared a positive opinion about it. Canon have been in the game for many years, and are a trusted and reliable manufacturer. Sony have a habit of changing their mind in what they make and don’t make - and as such I would never want to buy into one of their systems. As I said they aren’t bad cameras - but it’s not for me. The eos 200 suits the op’s original brief - and that might not be to everyone’s tastes, but in reality is a good camera. You’ll always argue that x is better than y by 0.6 percent - but in reality - it’s having a camera that can fulfil what you want, be comfortable in your hand, be reliable and have a good support network of accessories and lenses. The 200d has all of that, so it’s certainly not prejudice.
 
It should also be mentioned that if you’re looking at getting into Astro photography - the lens you use has a bearing on your results - the wider aperture lenses combined with wider focal lengths give some of the best results - the wider the aperture the more light is let in - so a lens such as a Tokina 11-20mm f2.8 might be something to look at - or one of the wide manual focus lenses (you don’t necessarily need an af lens for Astro photography) - you might find the kit lenses give you some good start out results - but the wide aperture wide angle lenses will get you better results as your experience improves.
 
I agree with you to certain extent, but mirorless is not for everyone. I personally couldn't get on with the way they felt and handled, even had a go with the Z6 but it was not for me.
After the EM1-II the Z6/7 is the best camera I've used ergonomically, but you're post shows exactly why it's sooooo important to get hands on to see which camera(s) suit you
 
But you are a mirrorless zealot and not everyone sees these things your way, or mirrorless changes as 'improvements'.

The WYSIWYG viewfinder relies on it being correctly adjusted for one thing, and not all EVFs are equal. Some are crap.

I wouldn't say I'm a zealot, I just see clear improvements.

I grew up with film and I never warmed to the bulk and weight and noise of DSLR's (I don't remember people complaining that RF's and SLR's were too small and fiddly.) Moving to mirrorless really just took me back to the bulk of the cameras I used to own (35mm compacts, RF's and SLR's) but at increased weight (film cameras were mainly and empty box whilst digital cameras are crammed full of stuff.) Even with the increased weight over film cameras mirrorless can still offer significant weight savings compared to DSLR's. So there's that.

Other than that there are improvements for me such as the focus being much more accurate and consistent, having in view aids such as the grid lines, level and of course the histogram which very largely removes chimping as you see the exposure before you take the picture, and there's peaking and the magnified view to aid focus and with these things you can see and focus on detail that simply would not be visible using an unaided optical system.

What's not to like?

Some EVF's may be crap but I do wonder what cameras you're criticising here? The worst EVF I have is the field sequential one on my Panasonic cameras but I'd prefer even that to a DSLR's unaided OVF because of the advantages it offers.

At this point the only advantage I can see for DSLR's and OVF's is that in darkness EVF's put out so much light that they ruin night vision and cause eye strain but you can switch to the back screen which reduces the eye strain and there's the fact that at these low levels of light you'd probably see next to nothing through a DSLR's OVF.

Lets look at it another way. There are people who are wedded to their DSLR's and we'd have to prise them from their cold dead hands but if mirrorless with EVF's of the quality we've had for years had been the norm and someone invented the DSLR with its OVF I wonder how many people would switch?
 
I agree with you to certain extent, but mirorless is not for everyone. I personally couldn't get on with the way they felt and handled, even had a go with the Z6 but it was not for me.

I think that truly bad handling cameras are few and far between but this is a personal thing.

The only camera I've had that I just couldn't live with was the Panasonic G7 the grip of which was so uncomfortable for me that I hated it every single time I picked it up. However, my old Panasonic G1 was simply the best handling camera I've ever had. It was just about perfect for me.

The cameras I have now feel every bit as good as the better film cameras I had but they are heavier. My DSLR's however, 300D, 10D, 20D and 5D always felt too big, too heavy and too clunky especially with a chunky lens mounted. I knew how to use the controls and operate them but I could never bond with them. I like kit that feels like it's a scientific instrument or a piece of test kit and works with precision and I never got that from bulky clunky DSLR's.
 
I wouldn't say I'm a zealot, I just see clear improvements.

I grew up with film and I never warmed to the bulk and weight and noise of DSLR's (I don't remember people complaining that RF's and SLR's were too small and fiddly.) Moving to mirrorless really just took me back to the bulk of the cameras I used to own (35mm compacts, RF's and SLR's) but at increased weight (film cameras were mainly and empty box whilst digital cameras are crammed full of stuff.) Even with the increased weight over film cameras mirrorless can still offer significant weight savings compared to DSLR's. So there's that.

Other than that there are improvements for me such as the focus being much more accurate and consistent, having in view aids such as the grid lines, level and of course the histogram which very largely removes chimping as you see the exposure before you take the picture, and there's peaking and the magnified view to aid focus and with these things you can see and focus on detail that simply would not be visible using an unaided optical system.

What's not to like?

Some EVF's may be crap but I do wonder what cameras you're criticising here? The worst EVF I have is the field sequential one on my Panasonic cameras but I'd prefer even that to a DSLR's unaided OVF because of the advantages it offers.

At this point the only advantage I can see for DSLR's and OVF's is that in darkness EVF's put out so much light that they ruin night vision and cause eye strain but you can switch to the back screen which reduces the eye strain and there's the fact that at these low levels of light you'd probably see next to nothing through a DSLR's OVF.

Lets look at it another way. There are people who are wedded to their DSLR's and we'd have to prise them from their cold dead hands but if mirrorless with EVF's of the quality we've had for years had been the norm and someone invented the DSLR with its OVF I wonder how many people would switch?

You're like those vegans who are continually promoting their veganist agenda.:giggle:

Not everyone sees the things you like as advantages. Simple as that. I'm quite happy using mirrorless AND dslr cameras. They're both boxes you stick lenes on, and both have pros and cons. I find more frustrations with mirrorless cameras than with dslrs. But maybe that's just me.

You're always banging on about all the in viewfinder info on mirrorless. All stuff I never ever use. So no use to me whatsoever. Some of them, like the magnified view, actually hinder my photography. I want my viewfinder to show me what I'm looking at. It's a framing device, and I don't want any of it cluttering up. I use my imagination to 'see' how it'll look as a photograph. If you started using film I'd have thought have developed that ability by now if you have a visual imagination.

The only things I do prefer in mirrorless cameras is a tilty screen that focuses quickly and the faster burst modes. I'm sure they could be incorporated in a dslr's live view experience. Then I'd have the best of both worlds.

For someone who has only ever used a phone or copmpact cameras then a mirrorless would be a good step up and it's inevitably the way all cameras will go in time. By then they might be a match for everything dslrs can do. If they have OVFs. :LOL:
 
I don't think that there are any really bad cameras out there but obviously there will be some that suit you better. So the advice to go and try is sound indeed. When i wanted to add a mirrorless system to my DSLR system, I went to the photography show [sadly not until March] thinking I wanted a Fuji but didn't like them in my hand. I didn't like the Sony either and then I found the Olympus. But that is just me. Everybody on here will have their preferences. If you go do image searches on Flickr for a camera, you will see what people are putting up. I also heard a professional [who is with Olympus but those guys have to buy their own kit] who had to stop using Canon after serious RTA said this:

- There are no crap systems
- Write a list of the specs you want
- Write a list of cameras ignoring the brand [and systems, I would add as per advice above] that do what you want
- Cross out the ones that are out of budget [unless you are happy with used, bearing in mind the inevitable urge to upgrade]
- Go and try them.
- Pick the one that feels right.

Good luck with your decision. I might also add that checking out the nearest independent store will get you more knowledgeable staff and a wider range than available at the retailer you identified earlier. Someone on here will probably know something about the area you live in. They might also have second hand stock that will have the advantage of a guarantee.
 
Last edited:
Sony have a habit of changing their mind in what they make and don’t make - and as such I would never want to buy into one of their systems.
Sorry you have to elaborate on that
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry guys, didn't want to start a brand flame war, but I do appreciate everyones input and help.
I had to use Currys because a while back I bought something from them on a buy now pay later deal, and they gave me more credit than I expected, so I decided to take advantage and replace my old bridge camera. It meant I could buy a camera that I otherwise couldn't afford and pay for it over 6 months.

So, I went to Currys today after work, its the kids sports day tomorrow and it would be nice to have a nice camera to use. They didn't have much there to look at to be fair, they did have a lot of stuff that didn't interest me. I came home with a 200d ''portrait package''. It felt like a nice compact , light , comfortable camera, its plastic but that doesnt bother me too much, I have taken a few photos of the kids and I am very impressed with the picture quality and how easy it is to use. It definitely has the ''point and shoot'' capability's that I wanted. It has bulb mode that I also wanted. Its got good connectivity (wireless, NFC, Bluetooth) which will be handy if I ever use it, I have ran through the modes and they seem clear and easy to understand although I still have a lot to learn about it. The creative mode is good because it can get beyond the basics but in laymen's terms, the auto focus is quick and responsive, touch screen and the way you can touch the screen to focus on a particular subject is brilliant, so all in all its seems be to doing what I want on the basics, low light photos come out great although its still bright outside it is quite dark in our cottage.

The lenses are a zoom and a prime, the prime looks very well made but the zoom not so, the prime means I have to stand back from the subject but with the zoom I can get a little closer. I have to admit the zoom lens isnt great, my bridge camera can zoom into stuff miles away, this can zoom into stuff in the middle of the room, so it looks like I will have to buy some lenses at some point but I am in no rush. Perhaps something with a wider angle and something with a better zoom, but I will have to read up on lenses before I know what to look for.
 
Good luck with your new purchase - I’m sure you’ll have fun getting to know how to use it.. I’m not going to get in an argument.... post a photo once you’ve taken a good one so we can see how you’re doing
 
I had a little play with it, took some photos of my cat in auto (flash off) with a 50mm 1:1.8 STM lens, it seems to want to focus just in the middle of the photo which gives a nice effect but it would also be nice to have the whole thing in focus too sometimes. I cropped them a little in windows photos. Are there any decent free photo editing apps? I had to stand back from the subject, if I wanted to get closer would I be looking at something smaller than 50mm?



I went to manual mode and did some low light photos, this was with an EFS 18-55mm lens. I had to mess around with a couple of table lamps to illuminate the guitar with the lamp behind it.



So, so far so good, I have still got a lot to learn about the camera but I'm getting there.
 
Last edited:
Sorry guys, didn't want to start a brand flame war, but I do appreciate everyones input and help.
I had to use Currys because a while back I bought something from them on a buy now pay later deal, and they gave me more credit than I expected, so I decided to take advantage and replace my old bridge camera. It meant I could buy a camera that I otherwise couldn't afford and pay for it over 6 months.

So, I went to Currys today after work, its the kids sports day tomorrow and it would be nice to have a nice camera to use. They didn't have much there to look at to be fair, they did have a lot of stuff that didn't interest me. I came home with a 200d ''portrait package''. It felt like a nice compact , light , comfortable camera, its plastic but that doesnt bother me too much, I have taken a few photos of the kids and I am very impressed with the picture quality and how easy it is to use. It definitely has the ''point and shoot'' capability's that I wanted. It has bulb mode that I also wanted. Its got good connectivity (wireless, NFC, Bluetooth) which will be handy if I ever use it, I have ran through the modes and they seem clear and easy to understand although I still have a lot to learn about it. The creative mode is good because it can get beyond the basics but in laymen's terms, the auto focus is quick and responsive, touch screen and the way you can touch the screen to focus on a particular subject is brilliant, so all in all its seems be to doing what I want on the basics, low light photos come out great although its still bright outside it is quite dark in our cottage.

The lenses are a zoom and a prime, the prime looks very well made but the zoom not so, the prime means I have to stand back from the subject but with the zoom I can get a little closer. I have to admit the zoom lens isnt great, my bridge camera can zoom into stuff miles away, this can zoom into stuff in the middle of the room, so it looks like I will have to buy some lenses at some point but I am in no rush. Perhaps something with a wider angle and something with a better zoom, but I will have to read up on lenses before I know what to look for.
Nice one, hope you enjoy your new purchase (y)

Just on the subject of zoom it’s probably best to get used to focal length (sometimes people use the term “reach”) and using that instead of zoom. Zoom doesn’t really tell you anything. For example a 25-100mm lens is a 4x zoom, but so is a 100-400mm lens, with the latter distant objects will appear much larger.

Bridge cameras tend to have more reach (longer effective focal length) due to the sensor being so small. For example you can fit a 1200mm effective reach lens onto a bridge camera and it will still be pretty small and light. Fit a 1200mm lens on a DSLR and you’ll be needing a gym membership and several trips to the chiropractor ;)
 
Back
Top